FAQs on Three Years of Court Practice Judgment   |   Don’t miss a single update! Join our Telegram channel today for instant legal alerts, PYQs & more.









Home / Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita & Indian Penal Code

Criminal Law

Wrongful Restraint and Wrongful Confinement

    «    »
 11-Dec-2023

Introduction

  • The Constitution of India confers the right to freedom of movement to every person throughout the territory of India and guarantees personal liberty under Article 19 and Article 21.
  • There are certain provisions that safeguard personal liberty against deprivation by an individual or group other than the State.
  • Section 339 and 340 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) define Wrongful Restraint and Wrongful Confinement respectively. IPC makes wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement punishable under Section 339 to 348.

Wrongful Restraint

  • Section 339 of IPC speaks about the offence of wrongful restraint as “whoever voluntarily obstruct any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has right to proceed is said wrongfully to restrain the person.”

Illustration

  • Chitra is walking on a public road on which she has a right to pass. Rajesh obstructs this path despite knowing that he had no right to stop the path. As Chitra was prevented from passing, Rajesh can be said to have wrongfully restrained Chitra.
  • The word obstruct signifies obstruction through physical or threatening means, when an obstruction is unlawful it becomes wrongful restraint.

Ingredients

  • Voluntarily obstruct any person.
  • To proceed in a particular direction.
  • The person obstructed must have the right to proceed.

Punishment

  • Section 341 of IPC imposes punishment against the wrongdoer under Section 339 with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
  • The classification of the offence under this section is that the offence is cognizable, bailable and triable by any Magistrate, it is also compoundable by the person restrained or confined.

Wrongful Confinement

  • According to Section 340 of IPC “whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits is said to have committed the offence of wrongful confinement.

Illustration

  • Radhika causes Anamika to go within a walled space and locks Anamika in. Anamika is thus prevented from proceeding in any direction beyond the circumscribing line of the walls and so Radhika has wrongfully confined Anamika.
  • Tying a person to a tree, locking up a man in a room amount to wrongful confinement.

Ingredients

  • Voluntary restraining a person.
  • The act is done in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond circumscribing limits.
  • The accused person must have wrongfully restraint the complainant, this means all the ingredients of wrongful restraint must be present

Punishment

  • Section 342 of IPC states that whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

Type of Wrongful Confinement

  • Wrongful confinement for three or more days. (Section 343)
  • Wrongful confinement for ten or more days. (Section 344)
  • Wrongful confinement of person whose liberation writ has been issued. (Section 345)
  • Wrongful confinement in secret. (Section 346)
  • Wrongful confinement to extort property or restrain illegal act. (Section 347)
  • Wrongful confinement to extort confession or compel restoration of property. (Section 348)

Case Laws

  • Sovarani Roy v. King AIR (1950):
    • The Calcutta High Court held that if a person believes in good faith that he has the right to prevent the complainant from passing over his ground, he cannot be convicted of the offence of wrongful restraint.
  • State v. Balakrishan (1991):
    • The petitioner was detained in a police station and the accused claimed that the complainant had the liberty to go from the police station.
    • The Madras High Court held that if a citizen enters a police station, then the police officer has the authority to prevail jurisdiction and entertain the matter, thus it was held that the accused committed the offence of wrongful confinement.

Difference between Wrongful Restraint and Confinement

Wrongful Restraint Wrongful Confinement
It is the genus, i.e. it is a wider term and includes several types of restraints under it. It is a species of wrongful restraint i.e. a type of wrongful restraint.
It prevents a person from proceeding in a direction in which that person has a right to proceed. It keeps a person within certain circumscribing limits.
There is only a partial suspension of one’s liberty. There is total suspension of liberty beyond certain circumscribing limits.

Punishment: Sec. 341. Imprisonment to one month, or fine Rs. 500/-, or with both.
Punishment: Sec. 342. Imprisonment to one year, or fine Rs. 1000/-, or with both