This article is written by Ms. Hiya Lahiri, a 2nd year student from Adamas University.
INTRODUCTION
The Constitution of India lays down the right to freedom of movement and is guaranteed personal liberty under Article 19 and 21. Anyone who violates another person’s right to freedom of movement or personal liberty granted under Article 19 and 21 is subject to penalties under the Indian Penal Code. The Indian Penal Code establishes penal sanctions for anyone who violates another person’s right to freedom of movement or personal autonomy in order to further this constitutionally mandated goal. This is done in order to protect a person’s right to autonomy from being violated by parties other than the State (as fundamental rights only place an obligation on the state). A person’s right to privacy is safeguarded in this manner.
Section 339 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines wrongful restraint and makes it punishable under this section. The term “wrongful” encompasses any act that is forbidden, unauthorized, or of a similar nature that constitutes a civil wrong.
Definition
According to Section 339 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, “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.”
However the section also lays down an exception. It is not wrongful restraint if someone restricts a private way over land or water in good faith, that is they honestly believe they have the legal right to do so.
For example, Priya is riding her bicycle along a public road on which she has a right to pass. Ramesh, despite knowing he has no right to obstruct her way, obstructs Priya’s path. Since Priya was restrained from passing, it can be said that Ramesh wrongfully restrained Priya.
Wrongful restraint has the following ingredients:
1) a person causes an obstruction to another person
2) the obstruction is done intentionally.
3) The obstruction must be such that it prevents the individual from moving in any direction in which he is entitled to move.
Concept
Obstructing a man from moving from one location where he has a right to be and wishes to go to another is considered wrongful restraint. Malice is not a requirement for the offence to occur under this provision. Restraint is the term for restricting someone’s freedom against their will. A person cannot be said to have been restrained when they lose their ability to move due to sleep deprivation or another reason.
The protection of citizens’ freedom is the major aim of this section. If a person has the right to move forward or forward in a certain direction, then the law must guarantee that person has access to that right and must also protect that person’s life and personal freedom. A person can restrict another person from moving forward or proceeding by making it appear to them that doing so would be impossible, dangerous, or difficult, or even by making it impossible, difficult, or dangerous for them to pass.
According to the section, there must be an obstruction that can be clearly attributed to the defendant. The person obstructing must have known or had reason to know that it was probable that the complainant would be obstructed by the means he used. To hold a person liable for wrongful restraint, the obstruction must be:
(1) Voluntary obstruction of a person, and
(2) The individual must be prevented from moving in any direction in which he has a right to move due to the obstruction.
No movement must be stopped in wrongful restriction. It might be aimed in a different direction from the victim’s intended movement. Under this section, neither the obstructor’s physical presence nor a real assault are required. Observation envisaged by the section, though physical, may be caused by use of menaces and threats as well. Instead of the nature of the deed that caused it, the effect is what defines the crime.
According to Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code, the offender who violated Section 339 is subject to simple imprisonment for a period that may exceed one month, a fine that may exceed 500 rupees, or a combination of the two. The offense is categorized by this section as being cognizable, bailable, and triable by any magistrate; it is also compoundable by the individual who is restrained or imprisoned.
In Madala Perayya vs. Varugunti Chendrayya (1954 CrLJ 283 Mad) the accuser and the accused shared ownership of a well, which rendered it permissible for both of them to use the water for farming. The offender prevented both the complainant’s bullocks from moving but also him from using the water. The Court decided that the accused had violated Section 339 by engaging in wrongful restraint.
Further in the case of re M. Abraham (2 AIR 1950 mad 233) a bus driver intentionally stopped the bus across the street in order to halt another bus approaching from behind from moving forward. It was held that the bus driver violated this section of the law because the obstruction of the individual proceeding constitutes the completion of the offense of wrongful restraint.
Also in the case of Shankarlal Sarma (Bhatra) vs. State of Assam and Another (1975 CriLJ 1077) A few siblings shared a common Ejmali passage where their vehicles would arrive and depart. Their cars were parked in a garage as well. In the garage, the complainant had placed his Fiat. The petitioner, Shankarlal Sharma, the complainant’s older sibling, blocked the entrance by parking his car in front. Because of this, the complainant was obstructed from leaving there in his vehicle. The Ejmali passage was determined by the court to be a common path that the brothers could use and not a private passage. Therefore, the petitioner who parked his car in the passage thought he was acting lawfully and did so in good faith. As a result, they haven’t blocked anyone’s passage or their personal space. This falls under Section 339’s exclusions. He is therefore not culpable of unlawful restraint.
Difference between Wrongful Restraint and Wrongful Confinement
Wrongful Restraint is the genus, which means that it covers a broad range of restraints. Wrongful confinement, on the other hand, is a species of wrongful restraint, or a kind of wrongful restraint.While wrongful confinement maintains a person within predetermined boundaries, wrongful restraint prevents a person from moving in a direction in which they have a right to move. Wrongful restraint is not a severe offence and is only punishable by a fine of Rs. 500, a month in jail, or both under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Compared to wrongful restraint, wrongful confinement carries a more serious penalty under Section 342 that includes a year’s imprisonment, or a fine of Rs. 1000, or both.
Conclusion
It can be easily understood that wrongful restraint is basically a restraint in a line, which includes any kind of restraint that takes place along a path, road, or other straight line of motion. The individual is only prevented from moving forward in this situation, but he has the choice to go back, left, or right. This is illegal because the person in question has the right to travel along that route, but the other person has restricted it. Wrongful restraint occurs when someone is prevented from moving forward yet given the option to turn around or go back.
References :
1) https://blog.ipleaders.in/wrongful-restraint-wrongful-confinement/
2) Indian Penal Code Bare act
3) K D Gaur, Textbook on Indian Penal Code, 7th Edition, LexisNexis
5) Madala Perayya vs. Varugunti Chendrayya (1954 CrLJ 283 Mad)
6) re M. Abraham (2 AIR 1950 mad 233)
7) Shankarlal Sarma (Bhatra) vs. State of Assam and Another (1975 CriLJ 1077)
Aishwarya Says:
Law students often face problems, which they cannot share with their friends and families. We have started a column on our website Student’s Corner. In this column we are talking to several law students about the challenges that they face. Students who are interested in participating in the same, can fill this Google Form.
IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN THE SAME, DO LET ME KNOW.
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems to aishwarya@aishwaryasandeep.com
Join our Whatsapp Group for latest Job Opening