Theoretical overview
Wrongful confinement and wrongful restraint are mentioned under sections 339 to 348 of Indian penal code 1860, where a person’s freedom of motion is interfered with wholly or in part.
Section 339 of Indian penal code define wrongful restraint as voluntary causing obstruction to any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has the right to proceed.
Ingredients for wrongful restraint
- voluntary obstruction of a person
- the obstruction must be such as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which he has a right to proceed
In wrongful restrain, physical presence of accused is not always necessary. The wrong defined is a wrong against the person and if a man is prevented from taking his animal or cart along with him in one direction, that will not be an offence within the section. Obstruction to vehicle alone does not constitute wrongful restraint as defined in section 339 as obstruction of a person only comes with in its purview.
Section 340 of Indian penal code defines wrongful confinement as wrongfully restraining any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits.
Ingredients for wrongful confinement: –
- wrongful restraint of a person
- the restrain must be to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits beyond which he she has right to proceed
- there must be total restrain and not a partial one
A person guilty of wrongful confinement is punishable by simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term up to 1 year or a fine of up to 1000 rupees or both.
The difference between wrongful confinement and wrongful restraint is that a person is restrained from proceeding in direction beyond the certain limit in wrongful confinement while a person is restrained to proceed in some particular direction and wrongful restaurant.
Punishment for wrongful confinement depends on the number of days a particular person is confined and the purpose for which he is confined.
Relevant sections
Section 339. Wrongful restraint – 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.
(Exception) – The obstruction of a private way over land or water which a person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct, is not an offence within the meaning of this section. Illustration A obstructs a path along which Z has a right to pass. A not believing in good faith that he has a right to stop the path. Z is thereby prevented from passing. A wrongfully restrains Z.
Section 341. Punishment for wrongful restraint – Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished 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.
Section 342. Punishment for wrongful confinement – 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.
Section 343. Wrongful confinement for three or more days – 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.
Section 344. Wrongful confinement for ten or more days – 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, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 345. Wrongful confinement of person for whose liberation writ has been issued – Whoever keeps any person in wrongful confinement, knowing that a writ for the liberation of that person has been duly issued, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years in addition to any term of imprisonment to which he may be liable under any other section of this Chapter.
Section 346. Wrongful confinement in secret – Whoever wrongfully confines any person in such manner as to indicate an intention that the confinement of such person may not be known to any person interested in the person so confined, or to any public servant, or that the place of such confinement may not be known to or discovered by any such person or public servant as hereinbefore mentioned, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years in addition to any other punishment to which he may be liable for such wrongful confinement.
Section 347. Wrongful confinement to extort property, or constrain to illegal act – 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.
Section 348. Wrongful confinement to extort confession, or compel restoration of property – Whoever wrongfully confines any person for the purpose of extorting from the person confined or any person interested in the person confined any confession or any information which may lead to the detection of an offence or misconduct, or for the purpose of constraining the person confined or any person interested in the person confined to restore or to cause the restoration of any property or valuable security or to satisfy any claim or demand, or to give information which may lead to the restoration of any property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Important case laws
Shanshudheen vs. State of Kerala – the petitioners were convicted for wrongful confinement of two police officers who went to their place to investigate the matter regarding wrongful confinement of X. the court held that the degree of defiance shown by the petitioner to the officer of law enforcement could not be condone except at parallel to values fundamental to the existence of a system of government based on rule of law.
Raja Ram vs State of Haryana – a woman and a 13-year-old boy were summoned to the police station for interrogation. It is the provision that no woman or a male under 15 years of age should be summoned to the police station for investigation. The accused police officer was found guilty and it was held that in view of detaining a woman and a 13-year-old boy in the police station would amount to wrongful restraint and were found guilty under section 341 of Indian penal code but not under section 342 of Indian penal code.
Points to remember
- Wrongful confinement and wrongful restraint are mentioned under sections 339 to 348 of Indian penal code 1860, where a person’s freedom of motion is interfered with wholly or in part.
- Section 339 of Indian penal code define wrongful restraint
- Section 340 of Indian penal code defines wrongful confinement as wrongfully restraining any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits.
- The difference between wrongful confinement and wrongful restraint is that a person is restrained from proceeding in direction beyond the certain limit in wrongful confinement while a person is restrained to proceed in some particular direction and wrongful restaurant.
