Indian Penal Code, 1860 · Chapter XVII: Of Offences against Property · Of criminal trespass
Section 460: All persons jointly concerned in lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night punishable where death or grievous hurt caused by one of them
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to offences and proceedings from before that date.
In plain words
If anyone committing lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night voluntarily causes or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt, everyone jointly involved is punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment of either description for up to ten years, and a fine.
A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.
Official text
If, at the time of the committing of lurking house-trespass by night or house-breaking by night, any person guilty of such offence shall voluntarily cause or attempt to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, every person jointly concerned in committing such lurkking house-trespass by night or house-breaking by night, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 460
-
Govind Mandavi v. State of Chattisgarh
Whether the trial Court as well as the High Court committed grave errors in facts as well as in law while appreciating the evidence available on record and convicting the accused-appellant for the offences alleged…
-
Daljit Singh v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Issue arose as regards the order passed by the High Court refusing to quash the complaint, summoning order and order declaring the appellant a proclaimed offender passed by the Magistrate; whether the proclaimed…
-
State of Haryana v. Dharamraj
In instant appeal, the State seeks cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the sole respondent by the Single Judge of the High Court.
- Sandeep Kumar v. The State of Haryana & Anr.
- Wyeth Limited & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr.
- Jafarudheen & Ors. v. State of Kerala
- Sonu @ Sunil v. State of Madhya Pradesh
- Yogendra @ Jogendra Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
- State of Haryana v. Hussain
- Vijay Kumar v. State of Rajasthan
- Kanhaiya Lal & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan
- Haradhan Das v. State of West Bengal
- Brijesh Mavi v. State of NCT of Delhi
- Ramesh v. State of Rajasthan
- State of A. P. v. M. Sohan Babu & Anr.
- State of Maharashtra v. Ahmed Shaikh Babajan & Ors.
- State of Rajasthan v. Gulab Singh and Ors.
- State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh and Ors.
- Raju @ Raj Kumar v. State of Rajasthan
- Abdul Aziz v. State of Rajasthan
- Prithvi (Minor) v. Mam Raj and Ors.
- Bhagwan Singh and Ors. v. State of M.P.
- Shobhit Chamar and Anr. v. State of Bihar
- Mukhtiar Singh and Anr. Etc. v. State of Punjab Etc.
- Suraj Pal Etc. Etc. v. State of Haryana
- Surinder Pal Jain v. Delhi Administration