Wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement

Introduction

The Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of movement and personal liberty under Articles 19 and 21.
This gives Indian citizens the right to move around the entire country without any restrictions and with
total liberty. The BNS lays down laws In order to protect the right to mobility and freedom of Indian
citizens. Section 126 and 127 talks about wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement. They both are two
separate but closely connected offences. It deals with cases where people are confined or restrained and
their right to freely move is obstructed. In addition, Sections 126(2) and 127(2) of the BNS makes the
above mentioned offences punishable.

Wrongful Restraint

Wrongful restraint is mentioned in section 126 of the BNS

Whoever voluntarily obstructs another person in order to prevent them from proceeding in a direction in
which they have a right to go is said to be wrongfully restraining that person.

Illustration– A person X is voluntarily roaming with a ferocious dog around another person Y in order to
prevent Y from entering a building. This gesture from X constitutes the crime of wrongful restraint.

Ingredients of wrongful restraint

The following are the essentials ingredients for constituting wrongful restraint-

1. There must be voluntary obstruction

2. The complainant’s ability to move in any direction should be hampered due the obstruction.
3. The person being obstructed should have the right to proceed in that specific direction.

If a person has the legal authority to move in a specific way and someone breaches his/her right to
mobility. This is unconstitutional and this needs to be protected by the law. Thus if there is some kind of
obstruction which restrains the mobility of a person in a particular direction, leads to wrongful restraint
and law must protect his/her right.

Punishment

Wrongful restraint is punishable under section 126 (2) of the BNS. It states that a person held accountable
of wrongful restraint can be-

1. Imprisoned for a term which may extend to 1 month.

2. Or, held liable to pay a fine which may extend to 500 rupees.
3. Or, both i.e. imprisonment and fine which may extend to 1 month and Rs. 500 respectively.

Exceptions

Wrongful restraint can only being imposed if the obstruction is unconstitutional or wrongful but if the
person obstructing has the right to restrain then the act becomes constitutional and wrongful restraint does
not apply. This can be seen in the cases of private property where a person has all the rights to prevent
other people from entering into his property.

Another important exception of wrongful restraint is that the obstruction laid should be in good faith. It is
possible if a person walking on a road stops another person to save him from a hidden pothole. In this
case, the constraint was in place, but it was done in good faith. So it will not amount to wrongful restraint.

Landmark Cases

Lalloo Pd. vs Kedarnath Shukla And Anr. December, 1963 CriLJ 543

In this case the accused was a tenant and he locked the rented house and thus not allowing the owner of
the house to enter. This was a voluntary, wrongful act of restricting a person’s right to mobility. This
constituted wrongful restraint.

Shoba Rani vs. the King. 1950-51 CrLJ 668 Cal.

The owner of the home in this case prohibited the renter from using the washroom. As it was a legal right
for the tenant to use the washroom, there were unconstitutional restriction imposed and hence the landlord
was accused of wrongful restraint.

Wrongful Confinement

Wrongful confinement is mentioned in section 127 of the BNS,

Whoever voluntarily obstructs another person in order to prevent them from proceeding out of a certain
circumscribed limits, in which they have a right to go, is said to be wrongfully confining the person. It is
the unlawful denial of a person’s right to proceed beyond a specified circumscribing limits.

Illustration– Mr. X forces Mr. A to go into closed room and lock A, A is thus obstructed from proceeding
in any direction beyond the circumscribed walls of the room. As it is the right of A to move beyond the
boundaries of the room therefore X wrongfully confines A.

Ingredients of wrongful confinement

The following are the essentials ingredients for constituting wrongful confinement-

1. The complainant should be wrongfully restricted by the accused. Every essential element of
wrongful restraint should be present.
2. The motive of obstruction should be to confine the person within a certain boundary.
3. The complainant’s ability to move beyond certain limits should be hampered due the obstruction.
4. The person being obstructed should have the right to move beyond the limit.

Punishment

Wrongful confinement is punishable under section 127 (2)of the BNS. It states that a person accountable
of wrongful confinement can be-

1. Imprisoned for a term which may extend to one year.

 2. Or, liable to pay a fine which may extend to 1000 rupees.
3. Or both, with a maximum sentence of one year in prison and a fine of Rs. 1000.

Exception

Exceptions under wrongful confinement are mostly the same as that in wrongful restraint. Still adding
another important exception that says, mistakes of fact by a policeman cannot be treated as wrongful
confinement.

Illustration– Mr. A, a policeman wrongly misinterpreted B as C and imprisoned him. Later after
knowing the truth A released B. Here A cannot be accused of wrongful confinement as this is a case of
mistake of fact and the policeman arrested B in a good faith believing him to be a criminal.

Landmark Cases

Deep Chand v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1961 SC 1527

In this case the accused wrongfully confined the son of a wealthy man. And the son was released after 17
days, only after the amount demanded was received. Thus the accused was liable for wrongful
confinement.

State of Gujarat v. Keshav Lai Maganbhai Gujoyan 1993 CrLJ 248 Guj

In the above case, the accused created apprehension in the mind of the complainant and thus the
complainant was confined to certain circumscribed boundaries. Although there was no direct physical
restriction, still accused was held liable for wrongful confinement.

Wrongful Restraint vs. Wrongful Confinement (Difference)

S.
Basis Wrongful restraint Wrongful confinement
No.

It is the obstruction imposed on a person It is the obstruction imposed on a person to

1. Definition to prevent him/her from proceeding in a prevent him/her from proceeding out of a
particular direction. circumscribed limit.

Degree of Here the degree of limitation is less i.e. Here the degree of limitation is more i.e. all
2.
limitation only a particular direction is obstructed. the directions are obstructed.

Graveness of It is more grievous/heinous crime when

3. It is comparatively a less grievous crime.
the crime compared to wrongful restraint

4. Punishment A person found guilty of unlawful A person found guilty of unlawful

restraint faces a sentence of up to one detention faces a sentence of up to one
 month in jail or a fine of up to Rs. 500, or
year in jail, a fine of up to Rs. 1000, or both.
both.

Conclusion

Wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement are both violations of freedom of movement under the
BNS, with the former being less heinous than the latter. Wrongful restraint is defined as obstructing a
person’s ability to move in one direction while allowing them to move in all other directions. Wrongful
confinement, on the other hand, is obstructing a person from proceeding beyond a certain limit. Because
the restrictions are more severe in the latter offence, it is considered a more heinous offence. Both
offences are punishable under the IPC. In this way, our right to personal liberty and freedom of mobility
is protected by the law.