This article is written by Ms. Hiya Lahiri, a 2nd year law 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 340 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines Wrongful Confinement and makes it punishable under the 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 340 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, “Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits is said to have committed the offense of wrongful confinement.”
A person is wrongfully restrained from moving past certain predetermined boundaries when they are subjected to wrongful confinement, as described by section 340 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. For instance, tying a man to a tree or locking him in a room are forms of wrongful confinement. Proof of an actual bodily impediment is not required to prove wrongful confinement. It is sufficient if the victim had a reasonable belief that he was not free to leave and that, should he try to do so, he would immediately be restrained.
The following are the essential ingredients of Wrongful Confinement :
- The person accused ought to have restrained the complainant wrongfully. (i.e. the ingredients of wrongful restraint must be present).
- Such wrongful restraint was intended to stop the accuser from moving past some restricting boundaries beyond which he or she has the right to move.
Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 lays down the punishment for Wrongful Confinement. The section states that anyone who wrongfully confines any person will be punished with either a type of imprisonment for a period that may last up to a year, a fine that may last up to one thousand rupees, or a combination of the two. The amount of time of confinement is a pertinent factor that should be taken into account when determining punishment. This offense is categorized as being cognizable, bailable, and triable by any magistrate. Additionally, with the court’s approval, the individual who is confined may compound the sentence.
Concept
Sections 343 to 348, IPC state different situations under which the nature of the offense is aggravated either by reason of long duration of confinement or confinement of a person for whose liberation a writ of habeas corpus (Articles 32 and 226 of Constitution of India) has been issued, or confinement in secret, or to extort property or to constrain to do an illegal act, or to extort confession or to compel restoration of property.
Wrongful confinement for three or more days (Section 343):
If someone wrongfully confines any person for three days or longer, they can be punished with either type of imprisonment for a period up to two years, with a fine, or with both.The offense is categorized as being cognizable, bailable, and triable by any Magistrate. Additionally, it is compoundable by the individual who is imprisoned with the court’s permission.
Wrongful confinement for ten or more days (Section 344):
Anyone who wrongfully confines someone for ten days or longer will receive a fine as well as a period of imprisonment that can last up to three years. This part takes the idea of severe punishment for wrongful confinement which may last for ten days or longer a step further. Given the magnitude of the offense, the maximum sentence is three years of imprisonment, either simple or rigorous, along with a fine. The offense is categorized as being cognizable, bailable, and triable by any Magistrate. Additionally, it is compoundable by the individual who is imprisoned with the court’s permission.
Wrongful confinement of person for whose liberation writ has been issued (Section 345):
In addition to any term of imprisonment to which he may be subject under any other provision of this Chapter, anyone who continues to hold any person in wrongful confinement while knowing that a writ for that person’s release has been duly issued faces a term of imprisonment of either description that may extend up to two years. The offense is categorized as being cognizable, bailable, and triable by a first class Magistrate and is non-compoundable.
Wrongful confinement in secret (Section 346):
Whoever wrongfully confines any person in a way that suggests an intent to prevent the confinement from being known to anyone who might have an interest in the person being confined, to any public servant, or to anyone who might be able to learn where the person is being held confined, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term that may extend to two years in addition to any other possible punishment to which he may be liable for such wrongful confinement.The offense is categorized as being cognizable, bailable, and triable by a first class Magistrate and is non-compoundable.
Wrongful confinement to extort property, or constrain to illegal act (Section 347):
Anyone who wrongfully confines a person for the purpose of extorting property or valuable security from the person so confined, or from anyone who has a stake in that person, or for the purpose of coercing that person to commit a crime or provide information that could help that person commit a crime, shall be punished with imprisonment of either kind for a term up to three years and also be held liable to fine. The offense is categorized as being cognizable, bailable, and triable by any Magistrate and is non-compoundable.
Wrongful confinement to extort confession, or compel restoration of property (Section 348):
Whoever wrongfully confines anyone with the intent to coerce that person or anyone else interested in that person into making a confession or providing information that could be used to identify an offense or other misconduct, or to compel that person or that person’s interested party to restore or cause the restoration of any property or valuable security, to meet any demand, to satisfy a claim, or to provide information that could lead to the detection of an offense, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be held liable for fine. The offense is categorized as being cognizable, bailable, and triable by any Magistrate and is non-compoundable.
In the case of State of Gujrat v Maganbhai Jogani (7 AIR 2009 S.C 2594), to conduct some investigations in accordance with the Money Lenders Act, the police went to the accused’s home. For a while, they were not permitted to leave the home, but during that time, they didn’t use any force. The court held that the accused did not commit the offense of wrongful confinement under section 340 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
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 offense 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
Unlike wrongful restraint, wrongful confinement is in a circle. It includes every kind of wrongful restraint that can take place in a circumscribed limit. Restricting someone from leaving a building or a room can be an example of wrongful confinement.
Reference:
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
6)State of Gujrat v Maganbhai Jogani (7 AIR 2009 S.C 2594)
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