Law and You > Criminal Laws > Indian Penal Code > Wrongful Restraint and Wrongful Confinement (Ss. 339 to 342 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 Restraint:
Section 339 IPC:
Wrongful restraint:
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.
Exception:
The obstruction of a private way over land or water which a person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct, is not an offence within the meaning of this section.
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.
Ingredients of Section 339:
- A person causes to obstruction to any person;
- Such obstruction is caused voluntarily; and
- The obstruction must be such as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which he has right to proceed.
To constitute the wrongful restraint physical presence is not necessary.
The objective of this section is to ensure that the freedom of a person is protected. When a person has a right to proceed in a particular direction then the law must ensure that such right is available to the person. Even if there is a slight unlawful obstruction, it is deemed to be wrongful restraint.
Restraint means an abridgment of the liberty of a person against his will. Wrongful restraint means obstructing a man from moving from one place to another place where he has right to be and wants to go. Wrongful restraint consists in preventing a man proceeding in some direction in which he wishes and has right to proceed.
The word obstruct signifies obstruction through physical or threatening means, when an obstruction is unlawful it becomes wrongful restraint. If obstruction is made in good faith and the accused believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct, no offence is committed, A person is justified in obstructing another from entering into a private way, over land or water, over which he has a legal right obstruct.
Section 341 IPC:
Punishment for Wrongful Restraint:
Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
Classification of Offence:
The offence under this Section is cognizable, bailable, compoundable by a person restrained or confined, triable by any Magistrate.
Case Laws:
In Sovarani Roy v. King, AIR 1950 CAL 157 case, where the complainant was the tenant of certain rooms of the ground floor and of the first floor of the premises concerned. The complainant used to use bathroom and a privy on the first floor. The complainant was away from his house for a day on returning he found the door of the bathroom and the privy on the first floor had been padlocked. The complainant claimed that the act restrained his movements and accordingly he made a complaint under Section 341, Penal Code. The Calcutta High Court held that if a person believes in good faith that he has the right to prevent the complainant from passing over his ground, he cannot be convicted of the offence of wrongful restraint. Court also observed that the framers of the Penal Code envisaged a very different class of case where the freedom of movement of a person had been affected not by locking a door but by other means.
In Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, AIR 1996 SC 309 case, where the accused stood in front of the victim in such a manner that she had to move backward, so it was held that from that act alone it cannot be said that he “wrongfully restrained” her within the meaning of section 339 to make him liable under Section 341 IPC.
In Madala Perayya v. Varugunti Chendrayya, AIR 1954 MAD 247 Mad case, where the facts were that, the accused and the complainant jointly owned a well and so both of them were entitled to use the water for agricultural purposes. The accused stopped the complainant from using the water and also stopped the bullocks of the complainant from moving. The Court held that the accused had committed eh offence of wrongful restraint under Section 339.
In Souri Prasad Patniak v. State of Orissa, 1989 CrLJ 169 Ori case, where the accused was a veterinary surgeon who did not receive payments for several months. When his superior officer visited the office and started back to go, the accused stood in front of the jeep and raised protest for non-payment of his salary. However, after his protest, he had given the way to jeep. The Orissa High Court held that the accused was not guilty of the offence of wrongful restraint.
In Lalloo Pd v. Kedarnath Shukla, 1963 CRILJ 543 Case, where the petitioner Lallu Prasad accused Dr. Shukla of entering his shop and accusing him of not paying the rent on time thus asking him to vacate the shop and on refusal to do so, Dr. Shukla took away the keys from the petitioner to lock the door. He locked the door and went his way to lodge a complaint against Mr. Lallu. Later on, it was found that Mr. Lallu broke the lock and put his lock on the door instead, therefore when he came to his shop the next day, Dr. Shukla was standing in front of the door with three men and threatened Mr. Lallu if he attempted to open the shop. According to the facts of the case, the defense put their argument forward by stating that he just went to the shop to ask for the due payment and due to the financial state of the complainant, he was not able to pay the rent so he voluntarily handed over the keys to Shukla. Shukla was not held liable for trespass as asking the tenant to vacate the space on non-payment of the due is legal but at the same time, the court also observed that Shukla did put a lock on the door of the shop therefore by locking the door he had restrained the petitioner to enter the shop thus found him guilty under Section 341 of IPC. He was charged with a fine of twenty rupees.
In re M. Abraham, AIR 1950 mad.233 case, where a driver of a bus purposely stopped the bus across the road in such a manner as to prevent another bus which was coming from behind from proceeding further. The Court held the bus driver guilty of an offence under S. 341, because the offence is complete as soon as the person proceeding is obstructed.
In Vijay Kumari Magee v. Smt. S.R. Rao, AIR 1996 SC 1058 case, where the complainants lady teacher who was a licensee of a hostel room could not have a right to live there after termination of her licence, and hence the school authorities couldn’t be charged for wrongful restraint in not allowing her entry in the room. The Supreme Court held that necessary pre condition for wrongful restraint is that a person concerned must have a right to proceed.
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
Distinguishing Wrongful Restraint and Wrongful Confinement:
| Wrongful Restraint | Wrongful Confinement |
| It is defined in Section 339 IPC | It is defined in Section 340 IPC |
| It is obstructing a person from proceeding in a direction in which a person has a right to move or proceed | Preventing a person to move in any direction by keeping him within circumscribing limits. |
| It is the genus, i.e. it is a wider term and includes several types of restraints under it. | It is a species of wrongful restraint i.e. a type of wrongful restraint. |
| It prevents a person from proceeding in a direction in which that person has a right to proceed. | It keeps a person within certain circumscribing limits. |
| It is partial restraint. The person can move to any other direction. | It is total restraint. |
| There is only a partial suspension of one’s liberty. | There is total suspension of liberty beyond certain circumscribing limits. |
| It is not a very serious offence and is punishable with lesser punishment. | It is a more serious offence and is punishable with a more severe punishment than wrongful restraint. |
Punishment: Sec. 341. Imprisonment to one month, or fine Rs. 500/-, or with both. | Punishment: Sec. 342. Imprisonment to one year, or fine Rs. 1000/-, or with both |
Aggravated Forms of Wrongful Confinement:
- Wrongful confinement for three or more days. (Section 343)
- Wrongful confinement for ten or more days. (Section 344)
- Wrongful confinement of person whose 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)
Conclusion:
Under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement are two distinct offenses, outlined in Sections 339 and 340, respectively. Wrongful restraint occurs when someone voluntarily obstructs another person to prevent them from proceeding in a direction in which they have a right to proceed. This obstruction could be physical or through other means, such as threats or intimidation. The key elements include voluntary obstruction, prevention of movement, and the person being obstructed having a right to proceed. The punishment for wrongful restraint is imprisonment for up to one month, or a fine which may extend to 500 rupees, or both. Wrongful confinement involves unlawfully confining a person against their will. This confinement could be physical, such as locking someone in a room, or by any other means that restrict their freedom of movement. The confinement must be unlawful, meaning it is done without legal justification or the consent of the person being confined. Wrongful confinement is a more serious offense compared to wrongful restraint. The punishment for wrongful confinement is imprisonment for up to three years, or a fine, or both.