WRONGFUL RESTRAINT &

WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT

Sec 339 & 340

Introduction
 Freedom a human is interfered either fully or partly
 A person is prevented from going to a place where
he has a right to go
 Nature of offences – does not involve physical
injury to the body of the person but only affects the
person’s freedom of movement
 Those offences:
 Wrongful restraint
 Wrongful confinement
 Kidnap and abduction
WRONGFUL RESTRAINT
 Sec 339
 “Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person, so as to
prevent fro proceeding from 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 obstruct 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.
Elements for wrongful restraint
 Voluntarily obstruct any person
 The obstruction must be such as to prevent that
person from proceeding in any direction
 That person has a right to proceed in that direction
 The obstruction should have not been done in good
faith
Obstruction
 Must be so complete and the successful as to
prevent the person obstructed from proceeding in a
direction, which he has the right to proceed.
 May be physical or by menace and threats
 Verbal prohibition does not amount to obstruction
 Obstruction must be in relation to a direction in
which that person has a right to proceed
Wrongful restraint vs robbery
 Normally, wrongful restraint is committed for the purpose of committing
robbery.
 Robbery - Section 390 PC.
 (1) In all robbery there is either theft or extortion.
 (2) Theft is 'robbery', if, in order to commit theft, or in committing the theft, or
in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft,
the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person
death, or hurt, or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death, or of instant
hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.
 (3) Extortion is 'robbery', if the offender, at the time of committing the
extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear and commits the extortion
by putting that person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant
wrongful restraint to that person or to some other person, and, by so putting
in fear, induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing
extorted.

 See: Yong Kar Mun v Pendakwa Raya [2011] MLJU 1296

 Explanation - The offender is said to be present if he is
sufficiently near to put the other person in fear of
instant death, or instant hurt, or of instant wrongful
restraint.
 ILLUSTRATIONS
 (a) A holds Z down, and fraudulently takes Z's money
and jewels from Z's clothes, without Z's consent.
 Here A has committed theft, and, in order to commit
that theft, has voluntarily caused wrongful restraint to
Z. A has therefore committed robbery.
Mohd Alif Marzuq bin Mohd Noor v Pendakwa
Raya[2010] MLJU 599

 Perayu dalam kes ini, Mohd Alif Marzuq bin Mohd Noor telah
bersama-sama dengan seorang lagi dihadapkan di Mahkamah
Sesyen Johor Bahru dengan satu pertuduhan merompak secara
berkumpulan, satu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 395 Kanun
Keseksaan. Pertuduhan terhadap mereka dibaca seperti berikut:-
 Bahawa kamu bersama-sama, pada 17/11/2007 jam lebih kurang
12.30 malam, bertempat di Rumah No. 94A, Jalan Sekoi, Bandar Baru
UDA, Tampoi, di dalam Daerah Johor Bahru, di dalam Negeri Johor
Darul Ta'zim telah melakukan rompakan berkumpulan terhadap
penama ALIJAH BINTI HASSAN KP: S 1161086 B dengan mengambil
2 utas gelang tangan harga RM4,800, satu rantai leher harga
RM2,800, satu pasang anting-anting harga RM300, sebentuk cincin
harga RM700 dan wang tunai RM100, jumlah keseluruhan lebih
kurang RM11,400. Oleh itu kamu bersama-sama telah melakukan satu
kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 395 Kanun
Keseksaan.
Setelah meneliti Rekod Rayuan, keterangan saksi SP1 menunjukkan
perkara-perkara berikut telah dilakukan oleh perayu terhadap SP1:-

 (a) SP1 telah dipaksa untuk menyerahkan wang RM100 kepada perayu;
 (b) Perayu menggugut untuk membogelkan SP1 dan SP1 menjadi takut;
 (c) SP1 telah diikat kaki dan tangannya kepada kerusi didalam bilik dalam rumah
tempat kejadian.
 Mulut SP1 telah diplasterkan dan kepala SP1 telah diselubung dengan kain oleh
perayu;
 (d) SP1 telah ditumbuk dipipinya oleh perayu apabila SP1 menjerit minta tolong;
dan
 (e) Jari manis tangan kanan SP1 luka dipotong dengan gunting oleh perayu;

 Keterangan SP1 telah disokong oleh keterangan saksi Nor Syakila (SP6) bahawa
SP1 telah diugut oleh perayu untuk menyerahkan duit. SP6 juga melihat perayu
juga telah mengikat kaki dan tangan serta memplaster mulut SP1. SP6 juga melihat
perayu telah mengambil sebilah gunting dan telah menggugut dan mencederakan
SP1. SP6 juga menyatakan perayu telah menampar dan menumbuk SP1 apabila
SP1 enggan memberitahu dimana lagi dia menyimpan barang kemas.
 Daripada keterangan yang diberikan oleh SP1 (mangsa) dan
keterangannya disokong oleh keterangan SP6, jelas menunjukkan
bahawa SP1 bukan sahaja telah dikurung secara salah (wrongful
restraint) kerana beliau telah diikat kaki dan tangan serta mulut,
malah SP1 turut telah dikasari secara ganas oleh perayu.
 SP1 telah ditampar, ditumbuk dan dicederakan oleh perayu. Manakala
rakan sejenayah hanya membantu dalam kejadian tersebut. Dalam
keadaan sedemikian, barang kemas milik SP1 kemudiannya telah
diambil dengan tanpa keizinan oleh perayu. Kelakuan perayu
memenuhi tafsiran rompakan seperti diperuntukkan di bawah seksyen
390 (2) Kanun Keseksaan. Oleh kerana rompakan itu dilakukan secara
bersama oleh perayu dengan seorang lagi tertuduh, maka kesalahan itu
adalah merupakan rompakan secara berkumpulan, satu kesalahan di
bawah seksyen 395 Kanun Keseksaan.
Court:
 Atas alasan-alasan tersebut, saya berpendapat
bahawa perayu telah melakukan satu
kesalahan rompakan berkumpulan di bawah
seksyen 395 Kanun Keseksaan. Oleh itu
keputusan hakim bicara mensabitkan
kesalahan perayu di bawah seksyen tersebut
adalah betul dan wajar. Sekaligus, rayuan
perayu terhadap sabitan wajar ditolak dan
sabitan oleh hakim bicara dikekalkan.
Punishment
 Sec 341
 “Whoever voluntarily restrains any person shall be
punished with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to one month, or with fine which may
extend to one thousand ringgit, or with both”.
Wrongful confinement
 A person is prevented from going to certain place
by certain limit
Sec 340 PC
 “Whoever voluntarily restrains any person in such
a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding
beyond certain circumscribing limit, is said
“wrongfully to confine” that person”.
Illustration
 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.
 A places men with fire-arms 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.
Elements
 Wrongful restraints of a person
 The restraint is to prevent that person from
proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits
 There must be a voluntary obstruction to the person
so as to prevent him from proceeding in any
direction in which he has the right to proceed
 Wrongful confinement is an aggravated form of
wrongful restraint and is the keeping within limits
out of which a man wishes to go and has a right to
go.
 Mere words and sitting around a person would not
satisfy the requirements of wrongful restraint.
 To constitute wrongful confinement, there must be
established at least an impression of obstruction in
the mind of the person detained as to lead him
reasonably to believe that he is not free to depart
and that if he attempted to do so, he would be
forthwith restrained.
 The restraint must be immediate.
 There can be no wrongful confinement where the
victim has no desire to proceed or if the person
affected consented.
PR v Isa bin Johnit [1994] 3 MLJ 218

 The respondents were charged with an offence

under section 348 of the PC for wrongfully
confining a person (SP2) for the purpose of
extorting from his father (SP13) the sum of
RM426,767. SP13 had started a get-rich-quick
scheme in which the first respondent had allegely
invested RM345,000
Syed Ahmad Idid J:
 (1) Jika kita petik dari Ratanlal & Dhirajlal's Law of Crimes (23rd
Ed) maka jelas 'wrongful
 confinement, which is a form of wrongful restraint, is keeping a
man within limits out of which he wishes to go and has a right to
go'.
 (2) Adakah gerak-geri responden 'prevent' SP2 'from proceeding',
iaitu sekat kebebasannya? 'The retaining of a person in a particular
place or the compelling of him to go in a particular direction by
force of an exterior will overpowering or suppressing in any way
his own voluntary action, is an imprisonment on the part of him
who exercises that exterior will.'
 (3) Mengikut SP2, semasa di kedai, dia tidak cuba minta tolong atau
melepaskan diri dan dia rasa sedikit simpati terhadap responden-
responden. Justeru itu, SP2 bersetujulah menolong responden-
responden.
 Absence of a desire to move on the part of the person confined no doubt
detracts from it being an offence under this section but mere omission of
an attempt to run away when there is no watch does not mean absence of
desire.
 (4) Mengikut keterangan yang dikemukakan oleh tuan timbalan pendakwa
raya:
 A prison may have its boundary large or narrow, visible and tangible, or,
though real, still in the conception only; it may itself be movable or fixed;
but a boundary it must have; and that boundary the party imprisoned must
be prevented from passing; he must be prevented from leaving that place,
within the ambit of which the party imprisoning would confine him,
except by prison breach.
 Ini ada berkait dengan 'wrongful confinement' (pengurungan salah) di
bawah s 340 Kanun Jenayah: 'Barang siapa menghalang dengan salah
seseorang secara yang menahan orang itu keluar dari sesuatu had yang
terlingkung, adalah dikatakan "mengurung dengan salah" orang itu.‘
Court:
 It was clear that the first, second, third and fourth
respondens had committde an offence under
section 340 (not section 348) of the Penal Code for
wrongfully confining SP2.
 Public Prosecutor v Ini Abong & Ors [2008]
MLJU 568
Punishment
 Sec 342
 ‘Whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be
punished with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to one year, or with fine which may extend
to two thousand ringgit, or with both’.
Differences between wrongful restraint and
wrongful confinement
wrongful restraint wrongful confinement

1 preventing a person from moving/ preventing a person from moving/ going

going to another place that he has a to another place that he has a right to go
right to go

2 one form of wrongful restraint

3 A person is restrained from going to A person is restrained from moving

one direction which he has a right to beyond certain area within which he is
go (but he is free to more anywhere) confined

4 Punishment is more/ serious/ aggravated

from of wrongful restraint
Aggravated forms of wrongful confinement

Offences of aggravated confinement Punishment Sec

Wrongful confinement for 3 or more days Imprisonment up to 2 years, fine or both 343

Wrongful confinement for 10 or more days Imprisonment up to 3 years and shall be 344
liable to fine

Wrongful confinement of person for whose Imprisonment up to 2 years, in addition to 345

liberation a writ has been issued any term of imprisonment to which he may
be liable

Wrongful confinement in secret Imprisonment up to 2 years, in addition to 346

any term of imprisonment to which he may
be liable
Wrongful confinement for the purpose of extorting Imprisonment up to 3 years, and shall also 347
property or constraining to an illegal act be liable to fine

Wrongful confinement for the purpose of extorting Imprisonment up to 3 years, and shall also 348
confession or of compelling restoration of property be liable to fine
Cases
 R v Plattery (1877) 2 QBD 410.
 R v William [1923] 1 KB 340.
 PP v Teo Eng Chan & Ors [1988] 1 MLJ 156.
 Augustine Foong Boo Jang v PP [1990] 1 MLJ 225.
 Jamaluddin Hashim v PP [1999] 4 MLJ 1.
 Fateh Muhammad [1928] 29 Cri LJ 602.
 Tan Teck Yam v PP [1957] 1 MLJ 57.
 Lilabati Kanji Lal [1966] Cri LJ 838.