BY: DIPANSHA AGRAWAL
LLOYD LAW COLLEGE
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 rights given to the citizen of the India, this article talks about the right to life and personal liberty and imagine if someone try to take this right from you then OfCourse 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 must follow the hierarchy 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 gives right to the person to go supreme court directly if their fundamental rights get violated. And we can go to the high court under article 226 of the Indian constitution. If someone wrongfully detains you physically 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 348 of Indian penal code and what is wrongful confinement to extort, confession, or compel restoration of property.
HISTORY OF IPC:
There are many codes which is already draft in the British era, IPC is one of them. The first draft of the IPC was prepared by the first law commission, chaired by Thomas Babington Macaulay. The code came into force on 1st January, 1860. 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 to extort, confession, or compel restoration of property.
which is discussed in this article below.
WHAT IS 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 Indian penal code: There is a person “A” and “B” another person and one day “A” restraint “B” by locking him in the room because “B” doesn’t have money to pay back “A”. Here “A” is liable under section 340 of IPC and gets punishment of imprisonment which may extend to one year, or fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or both.
DEFINITION:
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.
MEANING:
Extortion through Wrongful Confinement
Extortion is one of the most common motives of the wrongful confinement. Extortion is the done when someone restrain someone to gain financial or material benefits by threatening their victim’s safety, reputation, or well-being. Wrongful confinement in extortion cases can have severe psychological and emotional consequences for the victims, leaving lasting trauma even after their release.
Forced Confessions through Wrongful Confinement
Sometimes individual confined to coerce them by making false confession. The prolonged isolation, psychological pressure, and physical abuse endured during wrongful confinement can break down a person’s resistance, leading them to falsely admit to crimes they did not commit. Forced confessions not only jeopardize the integrity of the justice system but also contribute to the wrongful conviction of innocent individuals.
Compelling Restoration of Property through Wrongful Confinement:
This form of coercion is particularly alarming as it avoids legal processes and denies the victim their right to due process. Furthermore, it perpetuates a cycle of violence and lawlessness, undermining the rule of law in a society. Wrongful confinement can also be used to compel the restoration of property, in which cases the captor may detain an individual until they return stolen goods, pay debts, or transfer ownership of assets.
ILLUSTRATION:
- Extortion: Imagine a situation when a proprietor of a small firm gets a threatening call demanding a sizable sum of money. The caller discloses private details about the owner’s family, implying they are being watched, to amplify the threat. The owner of the business complies with the demand out of concern for the safety of their loved ones, but is then wrongfully imprisoned until the payment is made. This example shows the anguish and helplessness felt by victims entangled in a web of extortion and unlawful detention.
- Forced Confession: Imagine a young person who is being interrogated by law enforcement officers in a dark room. Despite maintaining their innocence, the person is subjected to hours of nonstop questioning, physical abuse, and intimidation. Eventually, under pressure, the person gives in and falsely confesses to a crime they did not commit. This example highlights the coercive nature of wrongful confinement and its potential to extract false confessions, leading to false charges.
- Compelled Restoration of Property: Imagine a situation in which a debtor is kidnapped and held captive until they surrender their possessions to the creditor. The goods of the captive are on display in front of them as a constant reminder of the cost of their freedom. This picture portrays the despair and violation of personal rights felt by victims who were wrongfully imprisoned in order to restore property.
- Legal Response: Imagine a scene in a courtroom where a captor is punished for wrongfully imprisoning a person. The victim, now free, stands up as they describe their traumatic experience, while the public and legal experts watch the proceedings with a resolve to combat similar injustices. This example illustrates how crucial it is to have a strong legal system and work as a society to stop wrongful detention and provide victims justice.
- Awareness and Support: Imagine a gathering of protesting activists with banners and signs denouncing unlawful detention for the purpose of extortion, coercion, or property restitution. The image serves as a representation of the effectiveness of public awareness-raising efforts and mobilisation in bringing attention to this problem, arguing for legislative changes, and offering assistance to victims.
CASE LAWS:
Vishwanatha Ayyar Vs. Emperor (1930):
In this instance, the court determined that an investigation by a police officer that temporarily detains a person in the police station does not constitute wrongful confinement.
CONCLUSION:
A repugnant conduct that violates people’s rights and dignity is wrongful confinement used to demand money, force confessions, or force the return of property. It challenges the social norms of justice, fairness, and respect for human rights. Governments, law enforcement, and civil society organisations must continue to work to stop this kind of abuse, ensuring that people are protected from unjust imprisonment and pursuing justice for those harmed by these awful acts.
REFERENCE:
https://blog.ipleaders.in/blog/