Entry Into House With Consent Not Ipso Facto Criminal; Consensual Relationship With Married Woman Does Not Attract Section 450 IPC: Orissa HC
Victim opened the door-in absence of force, intimidation or intent to commit life-punishable offence, foundational ingredients of criminal house-trespass not established
The Orissa High Court has set aside the conviction of a man under Section 450 IPC, holding that entry into a house with consent, in the backdrop of a consensual relationship, cannot automatically amount to aggravated house-trespass.
The Bench noted that once the trial court itself recorded a finding that the prosecutrix opened the door herself, and that there was no evidence of force in the consensual sexual relationship between the accused and the prosecutrix, the mere fact that she was a married woman could not render the entry “ipso facto criminal.”
Dr. Justice Sanjeeb K Panigrahi observed, “…the learned Trial Court has categorically held that the sexual relationship between the appellant and the victim was consensual and not forcible. There was no evidence of use of force, no breaking open of any door, no weapon, and no resistance recorded. Once the allegation of rape has been rejected on merits, the inference that the appellant entered the house with intent to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment for life cannot be sustained in the absence of independent evidence establishing such intent”.
“Thus, the 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 as defined under Section 441 IPC and, in the case of Section 450 IPC, such intent must be to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment for life”, the bench further observed.
Advocate A. Ray appeared for the appellant and Udit Ranjan Jena, AGA appeared for the respondent.
In the matter, the prosecution case alleged that the accused had entered the informant’s house at night during his absence and committed rape upon his wife. However, upon appreciation of evidence, the trial court concluded that the relationship between the parties was consensual in nature and not forcible.
The Ad Hoc Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTSC), Sambalpur, had acquitted the accused of rape under Section 376 IPC but convicted him under Section 450 IPC and sentenced him to five years’ rigorous imprisonment.
However, upon examining whether the conviction under Section 450 IPC could nevertheless survive, the High Court emphasised that the provision requires proof of house-trespass committed with intent to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment for life. Referring to the definition of criminal trespass under Section 441 IPC, the Court noted that intention at the time of entry is the determinative factor.
The Court observed that criminal liability must be founded strictly on statutory ingredients and not on considerations of moral or social impropriety. “The learned Trial Court proceeded on the reasoning that the victim, being the wife of the informant, had no right to permit the appellant to enter the house during the absence of her husband, and that even if the relationship was consensual, such entry was illegal. However, criminal liability must be founded strictly upon statutory ingredients and not upon considerations of moral or social impropriety”, the Bench observed.
Therefore, noting that the essential ingredients of Section 450 IPC had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, the Bench allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant.
Cause Title: Ajit Kishan v. State of Odisha CRLA No. 736 of 2025
Appearances:
Appellant: A. Ray, Advocate.
Respondent: Udit Ranjan Jena, AGA.