INTRODUCTION
Indian constitution provides some basic fundamental rights to the Indian citizens. These fundamental rights are the most important things that a person can enjoy. Article 21 and 19 are talks about right to life and liberty and right to equality before law. These both rights also talk about right to movement. Imagine if someone restrict you to go somewhere how it feels to you and if someone restricts you to go then you have article 19 (1) (d). This article gives rights to move freely throughout the territory of India. Not only in Constitution but in IPC also there are some provisions related to restrictions and freely movement .
What is wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement?
These both terms ( wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement) are different from each other. Wrongful restraint is defined under Section 339 of the IPC and wrongful confinement is defined under Section 400 of the IPC. Wrongful restraint means when someone prevent someone to go in any direction, where the person has the right to proceed. Whereas wrongful confinement is the species of the wrongful restraint. In wrongful restraint there is partial restraint for a person but in wrongful confinement there is complete restraint of a person. The wrongful restraint is not a very serious offence because the restrictions in not in all direction but in wrongful confinement there is total restraint that’s why wrongful confinement is the serious offence as compare to wrongful restraint. The imprisonment in wrongful restraint is for 1 month or fine of rupees 500 or both but in wrongful confinement the imprisonment is for 1 year or fine of rupees 1,000 or both. This is the major difference between two.
IILLUSTRATION OF WRONGFUL RESTRAINT
A is the person who restraint Z another person from going to the way for market but A don’t restraint Z completely. Z can use another way to go market. Here A restraint Z partially and A is liable for wrongful restraint.
IILLUSTRATION OF WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT
A is a person who restraint Z another to go market by locking Z in the room. Now, here A restraint Z totally. Here A is liable for wrongful confinement.
Section 344 of IPC
Section 344 of IPC talks about the Wrongful confinement for ten or more days. Whoever wrongfully confines any person for ten days, or more, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.
This section talks about the wrongful confinement of a person for ten or more days. if a person do wrongful confinement to another person for ten days or for more than ten days the he or she is liable under this section. The person get the punishment for the three years or more than three years with fine. the offence under this section is get bail but with the permission of the court and by any magistrate.
ILLUSTRATION :
X is the master of Y. Y is the person who works in the house of X. Y take some money from X for his personal issues, but he promise to give that money to X with in 1 month but for some reason Y don’t have money to give X. One day X lock Y in a room and said that he will not open the lock until he didn’t get his money. And Y is get locked for 12 days. Here, X should give him more time or he can complain to police but he didn’t do that so, he is liable under section 344 of IPC. X get punishment for 3 years or more with fine.
A is the person and B is the another person, he is a thief. One day, B enter A premises and try to stole money. A caught B while stealing then A tide B with the rope in the room and don’t call the police. Here if A tide B and then call the police then it is permit able but A don’t call the police, instead calling police A lock him in a room for 10 days. A don’t have any right to punish or lock him in the room for 10 days but this is the duty for the court and police to punish B. But, A is liable for wrongful confinement and get punishment for 3 years or more than 3 years with fine.
CONCLUSION
By concluding this section. This section talks about the wrongful confinement for ten or more than ten days with the punishment of imprisonment for 3 years or less than three years with fine. Restraint and confinement to someone is not only illegal in IPC but the person who do wrongfully restraint and confinement to someone than he or she is violating another person’s fundamental right and for violating fundamental right (Article 19 and 21) that person can sue the another person in supreme court under article 32 of the Indian constitution.
CASES RELATED TO SECTION 344:
Two important case laws regarding section 344 of IPC are listed below:
M.S. Sheriff v. State of Madras AIR 1954 SC 397
Additionally, the Constitution Bench of this Court dealt with a precisely comparable circumstance in M.S. Sheriff v. State of Madras AIR 1954 SC 397, where two sets of proceedings arising from the same facts were pending: two civil suits for damages for wrongful confinement and additional two criminal prosecutions under Section 344 IPC for wrongful confinement. In that context, it was argued that simultaneously prosecuting these cases would shame the accused, thus the Court thought about whether or not to stay the criminal prosecution. In that situation, it was decided as follows: (AIR p. 399, para.15. We believe that the criminal cases should take precedence over the civil ones when comparing civil and criminal processes. The High Courts of India have differing viewpoints on this issue. There can be no absolute norm, but we don’t believe that the potential of rulings in the criminal and civil courts that clash should be taken into account. The law clearly forbids making a court’s decision binding or even relevant on another court, with the exception of a few specific circumstances, like sentencing or damages, indicating that it anticipates such a situation. The likelihood of shame is the only factor that matters in this situation.
K.G. PREMSHANKER v. INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ANOTHER
The learned attorney also cited the Apex Court’s decision in K.G. PREMSHANKER v. INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ANOTHER, reported in (2002) 8 SCC 87, and brought paragraphs Nos. 15, 16, and 24 to this Court’s attention. In that case, the Apex Court discussed Sections 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act. It is believed that Section 42 will have some significance and that civil court judgements and decrees will be important if they deal with issues of a public nature that are pertinent to the investigation. However, these judgements and decrees are not proof beyond a reasonable doubt of what they claim. Furthermore, it should be noted that in M.S. Sheriff v. State of Madras [AIR 1954 SC 397], the Constitution Bench of this Court dealt with a precisely comparable circumstance in which there were two sets of proceedings arising from the same facts that were pending: two civil suits for damages for wrongful confinement and additional two criminal prosecutions under Section 344 IPC for wrongful confinement.
BY: DIPANSHA AGRAWAL
LLOYD LAW COLLEGE