Theft In Dwelling House
🧾 1. What is “Theft in Dwelling House”?
Theft in a dwelling house is a form of aggravated theft where the theft occurs inside a place where a person resides, such as a house, apartment, or residential structure.
It is treated more seriously under Indian law because it involves a breach of personal security and privacy, often while victims are asleep or vulnerable.
📜 2. Relevant Legal Provisions
🔹 Section 378 IPC – Theft
Defines theft as:
"Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that property..."
🔹 Section 380 IPC – Theft in Dwelling House
"Whoever commits theft in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling, or for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
📌 3. Key Ingredients of Theft in Dwelling House (Sec 380 IPC)
To attract Section 380, the following must be established:
There was a theft under Section 378.
It was committed inside a:
Building,
Tent, or
Vessel.
That structure was used as a human dwelling (residence) or for custody of property.
The offender must have dishonest intent.
Movable property was taken without the owner's consent.
⚖️ 4. Landmark Case Laws on Theft in Dwelling House
Case 1: Pratap vs. State of Maharashtra (1977)
Facts:
The accused was a domestic help who stole gold ornaments from the house where he worked and lived.
Judgment:
The Bombay High Court held that theft by a domestic help from the same house qualifies under Section 380, as the theft was inside a human dwelling.
Significance:
Even live-in servants can be convicted under Sec 380 when they steal from their place of employment.
Case 2: Bishan Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1960)
Facts:
The accused entered a locked house during the owner’s absence and stole property.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court confirmed conviction under Section 380 IPC, holding that the dwelling house was still considered a residence, even if temporarily unoccupied.
Significance:
A house need not be occupied at the time of theft — if it's used as a residence, it's a dwelling house under Sec 380.
Case 3: Bhagwan Das vs. State of Rajasthan (1985)
Facts:
Accused entered a home at night and stole valuables from the bedroom.
Judgment:
Court upheld charges under Section 380 and emphasized the breach of personal space and safety.
Significance:
Reinforced the idea that theft from the interior of a residence is an aggravating factor.
Case 4: Ravi vs. State of Karnataka (2007)
Facts:
Accused broke into a house and stole cash and jewelry while the family was away on vacation.
Judgment:
The court stated that the house still retains its status as a dwelling house even if the occupants are not present at the time of theft.
Significance:
Temporary absence does not negate the application of Section 380.
Case 5: State of Kerala vs. Rajan (1994)
Facts:
A man committed theft in a tent set up as a temporary dwelling by a traveling laborer.
Judgment:
The Kerala High Court held that the tent qualifies as a "dwelling", and conviction under Section 380 was upheld.
Significance:
Expands the interpretation of "dwelling" beyond permanent buildings to include tents and temporary structures.
Case 6: Manohar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2003)
Facts:
The accused stole items from a locked warehouse attached to a house.
Judgment:
The court ruled that the warehouse was used for custody of property, so even if it was not a living area, Sec 380 still applies.
Significance:
The scope of Section 380 includes theft from places used for custody of property, not just sleeping quarters.
📊 5. Summary Table
| Case Name | Key Issue | Court’s Finding |
|---|---|---|
| Pratap vs. State of Maharashtra | Theft by domestic help | Theft in human dwelling – Sec 380 applicable |
| Bishan Singh vs. State of UP | House unoccupied during theft | Still a dwelling – Sec 380 applies |
| Bhagwan Das vs. State of Rajasthan | Theft from bedroom | Breach of safety in residence – higher penalty |
| Ravi vs. State of Karnataka | Theft while family was away | Temporary absence doesn’t negate dwelling status |
| State of Kerala vs. Rajan | Theft from tent | Tents as temporary dwellings – included in Sec 380 |
| Manohar vs. State of MP | Theft from warehouse attached to house | Custody of property under Sec 380 |
👩⚖️ 6. Punishment under Section 380 IPC
Imprisonment: Up to 7 years.
Fine: Discretionary.
Nature of Offence:
Cognizable
Non-bailable
Triable by Magistrate of First Class
📝 7. Conclusion
Theft in a dwelling house is a more serious offence than general theft due to the invasion of personal space and the potential threat to the safety of the inhabitants. Courts treat such cases with gravity and apply stricter punishments. The presence or absence of the owner at the time of theft does not alter the dwelling house status under Section 380 IPC.
RELATED Blog
0 comments