Wrongful restraint & Wrongful confinement | Criminal Law for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Introduction

• Every individual in India has the right to freedom of movement and personal liberty as per Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
• The Indian Penal Code enforces penalties to protect these rights by penalizing violations of freedom of movement and personal liberty.
• The purpose is to protect an individual's liberty from being violated by others, excluding the State's actions as fundamental rights only bind the state.

Wrongful Restraint and Wrongful Confinement

• Section 339 defines Wrongful Restraint and Section 340 defines Wrongful Confinement within the Indian Penal Code.
• These sections, ranging from 339 to 348 in the Indian Penal Code, specify punishments for wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement.

Understanding Wrongful Restraint

To prove the offense of wrongful restraint, the complainant needs to establish the following crucial elements:

• Presence of Obstruction: This means there was a physical barrier in place.
• Prevention of Movement: The obstruction must have stopped the complainant from moving in any direction.
• Legal Right to Proceed: The individual being obstructed must have had the legal right to move in the direction they intended.

Let's delve deeper into each of these points with some examples:

• Presence of Obstruction: Imagine a scenario where someone intentionally stands in front of a doorway, blocking another person's path. This physical barrier constitutes an obstruction.
• Prevention of Movement: If a group of people surrounds an individual on all sides, not allowing them to step forward, this halts their movement in any direction.
• Legal Right to Proceed: For instance, if a pedestrian is walking on a public sidewalk, they have the legal right to continue in that direction. If someone unjustly prevents them from doing so, it could amount to wrongful restraint.

Objective

• The objective of this section is to ensure the protection of an individual's freedom. When a person has the right to move in a specific direction, the law must guarantee the availability of this right. Even a minor illegal obstruction is considered wrongful restraint.
• It is not necessary for the obstruction to be physical, and the presence of the accused is not essential for the restraint to be wrongful under this section.
• Physical assault is not a requirement for an act to be deemed wrongful restraint. Even using mere words to obstruct someone's path can be considered an offense under this section.
• When one person obstructs another by:
  • Causing it to seem that proceeding would be impossible, difficult, or dangerous
  • impossible
  • difficult
  • dangerous
• Or by actually making it impossible, difficult, or dangerous for the other person to proceed
• Finally, to invoke this section and prove an offense, the complainant must establish their right of way over the land.

Essential Elements to Prove an Offence under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code

• Proof of Right of Way: The complainant must establish their right of way over the land in question.

Punishment under Section 341

• Punitive Measures: Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code entails penalties for offenders under Section 339. The punishment may involve:
  • Imprisonment: Simple imprisonment for a duration up to one month.
  • Monetary Fine: A fine extending to five hundred rupees.
  • Combined Penalties: Offenders may face both imprisonment and fines as repercussions.
• Classification of the Offence: The classification of the offence under Section 341 includes:
  • Cognizability: The offence is cognizable, meaning it allows for immediate action by the authorities.
  • Bailability: The offence is bailable, enabling the accused to seek temporary release pending trial.
  • Trial Jurisdiction: The offence falls under the jurisdiction of any Magistrate for trial.
  • Compoundability: The offence is compoundable, allowing for resolution by the person restrained or confined.

Legal Cases on Wrongful Restraint

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

• In this case, both the accused and the complainant jointly owned a well, entitling them to use the water for agricultural purposes.
• The accused unlawfully prevented the complainant from accessing the water and also obstructed the movement of the complainant's bullocks.
• The Court determined that the accused had committed the offense of wrongful restraint under Section 339.

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

• Here, the landlord was accused of unlawfully preventing the tenant from using the bathroom, which the tenant had the right to use.
• By restricting the tenant from accessing a facility he was entitled to, the landlord was found guilty of wrongful restraint under Section 339.

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

• In this instance, the accused, a veterinary surgeon, protested due to non-payment of his salary when his superior officer visited the office.
• Although the accused briefly obstructed the officer's jeep, he eventually allowed it to pass after his protest.
• The Orissa High Court concluded that the accused was not culpable of wrongful restraint in this scenario.

Wrongful Confinement

According to Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code;
“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.”

Illustrations

• 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.
• Gabbar places men with firearms at the outlets of a building and tells Veeru that they will fire at him if he attempts to leave the building. Here, Gabbar has wrongfully confined Veeru.

Understanding Wrongful Confinement

The offense of wrongful confinement involves certain crucial elements that must be met:

• The accused must have unlawfully restricted the movement of the complainant, encompassing all aspects of wrongful restraint.
• This restriction must aim to stop the complainant from going beyond specific boundaries that they have the right to cross.

Wrongful confinement is a serious offense that hinges on the deliberate and unlawful limitation of an individual's freedom within defined limits.

Punishment

• Punishment according to Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code: According to Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code, individuals who wrongfully confine others face penalties that include imprisonment for up to one year, a fine that can extend to one thousand rupees, or both. This offense is classified as cognizable, bailable, and triable by any Magistrate. Additionally, it can be compounded with the court's permission by the person who was confined.
• Nature of the Offense: This offense involves wrongfully confining a person, which can lead to imprisonment, a fine, or both as per the discretion of the court. The categorization of the offense as cognizable, bailable, and triable by any Magistrate implies certain legal procedures that apply to this crime.
• Compoundability of the Offense: Furthermore, the offense is compoundable, meaning that the person who was wrongfully confined can reach a settlement with the court's permission. This provision allows for the resolution of the case through a mutually agreed upon arrangement.

Cases

• State of Gujarat vs. Keshav Lai Maganbhai Gujoyan (1993 CrLJ 248 Guj): The court discussed that for a charge of wrongful confinement, it is not necessary to prove actual physical restriction. What matters is if the evidence demonstrates that the victim had a reasonable apprehension in their mind that they were not free to leave. If the victim believed they would be seized or restrained if they tried to escape, even without actual force being used, it is sufficient for the charge.
• State vs. Balakrishnan (1992 CrLJ 1872 Mad): In this case, the complainant was detained in a police station. The accused argued that the complainant could have left the station at any time. However, the court held that once a citizen enters a police station, the authority of the police prevails, and they are subject to police control. The accused was found guilty of wrongful confinement.
• Case: State vs. Balakrishnan (1992 CrLJ 1872 Mad): In the case of State vs. Balakrishnan, the complainant was held at the police station. The accused argued that the complainant could leave the police station at any time. The court emphasized that once a citizen enters a police station, the authority of the police officers prevails, and they must be respected. The court concluded that the accused was guilty of wrongful confinement.

Types of Wrongful Confinement

Wrongful Confinement for Three or More Days (Section 343)

"Wrongful confinement for three or more days" is punishable by imprisonment for up to two years, a fine, or both. This offense is considered Cognizable, Bailable, and Triable by any Magistrate. Additionally, it can be Compounded with the court's permission by the confined individual.

Wrongful Confinement for Ten or More Days (Section 344)

According to Section 344, if someone unlawfully detains a person for ten days or longer, they can face imprisonment for up to three years and a fine. This offense is Cognizable, Bailable, and Triable by any Magistrate. Additionally, it can be Compounded with the court's permission.

Wrongful Confinement of a Person with a Liberation Writ (Section 345)

Under Section 345, anyone who wrongfully confines a person despite knowing that a writ for their release has been issued may be imprisoned for up to two years. This imprisonment is in addition to any other sentence they may receive under this chapter. This offense is Cognizable, Bailable, and Triable by a Magistrate of the first class, and it is Non-compoundable.

• Wrongful Confinement (Section 342): Wrongful confinement refers to the act of intentionally restraining someone against their will. The law states that anyone who wrongfully confines a person shall face imprisonment for a specific period.
• Classification of the Offence: This offence is categorized as Cognizable, meaning that the police have the authority to make an arrest without a warrant. It is also Bailable, allowing the accused to seek temporary release pending trial. Additionally, the offence is Triable by a Magistrate of the first class, indicating that the trial proceedings will be conducted by a specific level of judiciary. Furthermore, wrongful confinement in this context is Non-compoundable, meaning that it cannot be settled between the parties involved and requires legal action.

Wrongful Confinement in Secret (Section 346)

This section deals with wrongful confinement carried out in a secretive manner, intending to hide the confinement from interested parties or public servants.

• Penalties for Wrongful Confinement in Secret: If someone wrongfully confines another person in a secretive manner, they can face imprisonment for up to two years, in addition to any other penalties for the initial act of confinement.
• Classification of the Offence under Section 346: Similar to Section 342, this offence is also Cognizable, Bailable, and Triable by a Magistrate of the first class. Notably, it is Compoundable by the person who was wrongfully confined, with the court's permission, allowing for a potential settlement between the involved parties.

Wrongful Confinement to Extort Property or Constrain to Illegal Act (Section 347)

• Definition: Wrongfully confining a person to extort property or to compel them to engage in illegal activities.
• Punishment: Imprisonment for up to three years and a fine.
• Classification:
  • Cognizable
  • Bailable
  • Triable by any Magistrate
  • Non-compoundable
• Example: A kidnapper unlawfully detains a victim to force their family to pay a ransom.

Wrongful Confinement to Extort Confession or Compel Restoration of Property (Section 348)

• Definition: Wrongful confinement involves unlawfully restraining an individual to extract a confession, information related to an offense, or to force the restoration of property or compliance with a claim.
• Punishment: The offender can face imprisonment up to three years and a fine. The offense is Cognizable, Bailable, and Triable by any Magistrate. It is Non-compoundable.

Difference between Wrongful Restraint and Confinement

Conclusion

• Wrongful Restraint involves obstructing movement in a straight line, restricting a person from advancing but allowing them to move in other directions. It occurs when someone impedes another person's path, such as blocking a corridor or threatening consequences if they proceed.
• For instance, if Varun obstructs Alia's path in the school corridor or warns her of consequences if she proceeds, he commits wrongful restraint by restricting her forward movement.
• On the contrary, Wrongful Confinement entails confining someone within a defined space, prohibiting them from leaving. It occurs within enclosed areas like rooms, buildings, or parks, restricting all movement within that space.
• For example, General Dyer's action of blocking all exits in Jallianwala Bagh constitutes wrongful confinement, as does Yashoda's act of tying Krishna to a trunk, completely restricting his movements.