WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT & WRONGFUL RESTRAINT

This Article is written by Disha Jain & this article discuss the concept of Wrongful Restrainment.

Introduction
Wrongful confinement
Definition
Ingredients
Punishment
Types
Illustration
Case laws
Wrongful restraint
Definition
Ingredients
Punishment
Illustration
Case laws
Conclusion

INTRODUCTION

In India, the Constitution grants individuals the freedom of movement across the entire territory, securing personal liberty through Article 19 and Article 21. The Indian Penal Code, specifically Section 399, outlines the concept of wrongful restraint. To protect an individual’s liberty from infringement by individuals or non-state entities, the Indian Penal Code of 1860 criminalizes wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement under Sections 339 to 348.

WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT

Definition

According to Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code-

“Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person form proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said “wrongfully to confine” that person”

Wrongful confinement means, a person is wrongfully restrained from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits.

Ingredients

To invoke Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code following ingredients are to be satisfied :

A person voluntarily restraint any person.

The act is done in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond circumscribing limit

Punishment

Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code delineates that anyone who unlawfully restrains an individual shall face penalties, including simple imprisonment, ranging up to a year, or a fine that can extend to one thousand rupees, or a combination of both. The transgression outlined in Section 342 of the Code is considered a cognizable offense, bail can be granted, it is subject to being settled through a compromise, and it falls within the jurisdiction of any magistrate for trial.

Types

Wrongful Confinement for Three or More Days (Section 343):
1. Punishment: Imprisonment up to two years or fine, or both.
1. Classification: Cognizable, Bailable, Compoundable with the court’s permission, and triable by any Magistrate.

Wrongful Confinement for Ten or More Days (Section 344):
- Punishment: Imprisonment up to three years and fine.
- Classification: Cognizable, Bailable, Compoundable with the court’s permission, and triable by any Magistrate.

Wrongful Confinement Whose Liberation Writ Has Been Issued (Section 345):
- Punishment: Imprisonment up to two years (in addition to any other punishment under this chapter.
- Classification: Cognizable, Bailable, Non-compoundable, and triable by a Magistrate of the first class.

Wrongful Confinement in Secret (Section 346):
- Punishment: Imprisonment up to two years (in addition to any other punishment for wrongful confinement).
- Classification: Cognizable, Bailable, Compoundable with the court’s permission, and triable by a Magistrate of the first class.

Wrongful Confinement to Extort Property or Constrain to Illegal Act (Section 347):
- Punishment: Imprisonment up to three years and fine.
- Classification: Cognizable, Bailable, Non-compoundable, and triable by any Magistrate.

Wrongful Confinement to Extort Confession or Compel Restoration of Property (Section 348):
- Punishment: Imprisonment up to three years and fine.
- Classification: Cognizable, Bailable, Non-compoundable, and triable by any Magistrate.

Illustrations :

(a) A causes Z to go within a walled space, and locks Z. Z is thus prevented from proceeding in any direction beyond the circumscribing line of wall. A wrongfully confines Z.

(b) A places men with firearms at the outlets of a building, and tells Z that they will fire at Z if Z attempts leave the building. A wrongfully confines Z.

Case laws

Top of Form

State of Gujarat vs. Keshav Lai Maganbhai Gujoyan (1993 CrLJ 248 Guj):

Facts: The accused did not physically restrain the victim but created a situation where the victim reasonably felt not free to leave, causing an apprehension of force.
- Court’s Decision: The court held that the impression of force leading to a reasonable apprehension of restraint is enough to constitute wrongful confinement. Actual physical restraint is not a prerequisite.

State vs. Balakrishnan (1992 CrLJ 1872 Mad):

Facts: The complainant was held in a police station, and the accused argued that the complainant was free to leave at any time.
- Court’s Decision: The court emphasized that in a police station, the authority of the police prevails, and the accused’s claim was dismissed. The court held the accused guilty of wrongful confinement, stating that the police station setting itself implies a level of restraint.

Vishwanatha Ayyar Vs. Emperor (1930):

Facts: The accused, a police officer, temporarily detained a person in the police station for investigative purposes.
- Court’s Decision: The court held that the temporary detention of a person in a police station for the purpose of investigation by a police officer is not an offense of wrongful confinement. The court recognized the authority of the police to detain individuals for investigative purposes, distinguishing it from wrongful confinement.

WRONGFUL RESTRAINT

Definition

Section 339 of Indian Penal Code defines wrongful restraint –

“whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person”

Restraint means an abridgment of the liberty of a person against his will. Wrongful restraint means obstructing a man from moving from one place to another place where he has right to be and wants to go. Wrongful restraint consists in preventing a man proceeding in some direction in which he wishes and has right to proceed.

Ingredients

A person causes to obstruction to any person
Such obstruction is caused voluntarily
The obstruction must be such as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which he has right to proceed.

If obstruction is made in good faith and the accused believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct, no offence is committed, A person is justified in obstructing another from entering into a private way, over land or water, over which he has a legal right obstruct.

Punishment

Whoever wrongfully restraints any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or which fine may extend to five hundred rupees ,or with both.

Illustration

Unauthorized Parking Space Occupation:

A occupies Z’s designated parking space without justification, wrongfully restricting Z’s use.

Public Transportation Disruption:

A obstructs Z’s bus exit deliberately, without reason, wrongfully restraining Z’s movement.

Unauthorized Road Closure:

A places barriers on a public road regularly used by Z, without proper authorization, hindering Z’s commute.

Property Access Blockage:

A unlawfully places obstacles at Z’s property entrance, wrongly preventing Z from entering.

Sidewalk Obstruction:

A sets up a temporary structure on a sidewalk used by Z for walking, without lawful authority, wrongfully restricting Z’s passage.

Case laws

Madala Perayya vs. Varugunti Chendrayya (1954 CrLJ 283 Mad):

Facts: Accused and complainant jointly owned a well, entitled to use water for agriculture. Accused stopped complainant’s water usage and blocked movement of complainant’s bullocks.
- Court’s Decision: Accused committed the offense of wrongful restraint under Section 339.

Shoba Rani vs. The King (1950-51 CrLJ 668 Cal.):

Facts: Landlord prevented tenant from using the bathroom, denying the tenant his rightful usage.
- Court’s Decision: Landlord committed wrongful restraint under Section 339 by obstructing tenant’s rightful access.

Souri Prasad Patniak vs. State of Orissa (1989 CrLJ 169 Ori):

Facts: Accused, a veterinary surgeon, protested non-payment of salary by standing in front of a jeep carrying a superior officer. He allowed the jeep to pass after the protest.
- Court’s Decision: Accused not guilty of wrongful restraint, as he did not continue the restraint and allowed the passage after the protest.

CONCLUSION

Wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement, as defined in Sections 339 to 348 of the Indian Penal Code, safeguard individual liberty and freedom of movement. Wrongful restraint involves obstructing a person from proceeding in a direction where they have a right to go, leading to a punishment of simple imprisonment or a fine. On the other hand, wrongful confinement, punishable under Section 342, extends the restriction to any place from which a person has a right to move. The cases and illustrations highlight the nuanced application of these legal provisions, emphasizing the importance of protecting personal liberty within the bounds of the law.