INTRODUCTION
Article 19 of the Indian Constitution claims to ensure the right to movement and personal liberty. This article explains that every individual has the right to move around freely and continue their trade throughout the country without any restriction. Similarly, Article 21 of the Constitution claims the protection of life and liberty, that means that no person can be deprived of personal liberty apart from the established law.
WRONGFUL RESTRAINT
Howbeit, wrongful restraint has been made a part of Indian Law through the 339th section of the Indian Penal Code. Wrongful restraint has been added in order to maintain liberty and protect the rights of individuals.
Breaking down the word “wrongful restraint”
Despite what the meaning of the words gives away, it is important to understand the meaning of wrongful restraint in terms of the law. The term ‘wrongful’ indicates injurious conduct and violation of rights whereas the word ‘restraint’ has been categorized as lawful and unlawful. Lawful restraint aims to prevent the occurrence of any violation of any law and rights of others on the contrary unlawful restraints aim to violate the law and the rights of others.
Defining Wrongful Restraint
Wrongful Restraint has been defined under Section 339 of the Indian Penal Code as:
“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.”[1]
In terms of the above definition, the word obstruct signifies obstruction through physical or threatening means, when an obstruction is unlawful it becomes wrongful restraint. Persons is another term which has been explained; the court in the case of Mahendra Nath Chakraborty vs Emperor[2] held that person means a human being and their personal liberty of a human being must be violated further explaining that the respective section is not only bound to a person who can physically walk on his legs or move within their power but to those too who can’t move.
In the case of Vijay Kumari vs Smt S.R. Rao[3] the Supreme Court laid down the necessary precondition that the victim must have the right to proceed.
Essential Elements of Wrongful Restraint
It is necessary to have the essential ingredients to institute a wrongful restraint, these include:
1. Presence of an obstruction
2. The obstruction must be caused voluntarily-
In the case of Arumuga Nadar vs Emperor[4], it was held that the complaint, his wife and his daughter occupied the house during the temporary absence and the accused locked the outer door, obstructing entry hence the accused was guilty of wrongful restraint.
3. The obstruction must prevent the complainant from taking action/proceeding in any form that the complainant has the right of.
Exceptions:
The exception states that:
“The obstruction of a private way over land or water which a person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstructs is not an offense within the meaning of the section.
Illustration – A obstructs a path along with Z has a right to pass. A not believing in good faith that has a right to stop the path. Z is thereby preventing from passing. A wrongfully restrains Z.”[5]
One defense for wrongful restraint is good faith. If the voluntary obstruction is made in order to prevent greater harm and in good faith of the complainant then the accused person will be held under no commission of the offense.
In the case Sovarani Roy vs King[6], the Court held that if the accused beliefs in good faith and that he has the right to prevent the complainant from passing over the land then he cannot be convicted for wrongful restraint.
WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT
Wrongful confinement and wrongful restraint can be analogous with a mild difference. It can be said that wrongful restraint is much more moderate than wrongful confinement.
Breaking down the word “wrongful confinement”
While the word ‘wrongful’ denotes injurious conduct and violation of rights, ‘confinement’ signifies a state of being forced to stay in or another place where you cannot leave.[7]
Defining Wrongful Confinement
Wrongful Confinement has been defined in the Indian Penal Code under Section 340 as:
“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”[8]
The following section talks about circumscribing limits as restraining an individual by limiting one’s will or exterior power. Furthermore, preventing from proceeding means total restrain on an individual’s liberty and confinement. Therefore wrongful confinement connotes fully restraining a person from proceeding beyond their limits.
State v Balakrishan[9]The petitioner was detained in a police station and the accused claimed that the complainant had the liberty to go from the police station. The Court held that if a citizen enters a police station, then the police officer has the authority to prevail jurisdiction and entertain the matter, thus it was held that the accused committed the offense of wrongful confinement.
Essential Elements of Wrongful Confinement:
Wrongful confinement is further divided into different types and forms, however, the main essential ingredients required for wrongful confinement are:
- Voluntarily restraint of any person
- The accused person must have wrongfully restraint the complainant, this means all the ingredients of wrongful restraint must be present
- The wrongful restraint must be done in a manner to prevent the individual from proceeding from their circumscribing limits beyond their right to proceed.
In the case of State of Gujarat v Maganbhai Jogani[10]The officers went to the accused’s house to interrogate him under the moneylender’s act, the complainant was restrained to go out of their house for some time but they didn’t use any force. The court held that the accused did not commit wrongful confinement.
The court held in the case of S.A Aziz v Pasam Haribabu[11] that since the police officer was guilty of offense of wrongful confinement, physical force is not necessary for wrongful confinement.
Type of Wrongful Confinement:
There are six types of wrongful confinement as mentioned in the Indian Penal Code:
- Wrongful confinement for three or more days – Section 343
- Wrongful confinement for ten or more days – Section 344
- Wrongful confinement of person who’s liberation writ has been issued – Section 345
- Wrongful confinement in secret – Section 346
- Wrongful confinement to extort property, or restrain illegal act- Section 347
- Wrongful confinement to extort confession, or compel restoration of property – Section 348.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WRONGFUL RESTRAINT AND WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT
The difference between wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement is a followed:
| Wrongful Restraint | Wrongful Confinement |
| Wrongful restrain means obstructing an individual from moving from one place to another when they have the whole right move. | Wrongful confinement means when a person gets restrained wrongfully from any proceeding that lies beyond certain circumscribing limits |
|
|
| Illustration: A obstructs a path along which Z has a right to pass. A not believing in good faith that he has a right to stop the path. Z is thereby prevented from passing. A wrongfully restrains Z.[12] | Illustration: ) A causes Z to go within a walled space, and locks Z in. A is thus prevented from proceeding in any direction beyond the circumscribing line of wall. A wrongfully confines Z.
(b) A places men with firearms at the outlets of a building, and tells Z that they will fire at Z if Z attempts to leave the building. A wrongfully confines Z.[13] |
| Wrongful restraint is a much wider term that includes various kinds of restraints under it. | Wrongful confinement is a type of wrongful restraint. |
| Wrongful restraint includes partial suspension of one’s liberty therefore it’s considered as a less serious crime. | Wrongful confinement, on the other hand, is a complete suspension of one’s liberty beyond certain circumscribing and therefore it’s considered to be a much harsher and serious crime. |
| Punishment for wrongful restraint according to IPC is that any person wrongfully restrains any person, then they shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to 1 month with a fine which may be extended or they can be fined with ₹500 or maybe punished with both the imprisonment and the fine | Punishment for wrongful confinement according to IPC is that if any person wrongfully confines any person, then they are punished with imprisonment for 1 year which may be further extended or they can be fined for ₹1000 or they may be punished with both imprisonment and the fine. |
CONCLUSION
Wrongful confinement is a serious offense as it violates the Right to Liberty under the Right of movement, and since the Right to Liberty is a fundamental right, it is considered to be a harsh offense.
Where wrongful restraint can be comprehended as restraint of life, which confirms restriction on an individual’s movement, wrongful confinement can be understood as a circle as it includes several types.
[1] http://www.bareactslive.com/ACA/ACT225.HTM#339
[2] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1147292/
[3] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/114925/
[4] Arumuga Nadar Vs. Emperor (1910) 11 Cr. LJ 708 (Mad)
[5] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/278610/
[6] Sovarani Roy v. King AIR 1950 Cal 157
[7] https://www.collinsdictionary.com/amp/english/confinement
[8]https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/bareacts/indianpenalcode/340.php?Title=Indian%20Penal%20Code,%201860&STitle=Wrongful%20confinement
[9]https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=junior%20hindi%20translator%20%20doctypes%3A%20judgments&pagenum=3
[10] State of Gujarat v Maganbhai Jogani 7 AIR2009 S.C 2594
[11] S.A. Aziz vs Pasam Haribabu and another 2003 6 Cri.L.j. 2462(A.P.)
This Article is Authored by Amna Ali, 2nd Year B.A LL.B (H) Student at Amity Law School, Amity University, Noida.
