BY: DIPANSHA AGRAWAL
LLOYD LAW COLLEGE
INTRODUCTION
In this article we talk about the wrongful confinement it extorts property, or constrain to illegal act. In IPC there are two type of restraint is defined first the wrongful confinement and second is wrongful restraint these two terms are different from each other and defined under different section of IPC. There is the minor difference between these two terms, in wrongful confinement and wrongful restraint. When there is total restriction then the person who does restraint is liable for wrongful confinement and when the person does partial restraint then that person is liable for wrongful restraint. There are some situations where restraint is lawful for example if a policeman restraint someone to go a particular way because road construction was going on than that policeman is not liable for the wrongful restraint. It is the lawful restraint.
HISTORY OF IPC
The Indian Penal Code (IPC) is the main criminal code of India. It was first drafted in 1860 by the first Indian Law Commission under the chairmanship of Lord Thomas Babington Macaulay. The code came into operation on January 1, 1862, and has since been amended several times to keep up with changing social norms and legal developments. The IPC is based on the principles of common law and has been influenced by British legal traditions. It defines and provides punishment for criminal offenses such as murder, theft, rape, and fraud. The code also provides guidelines for determining the degree of punishment for each offense, taking into account factors such as the severity of the crime and the criminal’s intent. There are many offences written in IPC like murder, rape, theft, etc. Like these offences there is one offence name as “wrongful confinement” which is defined under section 340 and the punishment of this offence is defined under section 342 of IPC. There is different type of wrongful confinement like: wrongful confinement for three or more days (Section 344); wrongful confinement for ten or more days (Section 344); wrongful confinement of person whose liberation writ has been issued (Section 345); wrongful confinement in secret (Section 346) which is discussed below.
SECTION 346: WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT IN SECRET: –
Section 346 of the Indian penal code states that 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.
Explanation of this section is that the law is saying that if someone keeps another person locked up or confined in a way that nobody can find out about it, and they do it on purpose, then they can be punished, or confined any public servant , or the place where confinement was done is not known by any person or the public servant then the punishment can be up to two years in prison, on top of any other punishment they might get for keeping the person confined in the first place. So basically, it’s illegal to keep someone locked up in secret.
ELEMENT OF SECRET WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT: –
Putting someone in a small place against their will to purposely restrict their freedom is known as wrongful confinement. Physical restrictions, such as tying the victim up or locking them in a room, or psychological intimidation that limits their freedom of movement may be used in the act.
Absence of consent is a requirement for wrongful confinement, which entails holding the person against their will and without their consent. The victim’s permission is essential in assessing whether the act is unlawful. If the detention is voluntary or authorized, it is not covered by this clause.
Secrecy: The quality of secrecy distinguishes unlawful secret detention from other types of incarceration. Intentionally hiding the victim’s imprisonment from the public keeps people from learning about it or taking action. The victim is made more vulnerable by the confinement’s clandestine atmosphere.
Wrongful purpose is necessary for secret imprisonment committed with malice aforethought. The conduct must be committed willfully, knowing that it is against the law and restricts the victim’s freedom. Simple carelessness or unintentional imprisonment would not suffice.
ILLUSTRATION
For better understanding there are illustration discussed below:
ILLUSTRATION 1: A is a person and B another person. He is a police officer. A is going to somewhere and B take fine from A because A ride his bike very fast and the place where he rides that bike is a market area. so, one for taking revenge A wrongfully confines B in his house here A is liable under section 346 of Indian penal code. section 346 of the Indian penal code stated that if someone wrongfully confine any another person or any policeman then that person is liable for the punishment of imprisonment which may extend to ten years or with some addition punishment to, he is liable.
CONCLUSION
By concluding this article, IPC is the main code for criminal code in India and by first law commission under the chairmanship of lord Thomas Babington Macaulay draft the Indian penal code for the first time. Wrongful confinement is one of the offences which is punishable under Indian penal code. By this offence not only under IPC person get punishment he is violate someone’s fundamental right, article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and by this the person whose right is get violated can approach to supreme court of India under article 32 and he can also approach to high court under article 226 of the Indian constitution. To safeguard justice, protect individual liberties, and promote a society that respects each person’s rights and dignity, it is crucial to comprehend the provisions and ramifications of unjust incarceration in secret. The implementation of this provision helps create a just and equitable society that gives all its members’ autonomy and well-being top priority.
CASES OF SECTION 346
Here are some of the notable case laws related to this section:
State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy: In this case, the defendant was accused of imprisoning a person unlawfully and requesting a ransom. The Supreme Court ruled that improper detention and the purpose to extort money or coerce the person into performing an illegal act are the two key components of the offence under Section 346.
Tulsiram v. State of Madhya Pradesh: The defendants in this case unlawfully imprisoned the victim and demanded a ransom. The High Court ruled that even if the accused was unsuccessful in getting the ransom, the act of demanding ransom was enough to create an offence under section 346 of the IPC.
In Laxmi Chand v. State of Rajasthan, the defendant was accused of forcibly imprisoning a woman and requesting dowry. The Supreme Court ruled that unlawfully imprisoning a person with the goal to force them to commit an illegal conduct, including the demand for dowry, is a violation of section 346 of the Criminal Code.
In Ram Bharosey v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the defendant was accused of holding a person against their will and demanding money. According to the High Court, a violation of Section 346 is a serious criminal, and the accused should not be released on bail absent extraordinary circumstances.
REFERENCE