BE N BY IAS

IAS Be An IAS \ By An IAS

Chapter XVI
Of Offences Affec ng The Human Body
Class-IV

By Jasbir Singh Bajaj

Former I.A.S officer (Law Expert)

info@beandbyias.com www.beandbyias.com 9958294810, 011-41644377 4, East Park Road, Karol Bagh, ND-110005
 CHAPTER XVI
OF OFFENCES AFFECTING THE HUMAN BODY
Of Wrongful restraint and Wrongful Confinement
Sections 339-348
Introduction
 Sections 339-348 of the Indian Penal Code, 1908 (hereinafter IPC) deal with the offences where a person’s
freedom of motion is interfered with, wholly or in part.
 Where a person is prevented from going to a place where he has a right to be, it is the offence of wrongful
restraint as defined under Section-339 of the IPC and its punishment is provided under Section-341, IPC.
 Where a person is confined within particular limits against his desire to go outside those limits, it is the offence
of wrongful confinement which is defined under Section-340, IPC and its punishment is provided under Section-
342.
 Sections 343-348 deal with aggravated forms of wrongful confinement.
Wrongful Restraint
 339. Wrongful Restraint.-
o 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.
o 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.
Meaning
 The term ‘wrongful restraint’ means the keeping of a man out of a place where he wishes to be and has a right
to be.
 The slightest unlawful obstruction to the liberty of a person to go when and where he likes to go cannot be
justified and hence punishable, provided he does so in a lawful manner. [Malady Peraiah v Voruganti
Chendraiah, AIR 1954 Mad 257; in Re Attappa Goundan, AIR 1951 Mad 759]
 In Re Shanmugham (1971) Cr LJ 182, it was held that the fact of physical obstruction, even by words, would fall
in the ambit of Section-339. Similar observations were laid down in Om Prakash Tilak Chand v State, AIR 1959
Punj 134.
Essential Ingredients of Wrongful Restraint
 The essential ingredients of wrongful restraint are as follows:
1. The accused obstructs voluntarily,;
2. The victim is prevented from proceeding in any direction; and
3. Such victim has every right to proceed in that direction. [Keki Hormusji Gharda v Mehervan Rustam Irani,
AIR 2009 SC 2594]
The expression “voluntarily”-
 Section-339 relates to the voluntary obstruction by the person. This section contemplates that there must be
obstruction attributable directly to the person charged. It does not include an act which is remote and of indirect
consequence which might obstruct the free movement of a person. [Re Venketaramiah 11 Cr LJ 192; Arumuga
Nadar v Emperor 11 Cr LJ 708 and also in Chhagan Vithal v Emperor AIR 1927 Bom 369]

Ph. No. 9958294810, 011-41644377 I Email Id: info@beandbyias.com I Website: www.beandbyias.com 1

The expression “obstructs”-
 Physical obstruction by mere verbal prohibition constitutes wrongful restraint.
 Obstruction, within the meaning of this section, must be physical obstruction although it may be caused by
physical force as well as by being a menace and using threats. [Nripendra Nath Basu v Kisen Bahadur, (1952) ILR
1 Cal 251]
 However, physical presence of the accused is not always necessary to constitute the offence of wrongful
restraint.
The expression “any person”-
 The obstruction contemplated under Section-339 must be to the passage of a person and not of cattle or of a
vehicle. Obstruction of a person only comes within the purview of Section-339.
 In Madhab v Nalini, AIR 1964 Cal 286, it was observed that an obstruction caused to a vehicle carrying
passengers amounts to wrongful restraint of the passengers. The fact that the passengers are free to get down
and proceed to the desired destination does not take the obstruction to the passengers outside the ambit of
wrongful restraint.
 In Raja Ram v State of Haryana, (1971) 3 SCC 945, a woman and a 13 year old boy were summoned to police
station for interrogation.
 The accused, a police officer, was found guilty of infringing proviso to Section-260, Cr.P.C. It was held that in
view of Section-160, Cr.P.C., detaining of a woman and a 13 year old boy in the police station would amount to
wrongful restraint. The accused was found guilty under Section-341, IPC but not under Section-342, IPC.
The expression ‘from proceeding’-
 The word ‘proceed not only includes the case of a person who can walk on his own legs or can move by physical
means within his own power. It also includes the case of a person proceeding by outside agency which in case of
a baby/infant would mean the agency of its natural protector or guardian. [Mahendra Nath Chakravarti v
Emperor, ILR 62 Cal 629]
The expression ‘in any direction’-
 These words include a vertical direction so that the section would cover the case of a person reasonably wanting
to go vertically upwards [Chhagan Vithal v Emperor, AIR 1927 Bom 369] or downwards. [In Re Telapola
Subbadu, 1 Weir 340 (2)]
The expression ‘in which that person has a right to proceed’-
 For an action to amount to ‘wrongful restraint’, the person concerned must have a ‘right to proceed’, in the
direction in question.
 In Vijay Kumari Magee v Smt SM Rao, AIR 1996 SC 1058, the complainant was in the occupation of a room in
the campus of Victoria School. A letter was addressed to her on 1 October stating that since the managing
committee has decided not to allow outsiders to reside in the campus, she was to vacate the room. The
complainant asked for some extension of time to vacate the room as the notice given was very short. Since she
failed to vacate by end October, her room was locked and she was prevented from entering her room.
 The Supreme Court held that no offence under Section-341 was established as the complainant had ‘no right to
proceed’ in the direction, viz, enter the hostel room. Since, the complainant had no right to enter the room on
the cancellation of her allotment, no offence under Section-341 was made out.
 The right to proceed may be vested in a person on account of his being a tenant or a licensee or right as a
member of public, etc.
License-
 This section applies only if a person is prevented from proceeding in a direction in which he has a right and not
when he has only a license to proceed.
Tenant-
 This section does not cover cases where there is no ordinary or special reason for a person to proceed in the
direction which is obstructed.

Ph. No. 9958294810, 011-41644377 I Email Id: info@beandbyias.com I Website: www.beandbyias.com 2

 In Sovarani Roy v King, AIR 1950 Cal 157, where a landlord prevented a tenant from going to and using a
bathroom and a privy by locking the door, and it was not established beyond a reasonable doubt that the
bathroom and privy were part of the tenancy and the tenant has a right to use them, it was held that the
landlord could not be convicted of the offence of wrongful restraint.
 However, a tenant, holding over, has a right to retain possession of the premises which he occupies, until he is
dispossessed in due course of law, and if the landlord blocks his passage to the premises, he is guilty of the
offence of wrongful restraint. [Gulam Mohammad Azam v Emperor, AIR 1919 Bom 97]
Offering Namaaz in Public Mosque-
 Every person professing Islam has a right to offer namaaz in a public mosque according to religious faith and
belief and the traditions.
 The Jama Masjid, the mosque in question, happens to be a public mosque. Therefore, prima facie the trustees of
the said mosque had no right to lock the doors of it for preventing the other persons of Harkul Budruk from
entering into the said mosque for offering namaaz and worshipping God as per the Islamic faith, belief and
traditions. [Noor Mohamed v Nadirshah Ismailshah Patel, (2004) Cr LJ 985 (Bom)]
Exception
 The exception provided under Section-339 specially exempts the obstruction to a private right of way from the
operation of Section-341, IPC.
 The question whether the complainant has acquired a right of way over the land of the accused, can be decided
authoritatively only in a civil court, and not in a proceeding under this section.
Wrongful Confinement
340. Wrongful Confinement.-
 Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond
certain circumscribing limits, is said “Wrongfully to confine” that person.
Meaning-
 Where a person is confined within particular limits against his desire to go outside those limits, it is the offence
of wrongful confinement.
 Section-340, IPC defines the offence of wrongful confinement and its punishment is provided under Section-342,
IPC.
 Wrongful confinement is a form of wrongful restraint. Wrongful confinement is the keeping of a man within the
prescribed limits, out of which he wishes to go and has a right to go.
Difference Between Wrongful Restraint And Wrongful Confinement-
Wrongful Restraint Wrongful Confinement

It is the genus, i.e. it is a wider term and includes It is a species of wrongful restraint i.e. a type of
1.
several types of restraints under it. wrongful restraint.

It prevents a person from proceeding in a direction It restrains a person within certain circumscribing
2.
in which that person has a right to proceed. limits.

It is a milder offence as compared to wrongful

It is a more serious offence and is punishable with a
3. confinement and is punishable with lesser
more severe punishment than wrongful restraint.
punishment.

There is total suspension of liberty beyond certain

4. There is only a partial suspension of one’s liberty.
circumscribing limits.

Punishment is provided under Section-341. Punishment is provided under Section-342.

5. Imprisonment upto one month, or fine Rs. 500/-, or Imprisonment upto one year, or fine Rs. 1000/-, or
with both. with both.

Ph. No. 9958294810, 011-41644377 I Email Id: info@beandbyias.com I Website: www.beandbyias.com 3

Essential Ingredients of Wrongful Confinement-
 The essential ingredients of wrongful confinement are as follows:
1. There must be wrongful restraint of a person, and
2. The restraint must be to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits beyond
which he/she has a right to proceed.
 In Deep Chand v State of Rajasthan, AIR 1961 SC 1527, the victim was the son of a wealthy businessman. One
day, two masked men entered his room and one of them had a revolver. The two persons threatened to shoot
him if he made any noise. They took him outside where two camels were waiting. The face of the victim was
covered with cloth. They took him on the camel for some distance and thereafter, he was taken to the house of
the accused where he was confined for 17 days. He was forced to write letters to demand ransom from the
victim’s father. After the ransom amount was paid, they released the victim.
 The court charged the accused under Sections-347, 365, 382 and 452 IPC.
The expression ‘in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond
certain circumscribing limits’-
 Neither in wrongful restraint, nor in wrongful confinement, is the liberty of movement totally restricted. Even in
wrongful confinement, the person confined is free to move within certain limits. He is prevented only from
proceeding beyond those limits. [Dhania v Clifford, ILR 13 Bom 376]
Physical obstruction- if necessary
 Proof of actual physical obstruction is not essential to support a charge of wrongful confinement. In each case, it
must be proved that there was, at least, such an impression produced in the mind of the person detained, as to
lead him reasonably to believe that he was not free to depart and that he would be forthwith restrained if he
attempted to do so. [Samir Saha v State of Tripura, (1998) Cr LJ 13760 (Gau)]
Duration of confinement is immaterial-
 The time during which a party is kept in wrongful confinement is immaterial, except with reference to the extent
of the punishment. Wrongful confinement even for a single hour is punishable under Section-342, IPC, unless it
is justified by law. [Empress v Suprosunno Ghosaul, 6 WR (Cr) 88(2)]
Rightful Confinement-
 It is pertinent here to mention that unless the confinement of the victim is wrongful, the offence under Section-
340 read with Section-342, IPC cannot be said to have been committed.
Habeas Corpus-
 In cases of wrongful detention of the victim, the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
maintainable before the High Court. However when a person having attained majority lives out of his/her own
free will, then such a writ is not maintainable.
 Thus, where the petition under Article 226 by the husband for the production and release of his wife was
allowed by the High Court, an appeal by special leave was filed by the wife against the order of the High Court,
the wife/appellant completed 21 years of age during pendency of the appeal before the Supreme Court,
observing that the petition for writ of habeas corpus was not maintainable as the court satisfied itself that the
appellant wife was not being detained against her will and without her consent, the Supreme Court reversed the
decision of the High Court. [Madhu Bala v Narinder Kumar, AIR 1982 SC 938]

Questions Previously Asked in Civil Services Exam:

Q1. The accused, one of the two joint owners of a shop, put her lock on the shop which was let out by another joint
owner without her consent. The tenant charged the accused with the offence of wrongful restraint in that he
was prevented by the lock from entering into the shop. Discuss in the light of legal provisions whether the
accused has committed the offence of wrongful restraint. [2012 4 (b)]
Q2. How do you distinguish between wrongful imprisonment and wrongful restraint? Explain with illustrations.
[1998 4(a)]

Ph. No. 9958294810, 011-41644377 I Email Id: info@beandbyias.com I Website: www.beandbyias.com 4