Dr.

Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law

University Lucknow

PROJECT
On
WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT

Under supervision of:

Submitted by:

Mr. R.K Yadav

Siraj

Mohammed Aamir

Asstt. Prof. (Torts)

Roll no. 81

B.A.LLB. (Hons) Section B

2nd semester

INTRODUCTION:

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. A 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.
Section 339. Wrongful restraint
Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person
from proceeding in any direction in which that person has right to
proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person.
Wrongful restraint means preventing a person from going to a place
where he has a right to go. In wrongful confinement, a person is kept
within certain limits out of which he wishes to go and has a right to go. In
wrongful restraint, a person is prevented from proceeding in some
particular direction though free to go elsewhere. In wrongful
confinement, there is restraint from proceeding in all directions beyond a
certain area. One may even be wrongfully confined in one's own country
where by a threat issued to a person prevents him from leaving the shores
of his land.
WRONGFUL RESTRAINT:
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. A 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.
Section 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.
Object The object of this section is to protect the freedom of a
person where his personal liberty has totally suspended or abolish, by
voluntarily act done by another.
Ingredients:
I. Wrongful confinement of person.
1. Wrongful restraint of a person
2. Such restraint must prevent that person from proceeding beyond
certain limits.
Prevent from proceedings:
Wrongful confinement is a kind of wrongful restraint, in which a person
kept within the limits out which he wishes to go, and has right to go.
There must be total restraint of a personal liberty, and not merely a partial
restraint to constitute confinement.
For wrongful confinement proof of actual physical obstruction is not
essential.
Circumscribing Limits:
Wrongful confinement means the notion of restraint within some limits
defined by a will or power exterior to our own.
Moral force: Detention through the excise of moral force, without the
accomplishment of physical force is sufficient to constituted this section.
Base
Section339- Restraint

Section 340-Confinement
Degree of Offense
Wrongful restraint is not a serious offence, and the degree of this offense
is comparatively lees then confinement.
Wrongful confinement is a serious offence, and the degree of this offense
is comparatively intensive then restraint.
Principle element
Voluntarily wrongful obstruction of a person personal liberty, where he
wishes to, and he have a right to.
Voluntarily wrongfully restraint a person where he wishes to, and he has a
right to, within a circumscribing limits.
Personal liberty
It is a partial restraint of the personal liberty of a person. A person is
restraint is free to move anywhere other than to proceed in a partial
direction.
it is a absolute or total restraint or obstruction of a personal liberty.
Nature
Confinement implies wrongful restraint.
Wrongful confinement not implies vice-versa.
Necessity
No limits or boundaries are required
Certain circumscribing limits or boundaries require.
Conclusion persuasion is not obstruction, physical presence, for
obstruction is not necessary, reasonable apprehension of force is
sufficient, restraint implies will and desire are some of the salient features
of such decisions.

PUNISHMENT FOR WRONGFUL :

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.
Legal provisions regarding Punishment for wrongful confinement
under section 342 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Punishment for wrongful confinement:

As per Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code, 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.

Earlier, wrongful confinement was called false imprisonment.

According to Winfield, it means the infliction of bodily restraint which is
not expressly or impliedly authorized by law. However in IPC, false
imprisonment, was substituted by wrongful confinementIngredients of Wrongful Confinement
The essential elements of Wrongful Confinement are:
1) Wrongful restraint of a person or total restraint or complete deprivation
of liberty without lawful justification.
2) Such restraint must prevent the person from proceeding beyond certain
circumscribing limits.
Wrongful confinement is a species of Wrongful restraint. In wrongful
restraint there is only a partial suspension of ones liberty or locomotion,
while in wrongful confinement there is a total suspension of liberty
beyond certain circumscribing limits. Section 340 refers only to a
confinement which is wrongful in the sense of its being illegal.
Confinement is a form of restraint in which a person is restrained from
going beyond certain prescribed limits and it becomes wrongful if the
restraint is illegal and the person is prevented from going where he has a
right to go.

To support a charge of wrongful confinement, proof of actual physical

obstruction is not necessary. It is sufficient, if such an impression was
produced on the mind of the victim as to create a reasonable apprehension
that he was not free to depart and that he would be forthwith restrained, if
he attempted to do so.
The mere threat of some future harm in case of departure will not be
sufficient if the victim knows that it is open to him to go away and he
refrains from doing so. But if the circumstances were such as to justify
and create the belief that he cannot depart without being seized
immediately, then it would amount to wrongful confinement.
The detention of the person wrongfully confined must be involuntary. He
must be unwilling to remain within the circumscribed limits prescribed
for him. If he submits, because he must, it is no willingness.
The offence of wrongful confinement is an offence affecting human
body and cannot be said to have been committed if a person is not
confined himself but the liberty of going in the conveyance in which he
wishes to go or taking the article which he wishes to carry and without
which he is not willing to proceed is denied to him.
Detention through the exercise of moral force, without the
accompaniment of physical force or actual conflict, is sufficient to
constitute wrongful confinement.
Malice is not an essential requirement in the offence of wrongful
confinement.
The time during which a person is kept in wrongful confinement is
immaterial, except with reference to the extent of
punishment. Section 343 to 348 deal with aggravated cases of
confinement.

SECTION 343:
Whoever wrongfully confines any person for three days, or more, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term, which may
extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
SECTION 344:
Whoever wrongfully confines any person for ten days, or more, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term, which any
extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.
SECTION 345:
Whoever keeps any person in wrongful confinement, knowing that a writ
for the liberation of that person has been duly issued, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
two years in addition to any term of imprisonment to which he may be
liable under any other section of this chapter.
SECTION 346:
Whoever wrongfully confines any person in such manner as to indicate
and intention that the confinement of such person may not be known to
any person interested in the person so confined, or to any public servant,
or that the place of such confinement may not be known to or discovered
by any such person or public servant as hereinbefore mentioned, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to two years in addition to any other punishment to which he may
be liable for such wrongful confinement.
SECTION 347:
Whoever wrongfully confines any person interested in the person
confined, any property or valuable security or of constraining the person
confined or any person interested in such person to do anything illegal or
to give any information which may facilitate the commission of an
offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.
SECTION 348:

Whoever wrongfully confines any person for the purpose of extorting

from the person confined or any person interested in the person confined
any confession or any information which may led to the detection of an
offence or misconduct, or for the purpose of constraining the person
confined or any person interested in the person confined to restore or to
cause the restoration of any property or valuable security or to satisfy any
claim or demand, or to give information which may lead to the restoration
of any property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall
also be liable to fine.
CASES:
1. In Ramji Lal vs. State 53 (1994) Dlt 829, There ... on 26 February,
2010
During the investigation, not only statement of witnesses were recorded
by the investigating officer but also statement of prosecutrix was got
recorded under section 164 Cr. P. C; the prosecutrix was also got
examined medically/pathologically in the Gynae Department. Accused
Umesh Kumar Ram was also examined medically. The inner Contd.....
Clothes of prosecutrix were also sent to FSL Rohini, Delhi for scientific
opinion. In addition, the prosecutrix's parents also gave her birth
certificate record to the investigating agency, which was seized by memo.
1.3 On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed
under section 342/354/376/511IPC and after compliance of statuary
provisions of law inclusive of section 207 Cr. P. C., the case was
committed to the court of sessions here Ld. Addl. PP for State opened the
case. 2.1 The case was opened in the session's court. The accused was
charged under section 376/511 IPC that on 04.05.2008 at about 3:00 pm
at T-42, Karampura, Moti Nagar, Delhi, he attempted to commit rape on
prosecutrix (a minor girl of 7 years age); he has also been charged
under section 342 IPC that he wrongfully confined the prosecutrix for less
than one hour at the said place. The accused Umesh Kumar Ram has also
been charged under section 354 IPC on that day, time and place, he used

criminal force to the prosecutrix, intending to outrage, and knowing it to

be likely that he would thereby outrage, the modesty of prosecutrix by
such assault or criminal force. However, the accused Contd.....
per prosecution case, prosecutrix apprised her mother/PW-3 about the
episode and from such narration, recorded by the police, it does not make
out any case of attempt to rape. Further, on plain reading of the entire
evidence of star witnesses, it was never the case of prosecution that the
accused removed his clothes or of the prosecutrix, there is no evidence to
the effect that the attempt to rape or penetration was intended or acted by
the accused. The undergarments of prosecutrix, vaginal swabs and blood
guage of accused was taken but report of FSL is not against the accused
and there is also no medical opinion against the accused. The prosecution
failed to prove the charge of attempt to rape.
3.3 According to the prosecution case/PW-1, she came to watch television
at the room of accused, because of glaring reflection from the door, the
prosecutrix herself closed the door, she also explains that the door was not
bolted either by the PW-1 herself or by the accused. It suggest that the
accused had no intention to make wrongful confinement or do
any wrong act, the charge under section 342 IPC could not have been
proved.
Contd.....
3.4 On the basis of evidence on record, particularly the contentions like
referred in the paragraphs No.3.2 & 3.3, above, there is also no evidence
of criminal assault or criminal force to outrage the modesty of the
prosecutrix. There were other persons in the room and feature of case as
projected by the prosecution are improbably, since the statement of
defence witnesses proves the case of accused that no event took place but
he was implicated on the point of dispute of fetching water and loan
amount. The accused deserves acquittal.
4. The rival contentions are assessed in the light of evidence on record
and statutory provisions of law. In order to appreciate them, the
requirement
of
law
for
attempt
to
rape
under section
376/511 IPC, wrongful confinement under section 342 IPC and of assault

or criminal force to a woman that intend to outrage her modesty

under section 354 IPC, are reproduced hereunder The essential ingredients of section 375 IPC read with section 376 IPC
are:discussed.
5.2 On consolidated reading of evidence of star witnesses, in the form of
their oral testimony vis-a-vis the statement of Raju Chaurasia or statement
under section 164 Cr. P. C of prosecutrix on medical evidence available
and the scientific opinion received, charge of attempt to rape undersection
376/511 IPC or wrongful confinement under section 342 IPC could not
have been proved but charge under section 354 IPC of assault or criminal
force to a woman with intend to outrage her modesty has been proved, for
the following reasons:
(a) Prosecutrix/PW-1 came at the house of accused voluntarily, out of her
own volition and she was feeling inconvenient to watch television
because of light reflection from the door, she herself had closed the door.
The door was neither bolted by the prosecutrix nor by the accused;
(b) As per statement of PW-3, mother of prosecutrix, she was first
apprised of episode that the prosecutrix has been teased by the accused by
inserting finger in her vagina. The prosecutrix in her statement
under section 164 Cr. P. C Ex. PW1/A states that the accused was wearing
vest and short, the prosecutrix was wearing frock and a top; the accused
made the prosecutrix to sit over him and then started rubbing/moving her
on his lower part of the body. PW-4 Dr. Vimal Sharma had examined the
prosecutrix medically and Dr. Karamjeet Kaur, Senior Resident
(Gynealogy) examined the prosecutrix from the gynealogical point of
view. The prosecutrix herself told Dr. Kamaljeet Kaur alleged the history
of fondling of private parts. By consolidated reading Contd.....
(d) In Ramji Lal Vs. State 53 (1994) DLT 829, there were approximate
similar circumstances of attempt to rape, victim was of 3 years old but
evidence on record was an attempt to fondle the vagina and the case was

treated as proved under section 354 IPC, from converting attempt to rape
under section 376/511 IPC;
(e) In Tara Dutt vs. State 2009 IV AD Delhi 780, that the case of fondling
was considered an assault or criminal force to a woman with intend to
outrage her modesty and it was also discussed that child sex abuse is
extremely grave offence, which may be termed as digital rape but there is
no piece of legislation to deal with such child sexual abuse like digital
rape;
(f) The FSL result Ex. PW-10/A comprises undergarments of prosecutrix,
her vaginal swabs but no semen was found on the undergarments or
micro-slides derived from the Contd.....
prosecutrix;
(g) The medical evidence in the form of statement of doctors or the record
of MLC or the opinion in FSL result, do not establish the charge of
attempt to rape;
(h) There is no evidence that the prosecutrix was wrongfully confined in
the room since she was already in the room of her own volition and
prosecutrix tried to weep, she was left to go out from the open room. It
does not establish that there was an intention to confine her wrongfully or
the attempt to rape her, & (I) the statement of defence witnesses are
contradictory to each other to the extent that DW-1 or DW-2 cannot be
believed, as DW-1 says that he was sleeping from 1 pm to 5 pm, it means
he does not know what happened since he was sleeping and on the other
side DW-2 deposed that they were not sleeping but just lying on the
ground, however, the specific averment of DW-2 that they were lying on
the ground is a deliberate and conscious version as DW-2 was examined
on another date subsequent to the statement of DW-1. Their statements do
not disprove the case of the prosecution.
2. Hafizur Rahaman Alias Chandan vs The State Of West Bengal on
14 July 2015

4. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the FIR was drawn up and
after completion of investigation, a Charge Sheet was submitted against
the petitioner and others under Sections 120B/395/397/365 of the IPC.
5. The contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the offences of
'Dacoity' punishable under Sections and 397 respectively, as also the
offence of "Abduction or Kidnapping" punishable under Section 365 of
the IPC are not made out. According to the petitioner when the original
FIR itself discloses the involvement of only three persons in the alleged
occurrence, there cannot be any offence of 'Dacoity' committed, since the
involvement of a minimum of 5 persons is a pre-requisite to constitute the
same. Furthermore, since there is no allegation of any attempt to cause
death or grievous injury to any person at any time, so the ingredients of
the offence under Section 397 are totally missing. According to the
petitioner, there is no allegation in the FIR that the person taken from the
complainant's office by the alleged culprits in the white car was taken by
force or by any deceitful means, and the fact that he was made to get
down from the car near the Camac Street Crossing clearly goes to show
that there was never any intent to cause any injury or to confine him
secretly or wrongfully. As such even the ingredients of the offence of
kidnapping or abduction punishable under Section 365 of the IPC are not
attracted.
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.
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. A is thus
prevented from proceeding in any direction beyond the circumscribing
line of wall. A wrongfullyconfines Z.
365. Kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully
to confine person - Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person with intent to

cause that person to be secretly and wrongfully confined, shall be

punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
10. In this backdrop it cannot be said that there was absolutely no
involvement of five persons in the entire operations carried out by the
culprits, even though the complainant Hiralal Joshi might have noticed
only the three persons who had actually entered inside the premises and
taken away the money by representing themselves to be CID Officers. It
cannot be automatically inferred that by silently showing the firearm
hanging on the left side of his body, one of the culprits had not impliedly
cause fear of instant injury in the mind of the person who noticed the
same. Furthermore, the fact that the witness Raju Jat actually
accompanied the culprits after being asked by them to come along with
them also cannot automatically imply that in his mind, he would not have
entertained any fear of avoidable harassment if not actual arrest or
imprisonment if he chose not to accompany them as asked. While it has
been been urged on behalf of the petitioners that the fact that they had
released the witness near the Camac Street Crossing is indicative of the
fact that they had no intention to wrongfully confine him or cause any
physical harm, but the fact is that consent of the person concerned was
obtained either under an implicit fear of bodily harm or harassment, and
in any event certainly under the false representation that he was
accompanying those whom he was given to understand were CID
Officers, which in fact they were not. Furthermore, the fact that the
witness remained in the custody of four of the culprits inside the car in
which he was taken till he was later released by them, itself amounts to
wrongful confinement within the meaning of Section 341 of the IPC, how
so ever brief that period of confinement might have been.

Few more illustrations of Wrongful Confinement:

The following are some of the illustrations of wrongful confinement:

1) In Jay Engineering Works v. State of West Bengal [AIR 1968 Cal. 407]
a large number of laborers gheraoed the management staff without giving
them freedom to move above and gherao (physical blockade of a target,
either by encirclement intended to blockade the ingress or egress from
and to a particular office, workplace, etc.) was held to be illegal
amounting to the criminal offences of wrongful restraint and wrongful
confinement.
2) In Behary Sing v. R [7 W.R. 3], it was held that police officers are
empowered to arrest and detain persons in custody for a period of twentyfour hours and any detention beyond that period would, therefore, be
necessarily illegal.
3) In State v. Balakrishnan [1992 Cr.LJ 1872 Mad.], the accused was a
Police Officer and he arrested the relative of the complainant. The
complainant went to Police Station and asked the accused what offence
was committed by his relative. The accused ordered the complainant to
stand in the corner of the Police Station till late night. He was not allowed
to go and seek legal remedies.
The accused contended that the complainant was at liberty to go away
from the Police Station. The Court held that the accused committed the
offence of wrongful confinement as he used his authority in a wrongful
manner.
4) In Shamlal Jairam v. Emperor [4 Bom. LR 79] a head constable
detained some persons as suspects for several days. They were not
fettered but they were made to stay in a circumscribed limit. Their meals
were either brought to them or they were sent under escort to their houses
for meals and were brought back. It was held that the head constable was
guilty under Section 340.

The difference between Wrongful restraint and Wrongful

Confinement:

Wrongful restraint:
The expression Wrongful restraint implies keeping a man out of a place
where he wishes and has a right to be. Section 339 defines it thus:
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.
To cite an illustration. A obstructs a path along which Z has a right to
pass, B not believing in good faith that he has a right to stop the path, Z is
thereby prevented from passing. A wrongfully restrains Z. Similarly, B
threatens to set a savage dog at Z if Z goes along a path along which Z
has a right to go. Z is thus prevented from going along that path. B
wrongfully restrains Z.

Difference between wrongful confinement and wrongful restraint:

As regards difference between the two, wrongful confinements, in the
first place, is a form of wrongful restraint. It is keeping a man-within
limits out of which he wishes to go and has a right to go while wrongful
restraint is keeping a man out of a place where he wishes to go, and has a
right to be.
In the second place, in wrongful confinement a person is restrained from
moving beyond a certain area within which he is confined, but in
wrongful restraint he is free to move anywhere other than to proceed in a
particular direction.
In other words, there is full restraint in the former, but only partial in the
latter. And lastly, wrongful confinement is a more serious offence
inasmuch as it prescribes punishment with imprisonment, simple, or
rigorous, extending to one year, or fine up to Rs. 1,000, or both, while
wrongful restraint is punishable with simple imprisonment up to one
month or with fine up to Rs. 500 or with both.

Conclusion:
As according to my research questions there are clearly laws and
mentioned in the Indian Penal Code for Wrongful restraint and
which are being followed by the government stringently.
As for the answer to the second question is also clear that there are
specific sections mentioned in the IPC for the punishment of
wrongful restraint and are also explained to the extent that there is
no iota of doubt about the punishments.
Well as far as the part of intention is concerned in the wrongful
confinement act it is still skeptical as according to few cases if I
refer there was the intention of a person or a group of people in
confining the plaintiff so it is difficult to figure out the role of
intention in wrongful confinement.

Bibliography:

http://likemindness.blogspot.in/2010/11/wrongful-restraint-andwrongful.html
http://www.indianlawcases.com/Act-Indian.Penal.Code,1860-1792
http://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=wrongful%20confinement
http://www.shareyouressays.com/119070/punishment-for-wrongfulconfinement-section-342-of-ipc