CLAT 2019

Law of Crimes
Defamation &
Wrongful Restraint, Wrongful Confinement
Law of Crimes Session 10
 CLAT 2019

10.1 Defamation

 Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by

visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any
person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that
such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in
the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person.

Law of Crimes Session 10

 CLAT 2019

10.1 Defamation - Explanation

 1) It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person,

Law of Crimes Session 10
if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is
intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives.
 2) It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a
company or an association or collection of persons as such.

Law of Crimes Session 10

 CLAT 2019

10.1 Defamation - Explanation

 3) An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may

amount to defamation.
 4) No imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that
imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the
moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of
that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of
that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a
loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful.

Law of Crimes Session 10

 CLAT 2019

Illustrations:

(a) A says, "Z is an honest man; he never stole B's watch";

intending to cause it to be believed that Z did steal B's watch—this
is defamation.
(b) A is asked who stole B's watch. A points to Z, intending to
cause it to be believed that Z stole B's watch. This is defamation
unless it falls within one of the exceptions.
(c) A draws a picture of Z running away with B's watch, intending it
to be believed that Z stole B's watch. This is defamation.
Law of Crimes Session 10
 CLAT 2019

Exceptions:

• Imputation of truth which public good requires to be made

or published.
• Public conduct of public servant
• Conduct of any person touching any public question

• Publication of reports of proceedings of Courts.

• Merits of case decided in Court or Conduct of witnesses
and others concerned.

Law of Crimes Session 10

 CLAT 2019

Exceptions:

• Merits of public performance.

• Censure passed in good faith by person having lawful
authority over another.
• Accusation preferred in good faith to authorized person.
• Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of
his or other’s interests.

Law of Crimes Session 10

 CLAT 2019
PRINCIPLE: Whoever by words either spoken or intended to be
Ex-1 read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes
any imputation concerning any imputation concerning any
person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe
that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is
said to defame that person.
FACTS: In a community there is a custom of stealing shoes of bridegroom
during the marriage ceremony. The shoes of the bridegroom were stolen by Y,
A announced that Z has stolen the shoes. Everyone present in the marriage
party started staring at Z with great surprise. Z felt very ashamed.
(a) A defamed Z
(b) A did not defame Z
(c) A defamed Z for Z felt very ashamed
(d) A defamed the whole marriage party
Law of Crimes Session 10
 CLAT 2019

10.2 Wrongful Restraint and Wrongful Confinement:

• Any person is prevented from
going in a particular direction,
which he is normally entitled to
move.
• Partial Restraint
• Knowledge is necessary
• Movement allowed; no limit
prescribed
• Restraint of the liberty of person
without lawful justification
• Total restraint
• Knowledge is not necessary
• Movement allowed only to a
particular limit

Law of Crimes Session 10

 CLAT 2019

Ex-2 Principle : False imprisonment is a total restraint of the liberty of a

person, for howsoever short period of time, without lawful excuse.

Facts: A was driving down a road heading to her house. As she reached close
to her house, she found that a few people led by B, protesting against an
unfair law had blocked the road. There was no alternate road to her house
and hence she was stuck there for around 5 minutes.

(a) B and his group are liable for having falsely imprisoned A.
(b) B and his group are not liable for falsely imprisoning A, since they were exercising their right
to protest.
(c) B and his group are not liable for falsely imprisoning A, since they did not totally restrain the
liberty of A.
(d) B and his group are not liable for falsely imprisoning A, since 5 minutes is too short a time.
Law of Crimes Session 10
 CLAT 2019

Ex-2 Answer: (C)

Explanation:
The Principle states that false imprisonment is 'total
restraint' of the liberty of a person. So the relevant factor
is that the restraint should be absolute. In the facts its
given to us that a few people led by B had blocked the
only road to A's house. But this doesn't mean that there
was a total restraint on A. She had the option to go
elsewhere or even return.
Law of Crimes Session 10
 CLAT 2019

Legal Principle: False imprisonment is the confinement of a person without

Ex-3 just cause or excuse. There must be a total restraint of the person and the
onus of proving reasonable cause is on the defendant.

Factual Situation: A entered in B's park where there was an artificial lake for the boating. A
paid Rs100 for entering the park and has to pay Rs100 at the time of exit. A waited for 30
minutes but no boat was available. A came out, however, denied to pay Rs100 for exit, B
did not allow A to leave the park unless he paid Rs100 for exit. A sued B for false
imprisonment.

Decision:
(a) B is guilty of false imprisonment.
(b) B is not guilty of false imprisonment.
(c) A can lawfully refuse to pay Rs100 when no boat was available.
(d) A can ask for even Rs100 given for entering the park as B's services are deficient in the park
and can sue B for false imprisonment.
Law of Crimes Session 10
 CLAT 2019

Ex-4 Answer: (B)

 Explanation:
The principle states that the confinement of a person should be without
just cause and excuse. Only in such a case would it amount to false
imprisonment. In this case, B had a just cause to stop A from leaving the
park. B was also justified in asking for Rs. 100 to be paid at the time of
exit as the facts clearly mention that one had to pay Rs 100 at the time
of exit irrespective of the fact whether one gets to boat or not. Hence, B
is not guilty of false imprisonment as he had a just cause.

Options (c) and (d) do not need to be considered as deficiency in

service is not a relevant condition here.
Law of Crimes Session 10
 CLAT 2019

Ex-5 Principle : False imprisonment means the total restraint of

a person's liberty without lawful justification.
Facts: A part of a public road had been closed fo'r spectators of a boat race. 'P' wanted to
enter but he was prevented by 'D' and other policemen because he had not paid the
admission fee. 'P' was able to enter the enclosure by other means but was unable to go
where he wanted to go. The policemen refused access to where he wanted to go but
allowed him to remain where he was or to go back. 'P' remained within the enclosure and
refused to leave. Subsequently, 'P' sued 'D' for false imprisonment.

(a) 'D' could not be made liable for false imprisonment, as he did not totally restrict P's
movements.
(b) 'D' could not be made liable for false imprisonment as he has not touched him.
(c) 'D' could be made liable for false imprisonment, as he did restrict P's movements.
(d) It was a case of false imprisonment, but 'D' could not be made liable for it.
Law of Crimes Session 10
 CLAT 2019

Ex-5 Answer: (A)

Explanation:
The Principle given to us explains False Imprisonment as
total restraint upon a person's liberty. In this case,
although 'D' exercised restraint upon 'P' he was not totally
restrained as he still had the option to go back. Also,
there was a lawful justification to the restraint as 'P' had
not paid the admission fee. Hence, in this case 'D' cannot
be made liable for false imprisonment making option (a)
the most appropriate option.
Law of Crimes Session 10