You are on page 1of 3

Wrongful Restraint and Wrongful Confinement

Submitted by: Prasun Kumar


Roll No. 1351
2nd year, B.A., LL.B.

Submitted to: Father Peter Ladis F


Lecturer in Law

Rough draft submitted in partial fulfillment of the course criminal law I for
completion of B.A., LL.B. (Hons Course)

7th September, 2016

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, PATNA


1. Introduction
The topic of this research work is wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement. Sections 339 to
348 of Indian penal code, 1860 deals with offences where a persons freedom of motion is
interfered with wholly or in part. Where a person is prevented from going to a place where he has
got the right to be, it is the offence of wrongful restraint and made punishable under section
341.However, if he is confined within particular limits against his desire to go outside those limits,
it is the offence of wrongful confinement defined in section 340 and punishable by section 342.
Sections 343- 348 deals with the aggravated forms of wrongful confinement.

The problem regarding the provision of wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement in the Indian
penal code 1860 as suggested by The Fifth Law Commission is that the punishment provided
for wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement is not appropriate. The law commission has
recommended for enhancement in the punishment in the punishment provided for wrongful
restraint and wrongful confinement and the abolition of graded punishment provided for wrongful
confinement.
An attempt has been made to study the topic along with the associated problem and to suggest the
requisite solution to the given problem.

2. Objective of the study

(i) The researchers aim for making this project is to study the provisions of wrongful restraint and
wrongful confinement.
(ii) The researchers aims to find out the differences between wrongful restraint and wrongful
confinement.
(iii) After going through the provisions, the researcher aims to suggest the proposals for reform.
(iv) The researcher also wants to make a comparative study between the provisions of law in India
and some other country.

3. Hypothesis
The researcher has assumed that,

(i) The reform suggested by the Fifth Law commission on enhancement of punishment for
wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement needs to be adopted in the Indian Penal Code, 1860
to the earliest.

(ii) Wrongful confinement is a species of Wrongful restraint.

4. Research Methodology
5. Source of Data

Primary Sources Indian penal code 1860, case laws.


Secondary Sources Books on destitute children, websites, journals, articles, magazines etc.
6. Limitation of the study
Owing to the large number of topics that could be included in the project, the scope of this research
paper is exceedingly vast. However in the interest of brevity and due to certain restrictions like
that of limitation of time, money etc., the researcher will not be able to deal with the topic in great
detail.

7. Scope of the Study

8. Tentative cauterization.
(i) Introduction
(ii) Origin of the law of wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement
(iii) Difference between wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement
(iv) Comparative study with respect to laws of other countries and case laws
(v) Conclusion and Suggestion

Bibliography

Secondary Sources

(i) K.T. Thomas and M.A. Rashid The Indian penal code, Haryana, Lexis Nexis, 2014.
(ii) K.D., Gaur Criminal law: Cases and Materials, Lexis Nexis, New Delhi, 2008.
(iii) K.I. Vibhute Criminal law, Haryana, Lexis Nexis, 2014.
(iv)Vahini Versha The Indian Penal Code, Haryana, Lexis Nexis, 2014.
(v)