Law and You > Criminal Laws > Indian Penal Code > Aggravated Forms of Wrongful Confinement (Ss. 343 to 348 IPC)
The Constitution of India confers the right to freedom of movement to every person throughout the territory of India and guarantees personal liberty under Article 19 and Article 21. Section 339 of Indian penal Code defines wrongful restraint. To safeguard individual’s right to liberty against deprivation by an individual or groups other than State, the Indian Penal Code 1860 has made wrongful restraint wrongful confinement punishable under Section 339 to 348.
Wrongful Confinement:
Wrongful confinement is defined under Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is serious offence. Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code provides punishment for wrongful confinement.
Section 340 IPC:
Wrongful Confinement:
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.
Illustrations:
(a) A causes Z to go within a walled space, and locks Z in. Z 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.
Ingredients of Section 340:
To invoke Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code following ingredients are to be satisfied:
- A person voluntarily restraint any person; and
- The act is done in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond circumscribing limits
Wrongful confinement means, a person is wrongfully restrained from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits. For example – Tying a person to a tree or locking up a man in a room amount to wrongful confinement.
The chief ingredient of the offence is the placing of a person in such wrongful restraint that he cannot go beyond the circumscribing limits. Once the door is locked the persons living on the upper floor are confined to that flat and cannot come out. This will amount to wrongful confinement.
If one man merely obstructs the passage of another in a particular direction whether by threat of personal violence or otherwise, leaving him at liberty to stay where he is or to go in any other direction if he pleases is not confinement. But it would be restraint. There can be no wrongful confinement when a desire to proceed has never existed, nor can confinement be wrongful if the person confined chooses to remain where he is detention of person wrongfully confined must be against his will. A person may have its boundary large or narrow, visible, and tangible, or though real still in the conception only. it may have itself be movable or fixed.
Section 342:
Punishment for Wrongful Confinement:
Whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Case Laws:
In State of Gujarat v. Keshav Lai Maganbhai Jogani, 1993 CrLJ 248 Guj case, it was discussed by the court that “For a charge of wrongful confinement, proof of actual physical restriction is not essential. It is sufficient if the evidence shows that such an impression was produced in the mind of the victim, a reasonable apprehension in his mind that he was not free to depart. If the impression creates that the complainant would be forthwith seized or restrained if he attempts to escape, a reasonable apprehension of the use of the force rather than its actual use is sufficient and important.”
In State v. Balakrishan, 1992 CRILJ 1872 case, where 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 Madras High 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 offence of wrongful confinement.
In Venkatachala Mudali, 1993 CRILJ 2514 case, the Court held that for the offence of wrongful confinement proof of actual physical restriction is not necessary it is sufficient if evidence shows that an impression is created in the mind of the victim as to create a reasonable apprehension in his or her mind. In other words we can say that detention through the exercise of moral force without the accompaniment of physical force is sufficient to constitute the offence
In Gopal Naidu v. Unknown, (1923) 44 MLJ 655 case, where two police officers arrested without warrant a person who was drunk and creating disturbance in a public street and confined him in the police station, it was held that the arrest having been made by the police officers without warrant for a non-cognizable offence, their action amounted to wrongful confinement.
In in case Supro Sunno Ghosau, (1866) 6 W.R.(Cr.) 88 case, the Court held that to constitute an offence under this section the period of confinement is immaterial. But the period of confinement becomes material for the purpose of determining the extent of punishment.
In Emperor vs Bandu Ebrahim, (1918) ILR 42 BOM 181 case, Accused No.1 was a pimp in the brothel and accused No. 2 was a brothel keeper in Bombay. The complainant, Vithibai was brought in this brothel and was confined by the accused. She was not allowed to move out or go anywhere. She was always supposed to be there only. There were also guards at the door to prevent her and other females to move out. It was held by the court that both the accused were guilty under Section 343 of the Indian Penal Code for wrongful confinement and were sentenced for one-year rigorous imprisonment
Aggravated Forms of Wrongful Confinement:
Section 343 IPC:
Wrongful Confinement for Three or More Days:
Whoever wrongfully confines any person for three days, or more, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Ingredients of Section 343:
- All the ingredients of Section 340
- Confinement is for three or more days
Punishment:
Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Classification of Offence:
The offence under this Section is cognizable, bailable, compoundable with the permission of the court and triable by any Magistrate.
Section 344 IPC:
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.
Ingredients of Section 343:
- All the ingredients of Section 340
- Confinement is for ten or more days
Punishment:
Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Classification of Offence:
The offence under this Section is cognizable, bailable, compoundable with the permission of the court and triable by any Magistrate.
Section 345 IPC:
Wrongful Confinement of Person for Whose Liberation Writ has been Issued:
Whoever keeps any person in wrongful confinement, knowing that a writ for the liberation of that person has been duly issued, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years in addition to any term of imprisonment to which he may be liable under any other section of this Chapter.
Ingredients of Section 345:
- All the ingredients of Section 340
- A writ habeas corpus had been duly issued
- The accused knew about the issue of the aforesaid writ and in spite of it kept the complaint in confinement wrongfully.
Punishment:
Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years in addition to any term of imprisonment to which he may be liable under any other section of this Chapter.
Classification of Offence:
The offence under this Section is Cognizable, Bailable, Non-compoundable and triable by a Magistrate of first Class.
Section 346:
Wrongful Confinement in Secret:
Whoever wrongfully confines any person in such manner as to indicate an intention that the confinement of such person may not be known to any person interested in the person so confined, or to any public servant, or that the place of such confinement may not be known to or discovered by any such person or public servant as hereinbefore mentioned, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years in addition to any other punishment to which he may be liable for such wrongful confinement.
Ingredients of Section 346:
- All the ingredients of Section 340; and
- Such Confinement was Secret
Punishment:
Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years in addition to any other punishment to which he may be liable for such wrongful confinement.
Classification of Offence:
The offence under this Section is cognizable, bailable, compoundable with the permission of the court and triable by any Magistrate.
Section 347 IPC:
Wrongful Confinement to Extort Property, or Constrain to Illegal Act:
Whoever wrongfully confines any person for the purpose of extorting from the person confined, or from any person interested in the person confined, any property or valuable security or of constraining the person confined or any person interested in such person to do anything illegal or to give any information which may facilitate the commission of an offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Ingredients of Section 347:
- All the ingredients of Section 340; and
- Such Confinement was for the purpose of
- extorting from the confinee, or
- constraining the doing of an illegal act by the confinee, or
- giving information facilitating the commission of any offence
Punishment:
Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Classification of Offence:
The offence under this Section is cognizable, bailable, non-compoundable and triable by any Magistrate.
Section 348 IPC:
Wrongful Confinement to Extort Confession, or Compel Restoration of Property:
Whoever wrongfully confines any person for the purpose of extorting from the person confined or any person interested in the person confined any confession or any information which may lead to the detection of an offence or misconduct, or for the purpose of constraining the person confined or any person interested in the person 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 of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Ingredients of Section 348:
- All the ingredients of Section 340; and
- Such Confinement is used for extorting confession or for compelling restoration of Property
Punishment:
Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Classification of Offence:
The offence under this Section is cognizable, bailable, non-compoundable and triable by any Magistrate.
Conclusion:
Under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), there are aggravated forms of wrongful confinement that carry more severe penalties compared to simple wrongful confinement. These aggravated forms are addressed in various sections of the IPC. Section 343 deals with wrongful confinement for three or more days. Section 344 deals with wrongful confinement for ten or more days. Section 345 deals with wrongful confinement of person whose liberation writ has been issued. Section 346 deals with wrongful confinement in secret. Section 347 deals with wrongful confinement to extort property or restrain illegal act. Section 348 deals with wrongful confinement to extort confession or compel restoration of property.