WRONGFUL RESTRAINT AND

WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT (Sec.

339 to 348
AMITH SRIRAM K S
Assistant Professor
  “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.

Definition  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.
  To establish the offence of wrongful restraint the complainant must prove all the following
essential:

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.

 When a person obstructs another by-

1. Causing it to appear to that other person that to proceed would be;

Essentials 1. impossible
2. difficult
3. dangerous
2. Or by actually causing it to be impossible, difficult or dangerous for that other person to
proceed

 Lastly, it must be noted that in order to invoke this section and to prove the offence under
this section, it is essential for the complainant to prove his right of way over the land.
  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

PUNISHMEN hundred rupees, or with both.

 The classification of the offence under this section is that
T the offence is Cognizable, Bailable and Triable by any
Magistrate, it is also compoundable by the person
restrained or confined.
  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

CASE LAWS 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.
  in the case of Souri Prasad Patniak vs. State of Orissa
(1989 CrLJ 169 Ori), the accused was a veterinary
surgeon who did not receive payments for several
months. When his superior officer visited the office and

CASE LAW started back to go, the accused stood in front of the jeep
and raised protest for non-payment of his salary.
However, after his protest, he had given the way to jeep.
The Orissa High Court held that the accused was not
guilty of the offence of wrongful restraint
  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.”
 Illustrations:
DEFNITION 1. 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.
2. 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.
  The essential ingredients of the offence of
wrongful confinement are:
1.The accused should have wrongfully restrained
the complainant (i.e. all ingredients of wrongful
restraint must be present)
CONTD. 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
CONTD for a term which may extend to one year, or
with fine which may extend to one thousand
rupees, or with both
 In case Vijay Kumari Magee vs Smt. S.R. Rao 3 1996Cri. L.j. 1371(S.C.)

Fact:
the complainants lady teacher who was a licensee of a hostel room could
not have a right to live there after termination of her licence, and hence the
school authorities couldn�t be charged for wrongful restraint in not
allowing her entry in the room.

Judgment:
supreme court held that necessary pre condition for wrongful restraint is
that a person concerned must have a right to proceed.

In case P.S. Jose vs State 41994 cri. L.J. 363(Ker.) .

Fact:
the accused car driver opened the door of the car abruptly thereby knocking
down a cyclist who was crushed to death by a lorry coming from behind.
Judgment: the car driver was held guilty under section 337for this rash act
while the lorry driver was convicted under section 304-A of IPC
Wrongful Restraint Wrongful Confinement

It is the genus, i.e. it is a wider term and includes several types It is a species of wrongful restraint i.e. a type of wrongful
of restraints under it. restraint.

It prevents a person from proceeding in a direction in which that

It keeps a person within certain circumscribing limits.
person has a right to proceed.

It is not a very serious offence and is punishable with lesser It is a more serious offence and is punishable with a more
punishment. severe punishment than wrongful restraint.

There is total suspension of liberty beyond certain

There is only a partial suspension of one’s liberty.
circumscribing limits.

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

DIFFRENCE
  Types of Wrongful Confinement
 1. Wrongful confinement for three or more days ( Section 343)
 “Whoever wrongfully confines any person for three days, or more, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or
with fine, or with both.
 2. Wrongful confinement for ten or more days (Section 344)
 “Whoever wrongfully confines any person for ten days, or more, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years,

TYPES and shall also be liable to fine

 Wrongful confinement to extort property, or constrain to illegal act (Section 347)
 “Whoever wrongfully confines any person for the purpose of extorting from the
person confined, or from any person interested in the person confined, any property or
valuable security or of constraining the person confined or any person interested in
such person to do anything illegal or to give any information which may facilitate the
commission of an offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
  Gopalia kallaiya (1923)

Fact: a police officer came from Bombay to a village with warrant to

arrest one man �M'. After reasonable inquiry police officer arrested
�S', the complainant under the warrant believing in god faith that �S'
was �M'. �S' brought a suit for wrongful arrest.

CASE LAWS Judgment: it was held that police officer had committed no offence
because he has committed a mistake of fact in good fait.
 Vishwanatha Ayyar Vs. Emperor (1930) In this case Court held that,
temporarily detention of a person in the police station for the purpose
of investigation by a police officer is not an offence of wrongful
confinement.
Criminal
Force and
Assault
  Criminal Force
 When a person intentionally uses force on another person without that person’s consent,
in order to commit an offence and with the prior intention of causing harm to that person
in the form of injury, fear or annoyance to whom the force is used, is said to use
criminal force on the other person

 A incites a dog to spring upon 2; without ' s consert. Here, it A intends to cause injury,
FORCE & fear or annoyance to Z, then he is guilty of causing criminal force.

CRIMINAL  Z is riding in a palanquin, (covered carriage carried men). A, intending to rob 2, seizes
the pole and Here A has caused cessation of stops the palanquin. motion to 4, and he has

FORCE done this by his own bodily power. So, he has used criminal force to Z.

 Force
 A person is said to be using “force” on another person when he causes a change in
motion, cessation of motion or a substantial change in motion of another person, or
brings a substance in contact with another person’s body or it affects another person’s
sense of feeling.
  If any person makes any gesture, or any preparation intending that
it will cause another person present to apprehend (fear) that he is
about to use criminal force to the other person, then h e is said to
commit an assault.
 Mere words do not consist of an assault. But a person may use
certain gestures and expressions or preparation, such gestures,
expressions and preparations may amount to assault. For example:

ASSUALT • X shakes his fist at Y, intending or knowing that may cause to

believe Y that X is about to strike Y. X has committed assault.
• X loosens the muzzle of a ferocious dog knowing that the dog will
cause harm to Y. So, X has committed an assault upon Y.
  Ingredients
 Gesture or Preparation
 When a gesture or preparation is made from one person to
another person with the intention to use criminal force, it is said
to commit assault.
 Cause Apprehension of Assault
 Generally speaking, assault happens when someone causes harm
Ingredients to other person’s body which may be usually followed by battery,
as this may include things like unlawful physical conduct,
violence or unlawful sexual contact. Though, all threats are not
considered assault. Also, to rise to the level of actionable offence,
the plaintiff may file the suit:
• The act was intended to cause apprehension of harm or offensive
contact;
• The act caused apprehension in the eyes of the victim that he
would be harmed by the other person’s actions.
  Outraging the modesty of a woman (Sec. 354): If a
 person assaults or uses criminal force against a woman with the intention to
outrage her modesty or knowing that he was likely to do so, it is an offence,
a n d shall be punished with imprisonment upto two years or fine or both.
 State of Funjab Vs. Major Singh:
 The accused performed indecent acts of unnatural lust to a small child girl
354 of 71⁄2 months o l d who was sleeping in a room. The accused argued that as
the child had not developed sufficient sex instinct, and so her modesty could
not be said to have peen violated. But the Supreme Court held that the
essence of woman's modesty is her sex whether young or old, sleeping or
awake and hence even a small child from her very birth possesses the
modesty which can be outraged.
  .People Union for Democratic P.
Commissioner New DelhiPolice:
 Labourers including a woman had been given
some work in a police station. When they
demanded wages, they were beaten up. the
woman was strippednaked a n d beaten. The
CASE LAWS officers were held guilty for outraging the
modesty of a woman under Sec. 354 I.P.C and
had to pay compensation to the labourers.
 Assault or criminal force to deter public servan from

353 discharge. of his duty - punishment I imprisonment upto

two years or with fine or with both (Sec. 353).
  Stalking as defined under the Section 354D IPC occurs when
man repeatedly approaches a woman for the personal
connections, even after the lady has made it obvious that she
is not interested in getting to know him. This also covers
online stalking as well which means monitoring her usage of
internet, email or other types of electronic communications.
1. It must be committed by any man.
354D 2. The following man tried to contact any woman against her
interest.
3. The act of the man creates a certain repeatedness.
4. There should be an absence of interest against the part of the
woman.
 In the case of
Shri Deu Baju Bodake v. The State of Maharashtra, (2016)
, the Bombay High court investigated a case involving the
death of women and after discovering it was found that the
cause of her death was ongoing harassment and stalking by
the offender. She was the target of the accused’s harassment
and stalking while she was at work and despite her resistance
and lack of interest. The High Court held it important to
record Section 354D coupled with abetment to suicide to
punish the guilty.
 Stalking is communication crime and it should not be gender
biased but in our country stalking is held only against the
women’s.
  b)'A' incites a dog to spring upon 'Z',without'Z'sconsentwith an
intention to cauSe fear to 'Z'. Whether'A' has cOmmitted by any
offence ? Give reasons.
CONTD.  DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ASSAULT AND CRIMINAL
FORCE: