When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual

“Criminal Liability Cannot Be Founded on Moral Impropriety”, In a significant ruling clarifying the contours of house-trespass under Section 450 of the Indian Penal Code, the Orissa High Court has held that once the foundational charge of rape fails on a finding of consensual relationship, conviction for house-trespass with intent to commit an offence punishable with life imprisonment cannot be sustained in absence of independent proof of criminal intent.

Dr. Justice Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction under Section 450 IPC, holding that the essential ingredients of criminal trespass and requisite intent were not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Allegation of Night Entry and Rape

The prosecution case alleged that on 07.08.2021 at about 11.00 PM, the accused trespassed into the house of the informant during his absence and committed rape upon his wife. The Trial Court framed charges under Sections 450 and 376 IPC.

Upon appreciation of evidence, the Trial Court acquitted the accused of rape under Section 376 IPC, holding that the sexual relationship between the accused and the victim was consensual in nature. However, it convicted him under Section 450 IPC, reasoning that even if the relationship was consensual, the accused had no legal right to enter the dwelling house of the informant at night.

Challenging this conviction, the appellant approached the High Court.

“Intention at the Time of Entry Is Determinative”

The High Court identified the core issue: whether conviction under Section 450 IPC could survive when the Trial Court itself had held the sexual act to be consensual.

Justice Panigrahi analysed Section 441 IPC defining criminal trespass and emphasised that intention at the time of entry is the determinative factor.

“Mere entry into property is not sufficient. The entry must be accompanied by the requisite criminal intent.”

For Section 450 IPC to apply, the entry must be with intent to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment for life. If rape is not established and no other life-imprisonment offence is proved, the very substratum of Section 450 collapses.

“Once Rape Is Not Sustained, Foundation of Section 450 Must Be Independently Examined”

The Trial Court had recorded clear findings that there was no evidence of physical violence, no breaking open of doors, no weapon used, no resistance by the victim, and that the victim had opened the door. It also noted a prior intimate relationship between the parties.

The High Court observed:

“Once the charge of rape has not been sustained and the relationship has been held to be consensual in nature, the foundation for invoking Section 450 IPC must be independently examined.”

The prosecution had not established that the entry was effected by force, intimidation, or with intent to insult or annoy the person in possession. Nor was there evidence of independent criminal intent at the moment of entry.

“Criminal Law Cannot Be Invoked on the Basis of Marital Status”

Rejecting the Trial Court’s reasoning that the victim, being a married woman, could not authorise entry in her husband’s absence, the High Court cautioned against conflating moral impropriety with criminality.

“Criminal liability must be founded strictly upon statutory ingredients and not upon considerations of moral or social impropriety.”

Referring to Joseph Shine v. Union of India, the Court reiterated that consensual sexual relations between adults cannot attract criminal sanction merely because one party is married. Adultery, though a civil wrong in matrimonial law, is not a criminal offence.

“Once the relationship has been held to be consensual, the mere fact that the victim was a married woman cannot render the entry ipso facto criminal so as to attract Section 450 IPC.”

Distinguishing State of Rajasthan v. Biram Lal

The State relied on Biram Lal, where conviction under Sections 376 and 450 IPC was upheld.

The High Court distinguished the case on facts. In Biram Lal, the accused had forcibly entered by lifting the door, was armed with a knife, gagged and threatened the victim, and committed rape. The forcible entry reinforced intent to commit rape.

“The present case stands on a materially different footing,” the Court noted. There was no breaking open of doors, no weapon, no threat, and the rape charge had failed on merits.

Thus, intent to commit an offence punishable with life imprisonment could not be inferred in absence of supporting evidence.

“Benefit Must Enure to the Accused”

Reaffirming the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence, the Court held that the prosecution must establish each ingredient of the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

“Where the evidence on record does not clearly establish the requisite criminal intent at the time of entry, the benefit must enure to the accused.”

In light of the Trial Court’s own findings regarding consensual intimacy and absence of force, the High Court concluded that the essential ingredients of Section 450 IPC were not proved.

Allowing the appeal, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 450 IPC. The appellant was acquitted of the said charge, and interim orders stood vacated.

The judgment underscores that criminal trespass under Section 450 IPC requires proof of specific intent at the time of entry. When the primary allegation of rape collapses and the evidence establishes consensual intimacy, criminal law cannot be stretched to punish what may at best be a moral transgression.

Date of Decision: 13 February 2026