In a noteworthy judgment, the Supreme Court of India has quashed a conviction under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), ruling that a restaurant cannot be classified as a “human dwelling” or “place of worship,” as required for house trespass. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, partially allowed the appeal of Sonu Choudary, who had been convicted by lower courts on charges including trespass with intent to harm.
Case Background
The incident in question dates back to October 6, 2014, when Sonu Choudary visited Baithak Restaurant in New Delhi, operated by the injured party, Rajat Dhyani. According to the prosecution, Choudary entered the restaurant, requested water to accompany alcohol, and became aggressive when denied. The altercation escalated, with Choudary allegedly attacking Dhyani using a blade, causing injuries to his thigh, shoulder, and back. When Imran Khan, a friend of Dhyani, intervened, Choudary allegedly injured him as well. The police apprehended Choudary at the scene.
Following a trial, Choudary was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge at Saket Courts, Delhi, on November 30, 2022, under Sections 324 (voluntarily causing hurt) and 452 (house-trespass after preparation to hurt). The Delhi High Court upheld this conviction on February 21, 2024.
Arguments and Legal Issues
Counsel for Appellant: Represented by Mr. Suvendu Suvasis Dash, Choudary’s defense argued that the conviction was overly reliant on a single eyewitness, Rajat Dhyani, as Imran Khan did not support the prosecution’s case and was declared hostile. Choudary’s counsel asserted that the charges under Section 452 were inappropriate, arguing that a restaurant does not meet the legal definition of a “human dwelling” or “place of worship.”
Counsel for Respondent: The State’s representation, led by Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, maintained that the conviction was justified based on the evidence presented, including the corroboration of Dhyani’s injuries with medical records. The prosecution contended that the lower courts were correct in convicting Choudary under both Sections 324 and 452.
Supreme Court Observations and Decision
The Supreme Court analyzed the applicability of Section 452, which penalizes trespassing into a space used as a “human dwelling,” “place of worship,” or “place for the custody of property,” with the intent to hurt or cause fear. The Court highlighted Sections 441 and 442 of the IPC, which define criminal trespass and house trespass, respectively, and emphasized the necessity for the space to qualify as a dwelling or a place for worship to apply Section 452.
In a key observation, the Court remarked:
“A restaurant is not a place for human dwelling or a place of worship, nor does it serve as a space for the custody of property as contemplated under Sections 441 and 442 of the IPC. As such, the elements required to constitute house trespass under Section 452 are absent in this case.”
Given this reasoning, the Supreme Court quashed Choudary’s conviction under Section 452, setting aside the concurrent judgments of the lower courts. However, it upheld the conviction under Section 324, as the evidence supported that Choudary had caused injuries to Dhyani.
Case Details
– Case Title: Sonu Choudary v. State of NCT Delhi
– Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 3111 of 2024
– Bench: Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
– Appellant’s Counsel: Mr. Suvendu Suvasis Dash
– Respondent’s Counsel: Ms. Archana Pathak Dave (Additional Solicitor General)
