INTRODUCTION
Indian constitution gives some basic and important fundamental right to its citizens and these fundamental rights are mentioned in the part III of the Indian constitution. article 21 is one of the fundamental right given to the citizen of the India, this artcile talks about the right to life and personal liberty and imagine if someone try to take this right from you then of course you will go to court but which court high court, district court or the supreme court. Many of the people think that the people can go to the district court only because they think they have to follow the hierarcy rule ( first district court then high court and at last supreme court) but no we can go to supreme court directly by article 32 of the Indian constitution. this article give right to the person to go supreme court directly if there fundamental rights get violated. And we can go to the high court under article 226 of the Indian constitution. if someone wrongfully detain you physical force or by locking you in the room then you can go to the supreme court directly by saying my rights are get violated. article 19 of the Indian constitution gives right to move freely. By this article we understand section 346 of Indian penal code and what is wrongful confinement.
WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT
Wrongful confinement is defined under section 340 of the Indian penal code and the punishment of the wrongful confinement is defined under article 342 of the Indian penal code.
section 340 states that whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceedings beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said ” wrongfully to confine” that person. And section 342 of the Indian penal code stated that whoever wrongfully confine any person then that person is liable for imprisonment which may extend to one year, or fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or both. Wrongful confinement is different from wrongful restraint. wrongful restraint defined under section 339 of the IPC and the punishment of wrongful restraint is defined under section 341 of the IPC. When there is total restraint then the person is liable for the punishment of wrongful confinement and when there is partial restraint then that person is liable for the punishment of wrongful restraint.
Illustration of section 340 of indian penal code: There is a person “A” and “B” an another person and one day “A” restraint “B” by locking him in the room because “B” don’t have money to pay back “A”. Here “A” is liable under section 340 of IPC and get punishment of imprisonment which may extend to one year, or fine which may extend to one thouand rupees, or both.
SECTION 346 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE
Section 346 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with the wrongful confinement of a person for the purpose of extortion.
The section states that whoever wrongfully confines any person for the purpose of extorting from that person, or from any other person interested in that person, any property or valuable security, or of constraining that 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 two years, and shall also be liable to fine.
The act of wrongful confinement is punishable under this section of the IPC if someone unlawfully detains another person in order to demand money, property, or valuable security from them, to coerce them into committing a crime, or to obtain information that could aid in the commission of a crime. The conduct of wrongful imprisonment for extortion is prohibited by Section 346 of the IPC. When someone’s freedom or movement is unjustly and purposely restricted against their will, this is referred to as wrongful imprisonment. This could be accomplished by using physical force or by confining the person in a room or another small area. The act of getting something, typically money or property, under threat of violence or other harm is known as extortion. Extortion, as used in Section 346, happens when a person is detained illegally in order to extract money, assets, or valued security from them or from someone else who has an interest in them.
The section also covers cases where the person is being held to compel them to do something illegal or provide information that would aid in the commission of a crime. This could include forcing someone to sign a false statement or testify falsely in court, or to provide information about a rival gang or criminal activity. If a person is found guilty of wrongful confinement for the purpose of extortion under Section 346, they can be punished with imprisonment for a term of up to two years and also be liable to pay a fine.
ILLUSTRATION OF SECTION 346 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE
Imagine a gang of criminals kidnaps the son of a wealthy businessman and imprisons him in a faraway place. They then ask the businessman for a ransom and threaten to hurt the boy if he does not comply. Under Section 346 of the IPC, the act of holding the businessman’s son against his will in this situation with the goal of extorting money from the businessman would be considered wrongful detention for the purpose of extortion. This offence has a maximum three-year sentence and a fine as punishment. If the victim is hurt physically while being held captive, the offenders may also be charged with additional offences like assault, kidnapping, or even murder.
CONCLUSION
By concluding this article, Section 342 of the Indian penal code defined about the wrongful confinement and under this section if someone do wrongful confinement then that person is liable for imprisonment which may extend to 1 year, or fine ,or imprisonment with fine. Section 346 of the Indian penal code is defined that if someone detain illegally to another person in order to obtain money, property or valuable security then that person is liable for the imprisonment which may extend to 2 years or fine or imprisonment with fine.
CASE LAWS
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.
REFERENCES
https://indiankanoon.org/
By : Dipansha Agrawal
Lloyd law college, Greater noida