Law of Crimes – I (Indian Penal Code)

Fourth Semester (Paper – IV)

Wrongful Restraint and Wrongful Confinement

Introduction

Wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement are offences related to the human
body. Committing these two offences would mean that it is violative of the right of a person
given in Article 19 and 21 of the Indian constitution.
Both the offences of wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement may appear to be the same
but are not. Proper understandings of these two offences become a lot more necessary
because the punishment for wrongful restraint is comparatively less to the punishment of
wrongful confinement.
The category of “Wrongful Restraint and Wrongful Confinement” in the Indian penal Code
(IPC), classifies the section dealing with the offence of restraining or confining a human
body, wrongfully.1 It is not letting the person be at a place where he is rightfully allowed and
legal to be so. There is offence defined and punishment given in the set of sections under this
category.

Wrongful Restraint
First, let us understand the meaning of restraint. Restraint means the action of keeping
someone or something under control or, restricting someone’s personal liberty or freedom of
movement. Wrongful restraint is defined in Section 339 of the Indian Penal Code. Section
339 defines what “wrongful restraint” 2 is and the punishment for the same is given under
section 341.3

“339 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
1
Sections 339 to 348 of Indian Penal Code, 1860
2
Section 339 of IPC
3
Section 341 of IPC
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.

In a simpler language, it means intentionally blocking someone’s right to move from one
place to another. It is important to note that restraining someone’s right physically is not the
only factor which constitutes restraint. Threats to restrain someone’s right of way to proceed
will also constitute wrongful restrainment. Wrongful restraint is a partial restraint because
only a particular direction is restricted and not all the directions of a person to move is
restricted.
It is not an offence under this section when a person in good faith believes himself to have a
lawful right to prevent another person’s private way over land or water.

Ingredients
The essentials of this offence are as follows –
(i) Purposefully or voluntarily obstructing a person.
(ii) To prevent him to move in any direction.
(iii) Where the person has a right to move or proceed.
(iv) An obstruction was in bad faith.

Punishment
Punishment for wrongful restraint is defined under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code.

“341 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”

Wrongful Confinement
Confinement means the action of restraining or restricting someone in a place or within
boundaries. Wrongful confinement is defined in Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code. The
term “Wrongful Confinement” is defined in section 340,4 and its punishment is provided in
section 342.5 It says if any person is prevented from proceeding to any place beyond the limit
as prescribed by them, which is offensive when they are illegally forcing the victim to do so.

“340. 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 the 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 leave the building, A wrongfully confines Z.
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.”

In simpler language, it means restricting a person’s right to move within restricted limits in
which he has a right to move. Wrongful confinement is full restrainment because a person is
restricted within a defined space or area.

Ingredients
The essentials of this offence are as follows –
(i) Without any lawful justification restraining a person’s right to proceed wrongfully
and completely.
(ii) Such a restrainment should prevent a person to move beyond defined limits.

In the case of Deep Chand v. State of Rajasthan,6 the victim being a son of a wealthy man
was forced to go with the accused who were masked. After following the commands of the
accused, the victim was confined for 17 days until the demanded amount was received by the
victim’s father. Even though the victim was released, the confinement for 17 days amounted

4
Section 340 of IPC
5
Section 342 of IPC
6
AIR 1961 SC 1527
to wrongful confinement and wrongful restraint. Thus, the accused were made liable under
section 347 along with other sections.7
In the case of State of Gujarat v. Keshav Lai Maganbhai Gujoyan 8, it has been observed by
the court that, for a person to be confined wrongfully does not require physical restriction or
obstruction. Thus, the court stated that the accused must have created reasonable
apprehension in the minds of the victim that he is confined at a place and if he or she tries to
escape one will be obstructed or restricted forthwith.
Thus the essence of wrongful confinement is to have made sufficient apprehension of
confining and does not require physical restraint.

In the case of Shyam Lal Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh9 the police officer who learnt
that few officers are believed to have demanded bribes from the drivers at a traffic barrier, the
police officer decided to carry out a raid. When the officer raided, there was no warrant but
an arrest memo which the accused initially accepted. But later on, when the police officer
was on the road, he was thrown onto a chair, seized and taken inside the office.
The accused claimed that the raid was illegal and hence he had a right to obstruct. As an
exception, the accused pleaded that the search violated section 165 of Cr.P.C. The court
rejected the contention and held that police official or any public servant could not be made
an exception to this section. This section is considered to be a general one and is universally
applicable. Further, the forced restraint and confinement of any person would be a violation
of the penal laws. Hence, he can be made liable under section 342 along with section 353 of
IPC.10
Even the police officer who violates the law and confines a person illegally will be liable
under section 342 of the Indian Penal Code. 11 Further, the question of whether a police state
would be considered as a place of confinement. In the case of State v. Balakrishnan12, the
court decided that no one has the liberty to leave the police station at any time freely. It is a
place where if one enters, they have to be subject to the jurisdiction of the police officials. It
is not wrongful confinement until and unless the arrest or confinement is contrary to law or
ultra vires.
7
Deep Chand v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1961 SC 1527
8
1993 Cri.L.J 248 Guj
9
AIR 1972 SC 886
10
Shyam Lal Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1972 SC 886
11
Deelip Bhikaji Sonawane v. State of Maharashtra (2003) 2 Mah LJ 629
12
1992 Cr.L.J 1872 Mad
Points to be remembered
(i) Without any desire to proceed or to move, there cannot be any wrongful confinement
in that case.
(ii) If there is a consent by the person for the confinement, it cannot be said that it is
wrongful confinement.
(iii) Proof of actual physical obstruction is not essential in wrongful confinement
(iv)In this section, the period of confinement is immaterial. The period of confinement
only becomes material while giving punishments as at that time it might vary.

Aggravated forms of Wrongful Confinement

Under this, the punishment of the crime is enhanced according to the period of confinement.
Section 343 states that whoever wrongfully confines any person for a period of three days or
more shall be punished with either imprisonment which may extend to two years, a fine, or
both.
Section 344 states that wrongful confinement for ten years or more shall be punished with
imprisonment which may extend to three years and shall be liable to pay fine.
Section 345 states that whoever keeps any person in wrongful confinement knowingly and
the writ to set him free has been duly issued, then they will be punished with imprisonment
which may extend to two years in addition to the imprisonment in which he may be liable for
such wrongful confinement.
Section 346 states that whoever wrongfully confines a person and keeps it a secret from
others or prevent them from knowing that the person is confined will be punished with
imprisonment which may extend to two years in addition to any other punishment to which
he may be liable for such wrongful confinement.
Section 347 states that whoever wrongfully confines any person with an intention to extort
from that person or from any person interested in that person confined, any property, or
valuable security or compelling the person or any person interested in that person confined to
do some illegal act will be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years and
shall also be liable to pay fine.
Section 348 states that whoever wrongfully confines any person for the purpose of extorting
any confession or any information which may lead to the detection of an offence or
misconduct or for the purpose of compelling the confined person to restore any property or
valuable security or giving any information which may lead to the restoration of any property
or valuable security will be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years and
will also be liable to pay fine.

Difference between Wrongful Restraint and Wrongful Confinement

Wrongful Restraint Wrongful Confinement

It is the genus, i.e. it is a wider term and It is a species of wrongful restraint i.e. a type
includes several types of restraints under it. of wrongful restraint.
It prevents a person from proceeding in a It keeps a person within certain
direction in which that person has a right to circumscribing limits.
proceed.
It is not a very serious offence and is It is a more serious offence and is punishable
punishable with lesser punishment. with a more severe punishment than
wrongful restraint.
There is only a partial suspension of one’s There is total suspension of liberty beyond
liberty. certain circumscribing limits.
Punishment: Sec. 341. Imprisonment to one Punishment: Sec. 342. Imprisonment to one
month, or fine Rs. 500/-, or with both. year, or fine Rs. 1000/-, or with both.