Section 332 punishes house-trespass committed in order to commit another offence, in three tiers according to the offence intended: one punishable with death (imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for up to ten years, and fine); one punishable with imprisonment for life (up to ten years, and fine); or one punishable with imprisonment (up to two years, and fine, or up to seven years if the offence intended is theft). It carries forward three sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (449, 450 and 451).
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 332 is not marked “Change” in the concordance — three separate provisions of the old Indian Penal Code, 1860 are brought together in this one section: Section 332 as a whole consolidates three old sections, IPC Sections 449, 450 and 451, into one, each surviving as one of its three clauses. Each clause maps one-to-one to a single IPC section, so no row is itself a merger; on the word-by-word comparison below each differs from its IPC section only in drafting (the shared opening words are printed once, and the theft rule in (c) is placed in a Proviso), so every row is classed Exact:
| BNS section | IPC, 1860 equivalent | Category |
|---|---|---|
| 332(a) — offence punishable with death | S.449 “House-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with death” | Exact |
| 332(b) — offence punishable with imprisonment for life | S.450 “House-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment for life” | Exact |
| 332(c) — offence punishable with imprisonment (and the Proviso on theft) | S.451 “House-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment” | Exact |
Comparing the statutory texts word by word: the words “Whoever commits house-trespass in order to the committing of any offence” appear once, at the head of BNS 332, where each of IPC 449, 450 and 451 had repeated them. The three descriptions of the intended offence (punishable with death; with imprisonment for life; with imprisonment), the three punishments and the liability to fine are worded the same in both Acts. In clause (c) the IPC continued after a semicolon with “and if the offence intended to be committed is theft, the term of the imprisonment may be extended to seven years”; the BNS puts the same words in a Proviso beginning “Provided that”. Where the IPC copy prints “imprisonment for life” with a footnote marker showing that it was substituted in 1955 for “transportation for life”, the BNS reads “imprisonment for life”. The BNS presents the three provisions as clauses (a), (b) and (c) of a single section, where the IPC had three separate sections.
Whoever commits house-trespass in order to the committing of any offence––
(a) punishable with death, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, and shall also be liable to fine;
(b) punishable with imprisonment for life, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding ten years, and shall also be liable to fine;
(c) punishable with imprisonment, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine:
Provided that if the offence intended to be committed is theft, the term of the imprisonment may be extended to seven years.
Source: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act No. 45 of 2023), as published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary.
Clause (a) applies where the house-trespass is committed in order to commit an offence punishable with death. The punishment is imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, and also liability to fine. In this clause the shorter alternative is specifically rigorous imprisonment (with hard labour, in the sense of Section 4(c)(1)); clauses (b) and (c) speak of imprisonment “of either description”.
All three clauses share the opening words “Whoever commits house-trespass in order to the committing of any offence”. The house-trespass is the one defined in Section 329(2), so every ingredient of criminal trespass, and the required kind of building, tent or vessel, must be present. The words “in order to” make the trespasser’s purpose the test: what matters is the offence he meant to commit. The section does not say that the intended offence must actually be carried out. Section 332 is not among the provisions listed in sub-clauses (a) and (b) of Section 2(24), so under that definition “offence” here means a thing made punishable by the Sanhita (subject to the opening words of Section 2, “unless the context otherwise requires”).
The clause turns on the punishment prescribed for the intended offence. Murder is an offence for which death is among the prescribed punishments: Section 103(1) provides that whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine. Because Section 103(1) also names imprisonment for life, a reader may ask whether clause (b) could describe the same intended offence as well; the text of Section 332 does not address that point, and this page does not go beyond its words.
Under the BNSS First Schedule, clause (a) is listed as imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, and fine, cognizable, non-bailable, triable by the Court of Session. Only clause (c) appears in the compounding tables of BNSS Section 359, so clause (a) is not compoundable. The Explanations to Sections 212 (Furnishing false information), 240 (Giving false information respecting an offence committed) and 249 (Harbouring offender) list “clauses (a) and (b) of section 332” among the provisions whose acts, if committed out of India, are brought within the word “offence” in those sections. The corresponding old provision, IPC 449, used the same words and the same punishment.
Clause (b) applies where the house-trespass is committed in order to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment for life. The punishment is imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding ten years, and also liability to fine. “Either description” carries the meaning given in Section 4(c) of the Sanhita (rigorous or simple), and Section 7 lets the sentencing Court direct that the imprisonment be wholly rigorous, wholly simple, or partly each.
As with clause (a), the house-trespass is the one defined in Section 329(2), and the trespasser’s purpose is the test: the words are “in order to the committing of any offence”, and the section does not say that the intended offence must actually be carried out.
Again the clause looks at the punishment prescribed for the intended offence, here imprisonment for life. Dacoity is an example: under Section 310(1), when five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery, every person so committing, attempting or aiding is said to commit dacoity, and Section 310(2) provides imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and fine. The difference between clauses (a) and (b), therefore, lies in the offence intended and in the punishment: clause (a) allows imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment of up to ten years, while the text of clause (b) allows imprisonment of either description of up to ten years and does not include imprisonment for life.
Under the BNSS First Schedule, clause (b) is listed as imprisonment for 10 years and fine, cognizable, non-bailable, triable by the Court of Session, and it is not compoundable. As noted under clause (a), the Explanations to Sections 212, 240 and 249 also list this clause. The corresponding old provision, IPC 450, used the same words and the same punishment.
Clause (c) applies where the house-trespass is committed in order to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment. The punishment is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, and also liability to fine. The Proviso which follows belongs to this clause: if the offence intended to be committed is theft, the term of the imprisonment may be extended to seven years. Theft is defined in Section 303(1); the seven-year ceiling depends on theft having been the offence intended, not on whether anything was taken.
As with clause (a), the house-trespass is the one defined in Section 329(2), and the trespasser’s purpose is the test: the words are “in order to the committing of any offence”, and the section does not say that the intended offence must actually be carried out.
Compare Section 331, which deals with lurking house-trespass and house-breaking. Where the house-trespass is of that kind and is committed in order to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment, Section 331(3) allows up to three years, or up to ten years if the offence intended is theft. Clause (c) of this section refers simply to house-trespass, with no mention of lurking or house-breaking, and allows up to two years, or up to seven years if the offence intended is theft.
Under the BNSS First Schedule, clause (c) is listed as imprisonment for 2 years and fine, cognizable, bailable, triable by any Magistrate; and, where the offence is theft, imprisonment for 7 years, cognizable, non-bailable, triable by any Magistrate. The first compounding table in BNSS Section 359(1) lists “house-trespass to commit an offence (other than theft) punishable with imprisonment” against clause (c), so the offence may be compounded, without the Court’s permission, by the person in possession of the house trespassed upon, except where the offence intended is theft. The corresponding old provision, IPC 451, had the same two-year and seven-year maxima; it introduced the theft rider with “and if” after a semicolon, where the BNS uses a Proviso.
It depends on the offence intended. Clause (a), an offence punishable with death: imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for up to ten years, and fine. Clause (b), an offence punishable with imprisonment for life: imprisonment of either description for up to ten years, and fine. Clause (c), an offence punishable with imprisonment: imprisonment of either description for up to two years, and fine, or up to seven years if the offence intended is theft.
Section 332 is worded in terms of the purpose of the house-trespass: “in order to the committing of any offence”. It does not say that the intended offence must be carried out.
Under the First Schedule to the BNSS, all three clauses are cognizable. Clauses (a) and (b) are non-bailable and triable by the Court of Session. Clause (c) is bailable and triable by any Magistrate, except that where the offence intended is theft the Schedule lists it as non-bailable (still triable by any Magistrate).
Only clause (c), and only where the offence intended is other than theft. BNSS Section 359(1) permits it to be compounded, without the Court’s permission, by the person in possession of the house trespassed upon. Clauses (a) and (b), and the theft case under clause (c), are not in the compounding tables.
Section 331 applies where the house-trespass is lurking house-trespass or house-breaking. For an offence intended that is punishable with imprisonment, it allows up to three years (ten if theft) in sub-section (3), and five years (fourteen if theft) if done after sunset and before sunrise in sub-section (4). Section 332(c) refers simply to house-trespass, with no mention of lurking or house-breaking, and allows up to two years (seven if theft).
The three IPC sections (449, 450 and 451) are combined into this one section, with the same punishments. The main difference in wording is that the theft rider in clause (c), which the IPC introduced with “and if”, is now a Proviso.