This article has been written by Mr. Rohan Madhok, a 5th year BBA.LLB student from Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies, GGSIPU, New Delhi
INTRODUCTION
The Indian Constitution under article 19(1)(d) guarantees to each of its citizens a right to freedom of movement throughout the territory of India. There is an overlap between article 19(1)(d) and 19(1)(e) which constitutes the right to freely reside in any part of the country. The term ‘freely’ implies without any kind of restriction, which means a person can move wherever and however he likes without any impediment. One of many ways this right can be encroached upon is wrongful confinement. Wrongful confinement is a form of restraint under which a person is prevented wrongfully from going in any direction beyond a certain circumscribed limits
WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT
Under Indian law, wrongful confinement is a criminal offense that involves the unlawful restraint or confinement of a person against their will. It is a form of restraint under which a person is prevented wrongfully from going in any direction beyond certain circumscribed limits. For example, putting a person in the police lockup or locking a person in a room would amount to wrongful confinement.
The offense is defined under Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which states that wrongful confinement occurs when a person is confined without their consent in an enclosed space or a place from which they cannot escape. Section 340 says that when any person wrongfully restrains another person in such a way that the other person is prevented from going beyond certain circumscribed limits is said to wrongfully confine him.
We can understand the offense of wrongful confinement from these illustrations –
- Raj causes simran to go into a room that has only one opening and locks her inside. Simran is now trapped inside and cannot go in any direction beyond the circumscribing limits of the room. So we can say that Raj wrongfully confines Simran.
- Rahul aims a gun at Ali and tells him that he will shoot him if he attempts to leave. Rahul wrongfully confines Ali.
In the case of Lilabati v State 1966 Cr Lj 838 the court observed that to support a charge of wrongful confinement, proving actual physical obstruction is not necessary. It is sufficient if such an impression was created that resulted in the creation of a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the victim that he was not free to go anywhere else and that he would be forthwith restrained if he attempted to do so.
Wrongful confinement can take many forms, from physical restraint to psychological manipulation. Examples of wrongful confinement include kidnapping, false imprisonment, and unlawful detention. This can happen in various settings, such as in police custody, prison, hospitals, or even in private homes.
Wrongful confinement is a violation of an individual’s fundamental rights, and it can cause immense physical and emotional harm to the victim. Victims of wrongful confinement may experience trauma, anxiety, and depression as a result of the experience. The impact can be even more severe if the victim is detained for an extended period.
To constitute wrongful confinement, the following elements must be present:
- Confinement: The first essential element of wrongful confinement is confinement, which means restraining a person’s liberty in any manner. The confinement can be physical or mental. Physical confinement involves physically restraining a person, while mental confinement involves using threats or intimidation to prevent a person from leaving a place.
- Without consent: The second essential element of wrongful confinement is that the confinement must be done without the person’s consent. The person must be restrained against their will.
- Enclosed space: The third essential element of wrongful confinement is that the confinement must take place in an enclosed space. An enclosed space can be a room, building, or any other space from which the person cannot escape.
- No lawful justification: The fourth essential element of wrongful confinement is that there must be no lawful justification for the confinement. If the confinement is done for a lawful purpose, it will not amount to wrongful confinement.
Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 provides the punishment for wrongful confinement; it says that any person who wrongfully confines another person shall be punished with simple imprisonment of one year, or with a fine which may amount to one thousand rupees. The offense of wrongful confinement is cognizable, bailable compoundable, and triable by any magistrate.
Section 343 – 348 talks about different situations under which the offense of wrongful confinement is aggravated either by reason of prolonged confinement, or confinement of a person for whose liberation a writ of habeas corpus is issued, or confinement in secret, or to extort property, or constrain to an illegal act, or to extort confession.
Section 343 of the Indian penal code says that where any person wrongfully confines another person for three or more days. He shall be punished with imprisonment for a term of more than two years or more with a fine.
Section 344 prescribes a punishment of three years along with a fine to any person who wrongfully confines another person for ten days, or more.
Section 345 says that when a person wrongfully confines another person, knowing that a writ of habeas corpus has been issued for the liberation of that person. Then that person shall be punished with imprisonment for two years in addition to any other punishment for which he is liable under any other section of this chapter.
Section 346 provides that when a person wrongfully confines another person with the intention that such confinement should not be known to any person related to the victim, or to any public servant. Further, the place of such confinement should also not be known to such person or public servant as herein before mentioned, such person shall be punished with imprisonment for two years.
Section 347 says that any person who wrongfully confines another person with the intention to extort any property or valuable security from the person so confined or from any other person who is interested in the person so confined, or forcing the person confined or from any other person who is interested in the person so confined to do anything illegal or to provide any kind of information which would help in the commission of an offense, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term of three years
Section 348 says that any person who wrongfully confines another person with the intention to extort any confession or any information which may lead to the detection of an offense or misconduct from the person so confined or from any other person who is interested in the person so confined, or forcing the person confined or from any other person who is interested in the person so 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 for a term of three years
CASE LAWS
1) State of Gujarat vs. Keshav Lai Maganbhai Gujoyan 1993 CrLJ 248 Guj
In this case, the court observed that for the charge of wrongful confinement physical restriction is not an essential ingredient. Evidence that shows that such an impression was made in the mind of the victim resulted in the creation of a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the victim that he was not free to go anywhere else and that he would be forthwith restrained if he attempted to do so would be considered as sufficient. Therefore a reasonable apprehension of the use of force rather than the actual use of force would be sufficient.
2) State vs. Balakrishnan 1992 CrLJ 1872 Mad
In this case, the complainant was detained at the police station. The police officers claimed that the complainant was at the liberty to leave the police station when he wanted to. The court observed that when a citizen enters a police station, it is the police officer’s authority that prevails in the jurisdiction and they entertain it in a wrong manner, thus the court held that the offense of wrongful confinement was committed.
To prevent wrongful confinement, it is crucial to ensure that law enforcement officials are trained to respect the rights of citizens and to use their power responsibly. It is also essential to hold those who engage in wrongful confinement accountable for their actions. The legal system must be accessible to victims of wrongful confinement, and they must be able to seek justice without fear of retaliation or intimidation.
In conclusion, wrongful confinement is a serious offense that violates an individual’s fundamental rights. It can cause immense physical and emotional harm to the victim, and it is essential to prevent it from happening. The legal system in India must ensure that law enforcement officials use their power responsibly and that those who engage in wrongful confinement are held accountable. Only then can we hope to prevent this heinous crime and protect the rights and dignity of all citizens.
REFERENCES
2) https://blog.ipleaders.in/wrongful-restraint-wrongful-confinement/
4) Article 19(1)(d) of Constitution of India, 1950
5) Article 19(1)(e) of Constitution of India, 1950
6) Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code 1860
7) Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code
8) Section 343 of the Indian Penal Code
9) Section 344 of the Indian Penal Code
10) Section 345 of the Indian Penal Code
11) Section 346 of the Indian Penal Code
12) Section 347 of the Indian Penal Code
13) Section 348 of the Indian Penal Code
14) K.D. GAUR’S CRIMINAL LAW CASES AND MATERIALS: NINTH EDITION
15) Lilabati v State 1966 Cr Lj 838
16) State of Gujarat vs. Keshav Lai Maganbhai Gujoyan 1993 CrLJ 248 Guj
17) State vs. Balakrishnan 1992 CrLJ 1872 Mad