Section 329 defines criminal trespass (entering or staying on another person’s property with a wrongful intent) and house-trespass (criminal trespass in a building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling, or in a building used for worship or for keeping property), and fixes their punishments. Criminal trespass carries imprisonment of up to three months, or a fine of up to 5,000 rupees, or both; house-trespass carries up to one year, or a fine of up to 5,000 rupees, or both. The section brings together four sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (441, 442, 447 and 448).
Verified against the National Crime Records Bureau’s official BNS–IPC concordance (Sankalan Portal) and cross-checked directly against the bare text of both Acts. Section 329 is marked Change in the concordance — four separate provisions of the old Indian Penal Code, 1860 are brought together in this one section, and the fine limit has been raised in two of them. Section 329 as a whole consolidates four old sections, IPC Sections 441, 442, 447 and 448, into one, but each sub-section maps one-to-one to a single IPC section, so no row is itself a merger and each row is labelled by its own text comparison: rows (1) and (2) are Exact (drafting-level differences only, disclosed below), and rows (3) and (4) are Substantively changed because the fine limit has risen:
| BNS section | IPC, 1860 equivalent | Category |
|---|---|---|
| 329(1) — criminal trespass (definition) | S.441 “Criminal trespass” | Exact |
| 329(2) — house-trespass (definition, with Explanation) | S.442 “House-trespass” | Exact |
| 329(3) — punishment for criminal trespass | S.447 “Punishment for criminal trespass” | Substantively changed |
| 329(4) — punishment for house-trespass | S.448 “Punishment for house-trespass” | Substantively changed |
Comparing the statutory texts word by word: (1) BNS 329(1) and IPC 441 use the same words in the same order. The only differences are that the IPC prints the defined term “criminal trespass” in quotation marks and has commas after “such property” (its first mention), “any such person” and “an offence”, which the BNS text does not have. (2) BNS 329(2) and its Explanation repeat IPC 442; the only differences are the quotation marks around “house-trespass” in the IPC and the punctuation after the word “Explanation”. (3) IPC 447 allowed imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or a fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or both; BNS 329(3) keeps the three months and the same three alternatives, but the fine limit is now five thousand rupees. (4) IPC 448 allowed imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or a fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or both; BNS 329(4) keeps the one year and the same three alternatives, but the fine limit is now five thousand rupees. The BNS presents the four provisions as sub-sections (1) to (4) of a single section, where the IPC had four separate sections.
(1) Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person or with intent to commit an offence is said to commit criminal trespass.
(2) Whoever commits criminal trespass by entering into or remaining in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or any building used as a place for worship, or as a place for the custody of property, is said to commit house-trespass.
Explanation.—The introduction of any part of the criminal trespasser’s body is entering sufficient to constitute house-trespass.
(3) Whoever commits criminal trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.
(4) Whoever commits house-trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.
Source: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act No. 45 of 2023), as published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary.
Sub-section (1) defines the term “criminal trespass”. It does not itself fix a punishment; that is done by sub-section (3). The definition has two forms, joined by “or”. In the first form, a person enters into or upon property in the possession of another with one of two kinds of intent: an intent to commit an offence, or an intent to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of that property. In the second form, a person who has lawfully entered into or upon the property unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence. In both forms the conduct (entering, or remaining) has to be accompanied by one of the stated intents. On the words used, going onto another person’s property without any of those intents does not fall within the definition.
The property must be in the possession of another. The sub-section speaks of possession, not of ownership. Section 2 of the Sanhita defines “movable property” (clause (21)), but it does not define “property” on its own, nor the words “possession”, “intimidate”, “insult”, “annoy” or “unlawfully”; the sub-section uses those words as written. The phrase “any person in possession of such property” identifies the person at whom the intent must be directed in the first form, and “any such person” in the second form refers back to that same person.
The word “offence” has a special reading in this sub-section. Section 2(24)(b) provides that, in sub-section (1) of Section 329, the word “offence” shall have the same meaning when the act punishable under the special law or local law is punishable under such law with imprisonment for a term of six months or more, whether with or without fine. Sub-clause (a), which comes just before it, gives the word a wider meaning — a thing punishable under the Sanhita, or under any special law or local law — for the provisions it lists. Read together, and on the words of those two sub-clauses, an intended act made punishable by a special or local law can count as the intended “offence” here, but only where that law punishes it with imprisonment of six months or more.
The second form deals with a different situation. The person may have come onto the property lawfully (for example, as an invited guest) and then stays on unlawfully, with an intent to intimidate, insult or annoy the person in possession, or to commit an offence. The word “thereby” ties the intent to the remaining itself. The sub-section does not define when staying on becomes “unlawful”.
Criminal trespass is also mentioned in the Sanhita’s rules on the private defence of property. Section 43(d) provides that this right, as against criminal trespass or mischief, continues as long as the offender continues in the commission of criminal trespass or mischief. Section 42 provides that where the offence is theft, mischief or criminal trespass not of the descriptions specified in Section 41, the right does not extend to the voluntary causing of death, but does extend, subject to the restrictions in Section 37, to the voluntary causing to the wrong-doer of any harm other than death. Those sections carry their own conditions and should be read in full. Where the trespass is in a place of the kind listed in sub-section (2), the offence is house-trespass, dealt with next.
Sub-section (2) defines “house-trespass”. It is not a separate kind of trespass built from scratch: it is criminal trespass, as defined in sub-section (1), committed by entering into or remaining in particular kinds of place. Every ingredient of sub-section (1) — property in another person’s possession, the entering or the unlawful remaining, and one of the stated intents — must therefore be present, and in addition the place must be of a kind the sub-section lists.
The listed places fall into three groups: (i) any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling; (ii) any building used as a place for worship; and (iii) any building used as a place for the custody of property. In each group the test is the use to which the structure is put, as the words “used as” show. On the wording of the sub-section, tents and vessels are named only in the first group, while the second and third groups speak of a “building”. Section 2(32) defines “vessel” as anything made for the conveyance by water of human beings or of property. Section 2 does not define “building”, “tent”, “human dwelling”, “place for worship” or “custody”, so the sub-section’s own words are the guide.
The Explanation printed under the sub-section says that the introduction of any part of the criminal trespasser’s body is entering sufficient to constitute house-trespass. A person need not go wholly inside: putting a hand, an arm or a foot across the threshold, with the intent required by sub-section (1), is entering for this purpose. The Explanation speaks of entering; it says nothing further about remaining.
House-trespass is the base for the more serious forms dealt with in the next sections of the Sanhita. Section 330 defines lurking house-trespass and house-breaking, both of which start from house-trespass; Section 331 punishes them; Section 332 punishes house-trespass committed in order to commit another offence; and Section 333 punishes house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint. House-trespass also appears in the rules on private defence: Section 41(d) lists house-trespass, under such circumstances as may reasonably cause apprehension that death or grievous hurt will be the consequence if the right of private defence is not exercised, among the offences against which that right extends to the voluntary causing of death or any other harm to the wrong-doer, under the restrictions specified in Section 37. The punishment for house-trespass itself is in sub-section (4).
Sub-section (3) fixes the punishment for criminal trespass as defined in sub-section (1): imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or both. Three outcomes are open to the Court — imprisonment alone, fine alone, or both together — with a ceiling of three months on the imprisonment and 5,000 rupees on the fine. “Either description” refers to the two kinds of imprisonment listed in Section 4(c) of the Sanhita, rigorous (with hard labour) and simple, and Section 7 allows a Court that sentences an offender to imprisonment which may be of either description to direct that it be wholly rigorous, wholly simple, or partly one and partly the other.
This sub-section applies to criminal trespass as defined in sub-section (1) only. If the trespass was in a place of the kind described in sub-section (2), the offence is house-trespass and sub-section (4) applies. Sections 332 and 333 deal with house-trespass, not with criminal trespass in general, so they are not in play for a trespass on open land.
Under the BNSS First Schedule the offence is classified as cognizable, bailable and triable by any Magistrate. The Schedule’s explanatory notes read “cognizable” as meaning that a police officer may arrest without warrant, and state that “any Magistrate” does not include Executive Magistrates. The offence appears in the first table of BNSS Section 359(1), so it may be compounded, without the Court’s permission, by the person in possession of the property trespassed upon.
The old Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 447) allowed the same imprisonment of up to three months, but limited the fine to five hundred rupees. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita raises that limit to five thousand rupees.
Sub-section (4) fixes the punishment for house-trespass as defined in sub-section (2): imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or both. Compared with sub-section (3), the imprisonment ceiling is one year rather than three months, while the fine limit is the same 5,000 rupees. As in sub-section (3), imprisonment alone, fine alone or both together may be imposed, and “either description” carries the Section 4(c) and Section 7 meaning explained under sub-section (3).
The sub-section applies to house-trespass as defined in sub-section (2). More serious forms are dealt with in the sections that follow: Section 331 provides the punishment for lurking house-trespass and house-breaking (defined in Section 330); Section 332 for house-trespass in order to commit an offence; and Section 333 for house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint. Each of those sections fixes its own punishment, and for each the base term is longer than the one year in this sub-section.
Under the BNSS First Schedule the offence is classified as cognizable, bailable and triable by any Magistrate. It appears in the first table of BNSS Section 359(1), so it may be compounded, without the Court’s permission, by the person in possession of the property trespassed upon.
The old Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 448) allowed the same imprisonment of up to one year, but limited the fine to one thousand rupees. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita raises that limit to five thousand rupees, the same figure as in sub-section (3).
These judgment(s) relate to Section 329 as a whole rather than to one specific sub-section, and so are presented together here rather than alongside a particular clause above.
On 6 October 2014 a man went into a restaurant in Delhi, asked for a jug of water to drink alcohol, and, when the owner refused, took out a blade and injured him and a friend who intervened. He was convicted by the Trial Court, and the High Court upheld the conviction, for voluntarily causing hurt with a blade (old Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code) and for house-trespass after preparation for hurt (old Section 452).
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction for causing hurt but set aside the one for house-trespass. It read the definitions of criminal trespass and house-trespass (old Sections 441 and 442, now the definitions in Section 329) strictly: house-trespass requires entry into or unlawful remaining in a building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling, as a place of worship, or as a place for the custody of property. A restaurant is none of these, so the trespass ingredient was not made out, however violent the conduct inside it.
Criminal trespass (sub-section (3)) is punishable with imprisonment of either description for up to three months, or a fine of up to 5,000 rupees, or both. House-trespass (sub-section (4)) is punishable with imprisonment of either description for up to one year, or a fine of up to 5,000 rupees, or both.
Under the First Schedule to the BNSS, both criminal trespass (329(3)) and house-trespass (329(4)) are cognizable and bailable, and triable by any Magistrate. Both appear in the first table of BNSS Section 359(1), so they may be compounded without the Court’s permission by the person in possession of the property trespassed upon.
House-trespass is criminal trespass committed by entering into or remaining in a building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling, or a building used as a place for worship or for the custody of property. Criminal trespass on other property is punished under sub-section (3); house-trespass under sub-section (4), which has the longer maximum term.
The Explanation to sub-section (2) says that the introduction of any part of the criminal trespasser’s body is entering sufficient to constitute house-trespass. The other ingredients of criminal trespass, including the required intent, must still be present.
On the words of sub-section (1), no: the entering (or the unlawful remaining) must be with one of the stated intents — to commit an offence, or to intimidate, insult or annoy the person in possession. Whether a particular set of facts fits depends on the facts of the case, and anyone facing a real situation should consult a licensed advocate.
The four IPC sections (441, 442, 447 and 448) are combined into this one section. The definitions use the same words; the imprisonment limits are unchanged (three months and one year), but the fine limit is now 5,000 rupees in both cases, against 500 rupees under IPC 447 and 1,000 rupees under IPC 448.