This Article is written by Ushna saha & this article discuss the concept of Wrongful Restrainment.
Introduction
Criminal intimidation is defined under Indian penal code, 1860 (IPC). This is mentioned under the section 503 of IPC. In this blog we will discuss how exactly is criminal intimidation defined in IPC, essentials of criminal intimidation and how they are mentioned in sections – 507, 508, 509, 510.
Definition of criminal intimidation under IPC
This offence is defined under the section 503 of the IPC. It is an offence under the section 503. An action when someone threatens a person with bodily harm, damage to property or reputation with intent to induce alarm and usually make them or prevent them from doing a certain thing. This may lead to the person doing actions which they are not legally obligated to do.
Essentials of criminal intimidation as defined under IPC
The pre- requisites for it to be considered a criminal intimidation are:
1) A threat of injury to a person
- to his person, reputation or property, or
- to the person, or reputation of anyone in whom that person is interested
2) It must have the intent
- to cause alarm to that person
- to cause that person to do an act which he is not legally bound to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, or
- to cause that person to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat.
Another essential is the threat should be communicated to the receiving party.
Section 507 under IPC – Criminal Intimidation made through anonymous communication:
“Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication, or having taken precaution to conceal the name or abode of the person from whom the threat comes, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, in addition to the punishment provided for the offence by the last preceding section”.[i]
The preceding section is the section 506 which mentions the punishment for the offense a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Illustration: using social media as a way to hide your identity in order to make a threat to someone.
Section 508 under IPC – Act caused by inducing person to believe that he will be rendered an object of the Divine displeasure:
“Whoever voluntarily causes or attempts to cause any person to do anything which that person is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do anything which he is legally entitled to do, by inducing or attempting to induce that person to believe that he or any person in whom he is interested will become or will be rendered by some act of the offender an object of Divine displeasure if he does not do the thing which it is the object of the offender to cause him to do, or if he does the thing which it is the object of the offender to cause him to omit, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.”[ii]
Illustration: A person ‘L’ threatens another person ‘K’ that he must do commit ritual murder in order to satisfy his deity or he maybe subject to divine displeasure.
Section 509 under IPC -Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman:
“Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and also with fine.”[iii]
Illustration: Using rude gestures or words which intrudes upon her privacy
Section 510 under IPC – Misconduct in public by a drunken person:
“Whoever, in a state of intoxication, appears in any public place, or in any place which it is a trespass in him to enter, and there conducts himself in such a manner as to cause annoyance to any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to twenty-four hours, or with fine which may extend to ten rupees, or with both.”[iv]
Illustration: A drunken person making loud noises which is becoming an annoyance to people around him
Example of a case: Keshav Baliram Naik vs State of Maharashtra[v]
Facts of the case:
At night the prosecutor felt that someone had put a hand on her hand. He had also brandished a knife towards her. It is further alleged that the appellant removed the quilt by which the prosecutor had covered herself and thereafter, inserted his hand in her midi. She lodged a FIR.
The charges were under section 354, 457, 506 of the IPC. To this the appellant pleaded not guilty.
Issue of the case:
- whether the appellant was guilt or not.
- Did trial court provide wrong judgement.
Judgment of the case:
The conviction of the appellant recorded under Sections 376 r/w 511 I.P.C. and the sentence of five years RI and fine of Rs. 5000/- imposed on the appellant on that count is set aside. He is acquitted on that count. In case the appellant has paid the fine, the same shall stand refunded to him. However, the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 457, I.P.C. and 506(ii) I.P.C. is confirmed.
The conviction of the appellant under S. 354 I.P.C. is also confirmed and he is awarded a sentence of two years R.I. on that count. This sentence shall run concurrently with the sentence of the appellant under Sections 457 I.P.C. and 506(ii) I.P.C. from the date the appellant was taken into custody.
Rationale behind the judgement:
- It would be impossible to believe that the prosecutrix would have made false and dressed-up allegations reflecting adversely on her respectability and honour.
- No parents would manufacture such allegations which would threaten the prospects of the marriage of their unmarried daughter.
These were the following reasons as to which judgement was decided in the favour of the prosecutor.
Conclusion:
Criminal intimidation is mentioned in IPC under several sections which helps extend it purview and expand what can be considered a criminal intimidation. It also provides for the essentials for criminal intimidation
However, further understanding of this topic is required so as to expand its meaning and help people get justice
References
[i] S. 507 The Indian penal code,1860
[ii] S. 508 The Indian penal code,1860
[iii] S. 509 The Indian penal code,1860
[iv] S. 510 The Indian penal code,1860
[v] Keshav Baliram Naik vs State of Maharashtra
- Ratanlal Ranchhoddas. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal’s the Indian Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860). New Delhi :Wadhwa & Co., 2007.
