Scribd
Upload
22 views

WRONGFUL RESTRAINT AND WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT

The document outlines the legal definitions and implications of wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement under the Indian Penal Code, specifically Sections 339 and 340. It explains the conditions that constitute these offenses, the punishments associated with them, and provides case examples to illustrate their application. Additionally, it details various types of wrongful confinement and the legal consequences for each.

Uploaded by

basime.v
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
22 views

WRONGFUL RESTRAINT AND WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT

The document outlines the legal definitions and implications of wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement under the Indian Penal Code, specifically Sections 339 and 340. It explains the conditions that constitute these offenses, the punishments associated with them, and provides case examples to illustrate their application. Additionally, it details various types of wrongful confinement and the legal consequences for each.

Uploaded by

basime.v
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 12

WRONGFUL

RESTRAINT AND
WRONGFUL
CONFINEMENT

TARIQ MOHAMED
BCom LLB
INTRODUCTION
Under the Constitution of India, in Articles 19
and 21, every person throughout the territory of
India is conferred with the right to freedom of
movement and is guaranteed personal liberty. In
furtherance of this objective set up by the
Constitution, the Indian Penal Code lays down
penal sanctions in case a person violates the
freedom of movement or personal liberty of
another. This is done so as to safeguard an
individual’s right to liberty against deprivation
by another individual or groups other than State
(as fundamental rights only place an obligation
on the state).

Section 339 and 340 of Indian Penal Code


define Wrongful Restraint and Wrongful
Confinement respectively. The Indian Penal
Code, 1860 makes wrongful restraint and
wrongful confinement punishable under Section
339 to 348.
WRONGFUL
RESTRAINT

DEFINITION
According to Section 339 of the Indian Penal
Code;

“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.”

Further, the section also lays down an


exception, which is that if a person in good faith
believes himself to have a lawful right to
obstruct and so obstruct a private way over land
or water, then it does not amount to wrongful
restraint.

INGREDIENTS
1. That there was an obstruction.
2. That the obstruction prevented the
complainant from proceeding in any
direction.
3. That the person/complainant so
proceeding must have a right to proceed in
the direction concerned.

OBJECTIVE
The objective of this section is to ensure that the
freedom of a person is protected. When a person
has a right to proceed in a particular direction
then the law must ensure that such right is
available to the person. Even if there is a slight
unlawful obstruction, it is deemed to be
wrongful restraint.

It is neither necessary that the obstruction


caused must be physical nor is the presence of
the accused essential for the restraint to be
wrongful under this section.

The presence of assault is not required for the


act to amount as wrongful restraint. Even use of
mere words to cause obstruction to the path of a
person may constitute as an offence under this
section.

PUNISHMENT
Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code 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.

CASES
In the case of Madala Perayya vs. Varugunti
Chendrayya (1954 CrLJ 283 Mad), the facts
were that, the accused and the complainant
jointly owner a well and so both of them were
entitled to use the water for agricultural
purposes. The accused stopped the complainant
from using the water and also stopped the
bullocks of the complainant from moving. The
Court held that the accused had committed eh
offence of wrongful restraint under Section 339.

In the case of Shoba Rani vs. The King (1950-


51 CrLJ 668 Cal.), the landlord was accused of
preventing his tenant who was the tenant from
using the bathroom. By stopping the tenant from
using something that he had the right to use, the
landlord was had committed wrongful restraint
under Section 339.

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 from
proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits
is said to have committed the offence of
wrongful confinement.”

INGREDIENTS
1. The accused should have wrongfully
restrained the complainant (i.e. all
ingredients of wrongful restraint must be
present)
2. Such wrongful restraint was to prevent
the complainant from proceeding beyond
certain circumscribing limits beyond which
he or she has the right to proceed.
PUNISHMENT
Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code 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 the classification
of this offence is that it is cognizable, Bailable
and Triable by any Magistrate. Further, it is
Compoundable by the person confined with the
permission of the court.

CASES
In the case of State of Gujarat vs. Keshav Lai
Maganbhai Gujoyan (1993 CrLJ 248 Guj), it
was discussed by the court that “For a charge of
wrongful confinement, proof of actual physical
restriction is not essential. It is sufficient if the
evidence shows that such an impression was
produced in the mind of the victim, a reasonable
apprehension in his mind that he was not free to
depart. If the impression creates that the
complainant would be forthwith seized or
restrained if he attempts to escape, a reasonable
apprehension of the use of the force rather than
its actual use is sufficient and important.”

State vs. Balakrishnan (1992 CrLJ 1872 Mad),


the complainant was detained in the police
station when this was brought to court, the
accused claimed that complainant was at liberty
to go away from the police station at any time.
The Court remarked that when a citizen enters
into a police station, the police officers’
authority prevails in that jurisdiction, and they
entertain it with a ruddy manner. Court held that
the accused committed the offence of wrongful
confinement.

TYPES OF WRONGFUL
CONFINEMENT
1. Wrongful confinement for three or more days
(Section 343)
2. Wrongful confinement for ten or more days
(Section 344)
3. Wrongful confinement of person for whose
liberation writ has been issued (Section 345)
4. Wrongful confinement in secret (Section 346)
5. Wrongful confinement to extort property, or
constrain to illegal act (Section 347)
6. Wrongful confinement to extort confession,
or compel restoration of property (Section 348)

You might also like