The Orissa High Court has set aside the conviction of Ajit Kishan under Section 450 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court held that once the trial court clearly found the sexual relationship to be consensual, the prosecution could not prove criminal intent at the time of entry—a key requirement for Section 450 IPC.
Dr Justice Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi delivered the judgment in CRLA No. 736 of 2025 (Ajit Kishan v. State of Odisha).
Case details
The appellant filed the appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC, challenging the judgment dated 22.05.2025 passed by the Ad Hoc Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTSC), Sambalpur in S.T. No. 113 of 2021.
The trial court convicted him under Section 450 IPC and sentenced him to five years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹15,000. In default, it ordered three months’ rigorous imprisonment. It also granted set-off under Section 428 CrPC.
Ms A. Ray, Advocate appeared for the appellant, while Mr Udit Ranjan Jena, AGA represented the State. The High Court heard the matter on 27.01.2026 and delivered judgment on 13.02.2026.
Prosecution case
According to the prosecution, the informant lodged a written report on 08.08.2021 at Katarbaga Police Station. He alleged that on 07.08.2021 at about 11:00 PM, the accused entered the house during the informant’s absence and raped his wife.
Based on the complaint, police registered Katarbaga P.S. Case No. 147 of 2021. The police later apprehended the accused.
Arguments before the High Court
The appellant challenged the conviction on both facts and law. He argued that the evidence did not meet the requirements of Section 450 IPC. He also pointed to inconsistent witness versions, delay in lodging the FIR, limited support from independent witnesses, and the lack of strong medical/forensic corroboration.
On the other hand, the State opposed the appeal. It argued that the accused entered the house at night and was detained at the spot. The State also submitted that even if rape was not proved, Section 450 could still apply because the focus remains on intent at the moment of entry.
What the trial court held
The trial court framed charges under Sections 450 and 376(2)(i) IPC. While it acquitted the accused of rape, it recorded a clear finding that the relationship was consensual.
Despite that finding, the trial court still convicted him under Section 450 IPC. It reasoned that he entered the dwelling house at night to have “illicit relations” and had no legal right to do so.
High Court’s reasoning on Section 450 IPC
The High Court explained that Section 450 IPC applies only when a person commits house-trespass “in order to commit” an offence punishable with life imprisonment.
To secure conviction, the prosecution must:
- first prove house-trespass under Section 441 IPC, and
- then prove that the accused intended, at the time of entry, to commit an offence punishable with life imprisonment.
Importantly, the Court stressed that intention at entry is decisive.
Next, the High Court examined the trial court’s factual findings. The trial court found no evidence of physical violence, no resistance, and no breaking open of the door. It also noted that the victim opened the door for the appellant and that an earlier intimate relationship existed between them.
Given this background, the High Court held that once the rape charge failed and consent stood established, the prosecution could not automatically infer the intent required for Section 450. In other words, moral disapproval could not replace legal proof of statutory ingredients.
Joseph Shine and Biram Lal: how the Court applied them
The High Court reiterated that criminal liability must rest on statutory ingredients, not moral considerations. In that context, it referred to Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2019 (3) SCC 39), where the Supreme Court struck down Section 497 IPC and emphasised autonomy and privacy under Article 21.
The Court also observed that the woman’s marital status alone could not make the entry “automatically” criminal under Section 450. Moreover, the prosecution did not prove entry by force, intimidation, or any intent to insult, intimidate, or annoy—which is relevant for criminal trespass.
The State relied on State of Rajasthan v. Biram Lal (2005 (10) SCC 714). However, the High Court distinguished it on facts. Biram Lal involved forcible entry, threats, violence, and rape. In contrast, the present case involved a trial court finding of consensual intimacy with no proof of force, weapon, or resistance.
Final order
Since the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of Section 450 IPC beyond reasonable doubt, the High Court allowed the appeal. It set aside the conviction and sentence dated 22.05.2025 insofar as they related to Section 450 IPC, and it also vacated any interim order passed earlier.
