Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA

SUBMISSION of ‘ICE Mode I: PROJECT’ for ‘Law of Crimes Paper I:

Penal Code I’
Submitted by:
Ankita Bal

PRN: 21010224203;
Programme: BBA.LLB.
Division: A
Semester: III
Year: 2nd Year
Batch: 2021-26

Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA

Symbiosis International (Deemed University), Pune

Topic Assigned: R invited few migrant labourers on his farm to work and asked one of them, N,
to stay overnight. During the night, R locked the door of the room where N was sleeping from
outside and did not allow N to leave that room for days. Upon being asked about the
whereabouts of N by other labourers, R lied that N had left the premises early morning. R took
special care that no one is able to detect the location where he kept N.
Identified Section from IPC: 340

Submitted to:
Ms. Megha Nagpal
Assistant Professor

Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA

Symbiosis International (Deemed University), Pune

(August-September 2022)
 DECLARATION FOR ‘ICE MODE I: Project’

This Submission is based on a hypothetical situation assigned to me, and is submitted by

the undersigned to Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA, Symbiosis International (Deemed
University), Pune for the course ‘Law of Crimes Paper I: Penal Code I’ as part of
Internal Continuous Assessment (ICE) Mode I: Project. The research work herein has not
been submitted elsewhere for award of any degree or any other purpose whatsoever.

The contents of the submission are original and not plagiarised. The material borrowed
from other sources and incorporated in the submission has been duly acknowledged.

I have also taken due care that the contents of my submission are not similar or same as
another learner’s submission for the aforesaid course.

I understand that I could be held responsible and accountable for plagiarism, if any, even
if detected later.

ANKITA BAL.

Date: September 6, 2022

Name of the Learner: Ankita Bal

PRN: 21010224203
Batch: 2021-26
Programme: BBALLB
Division: A

Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA

Symbiosis International (Deemed University), Pune

(August-September 2022)
 INDEX

Sl. No. Contents Page number

1. Declaration 2
2. Introduction 4-5
3. Issue – Rule – Analysis - Conclusion 6-9
4. A brief summarized conclusion of the research 10

(August-September 2022)
 INTRODUCTION

Wrongful confinement as defined under section 340, occurs when there is a restraint placed on a
person’s movement by limiting their movement from an area of where the person is restrained
and the motive of such confinement has to be a wrongful intention. The sections 339 to 348 have
the definitions of wrongful imprisonment or false imprisonment detailed in them.

In the given scenario, N is confined to a room by his employer R and his movement or activities
are restricted due to this action of confinement. R has the knowledge and the motive to confine N
as signified by his actions to extensively conceal his location and willingly lies about N’s
whereabouts when asked about his current location. This shows a certain depth for the scope of
research on the topic of false imprisonment by linking it to the given situation.

In order to satisfy a claim for the case of false imprisonment, the plaintiff must prove that the
requisite elements of false imprisonment are present in the constitution of the offence, these
being – complete deprivation of liberty, knowledge of restraint and unlawful detention.

Complete deprivation of liberty occurs when there is a total restriction on all reasonable means
for aiding the plaintiff’s escape from the premises they are confined in as is stated in the judicial
precedent as set by Syed Mahamad Yusuf-Ud-Din v. Secretary of State for India in Council
(1902-03) where the judgment verbatim states – “Nothing short of actual detention and complete
loss of freedom will support an action for false imprisonment.”

Knowledge of restraint is an essential wherein the plaintiff must be cognizant of the position they
are placed in due to such confinement. It is no longer a relevant and necessary essential as per
the judgment upheld in the case of Murray v. Ministry of Defence (1998).

The imprisonment should be of such nature that the detention cannot be lawfully justified as
there was no legal authority backing the action of such detention or there was an abuse of
authority by way of force, threat or coercion that the act in nature presents itself to be legally
unjustifiable. It is to be noted that actual physical restraint is not necessary for the commission of
false imprisonment. Linking the given scenario to suitable precedents and the provision of

(August-September 2022)
section 340 of the IPC, this research will delve deep into the subject of wrongful confinement
highlighting the necessary details as required inclusive of the essentials and the liability.

(August-September 2022)
 Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir1

FACTS: Shri Bhim Singh was restricted from attending the session of the Legislative Assembly
of Jammu and Kashmir which was to be conducted on 11th September 1985. Prior to this, Shri
Bhim Singh was suspended from the assembly on the opening day of the budget session of the
Assembly on August 17th 1985. Upon questioning the action of suspension in the High Court of
Jammu & Kashmir, the order of suspension was stayed as per the directions of the High Court as
on the date of 9th September 1985. Thereafter, on his journey from Jammu to Kashmir while he
was en route at about 3:00 AM, he was arrested by the police at the location of Qazi Kund about
70 kms away from Srinagar. Since Bhim Singh was unable to be traced and there was no
knowledge about his whereabouts, Smt. Jayamala acting on his behalf, filed a writ application to
direct the respondents to produce Shri Bhim Singh before the court, to declare his detention
illegal and to liberate him of such confines.

Additional information from the respondents state that an FIR was registered under section 153-
A of the Ranbir Penal Code as on the date of September 9th, 1985 at Police Station Pacca Danga,
Jammu on the grounds that the petitioner had delivered an inflammatory speech at a public
meeting held near Parade Ground, Jammu at 7:00 PM on September 8th 1985 consequent to
which on 10th September 1985 there arose a requisition for the arrest of Shri Bhim Singh. On 11th
September 1985, the Executive Magistrate First Class signed a remand to extend the stay of the
petitioner for two days under police custody. On expiry of the first remand granted by the
Executive Magistrate, a further remand was obtained for one day from the Sub-Judge with the
submission that the petitioner was sick. Due to being restricted from attending the session of the
Legislative Assembly, he could not register his vote and his right to vote was thus infringed. Shri
Bhim Singh was released on bail on September 16th 1985 by the Hon’ble Additional Sessions
Judge of Jammu before he was produced and after his release, he filed a supplementary affidavit
on 20th September 1985 providing contributory additional details to the submissions of his wife
Smt. Jayamala.

ISSUES –

1
Bhim Singh v. State of J & K, (1985) 4 SCC 677

(August-September 2022)
  Whether the given scenario is suitable enough to constitute a case of false imprisonment?
 Whether the petitioner’s constitutional rights were violated by the course of such
detention?
 How is the respondent to be held liable under the provisions of criminal law if a case of
false imprisonment is established against his favour?

RULE: Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person
from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said “wrongfully to confine” that
person.2

ANALYSIS: Firstly, on examining the submissions from the petitioner’s counsel, there is an
open denial of the submission that the petitioner was brought before the Magistrate on 11th of
September, 1985. The learned counsel of the petitioner further denied that his client was brought
before the Sub-Judge on the 13th September, 1985 nor had the client been examined by any
doctor for the attaining a medical certificate to present for the purpose of obtaining a remand for
a day from the Sub-Judge. However, the counsel for the petitioner accepted that their client was
produced before the Sub-Judge of Jammu on 14th September, 1985 to be remanded for 2 days in
judicial custody and further accepts that on 16th September, 1985, he was brought in front of the
Additional Sessions Judge and granted bail. Additionally and lastly, the petitioner’s counsel
emphasized that that petitioner was harassed while in police custody.

The counsels for the respondents contended that on 10th September 1985, the Police Control
Room sent a notice to the Superintendent of Police to arrest Bhim Singh and as per procedure,
the petitioner was taken to the District Headquarters and provided requisite necessary and proper
facilities or amenities of food, water, shelter and rest. They stated that the petitioner was brought
to Pacca Danga Police Station at 9:30 pm. It was stated that officers were stationed to pay
attention to whether the petitioner had travelled in utmost safety through the Udhampur region
and further contended that on 11th September 1985, the Executive Magistrate First Class signed a
remand to contain Bhim Singh under police custody for a period of 2 days and on lapse of the
remand so obtained for 2 days, a further remand was attained from the Sub-Judge with the
reasoning that Bhim Singh was sick on 13th September. After the expiry of the second remand,
the petitioner was brought forth before the Sub-Judge on 14th September, 1985 and another 2
days of judicial custody was acquired. Finally, it was submitted that on 16th September, 1985 the
petitioner was brought in front of the Additional Sessions Judge where his bail was granted.

2
Indian Penal Code, §6, No. 340, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India).

(August-September 2022)
The Supreme Court after thorough evaluations and due time spent due to attending the
contentions of the parties involved, finally reached the conclusion that the petitioner was
wrongfully confined. The Hon’ble Court noted that without a doubt the failure to file the
affidavits of the two police officers, who had taken Bhim Singh into arrest and produced the
petitioner before the Magistrate was deliberate. The orders of the remand that were obtained
from the respective legitimate authorities were obtained without the consideration or presence of
the petitioner before them. The Apex Court observed that by not taking into account, Shri Bhim
Singh’s valued presence and consideration, the Sub-Judge and Executive Magistrate First Class
acted either abusing their authority mala fide and intentionally aiding the officers or aiding
indirectly via a flamboyantly casual and callous attitude.

The fact that the petitioner was not presented before the Magistrate for a fair pleading on 11th
September 1985 and the Sub-Judge on 13th September 1985 was a clear violation of the rights of
the petitioner as he is empowered under Articles 21 and 22(2) and violating section 56 and 76 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Also, the Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that as the
Superintendent of Police, Udhampur was stationed and supplied with officers to escort Shri
Bhim Singh on September 9th – 10th, it is in fact in itself a telltale sign implying that the
respondents anticipated the petitioner to pass through Qazi Kund within those nights and his
arrest was indeed to prevent his attendance at the session of the Legislative Assembly on 11th
September 1985.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that – “if the personal liberty of a member of the
Legislative Assembly is to be played within this fashion, one can only wonder what may happen
to lesser mortals.” The Honourable Court upheld that there was a gross violation of the
constitutional rights of Shri Bhim Singh and he had the right to receive exemplary monetary
compensation of the sum of Rs. 50,000 /- from the State of Jammu and Kashmir within two
months from the judgment order.

The section of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 involved here is section 340 which deals with
wrongful confinement restricting movement of person from the bounds of a certain location or
marked out territory. Here, Shri Bhim Singh was wrongfully detained and not permitted to leave
the bounds of the Police Station for purposes benefitting the respondent. Herein, we can establish
a clear case of wrongful confinement.

(August-September 2022)
CONCLUSION: The legal principle that also formed the ratio decidendi in the case was injuria
sine damno which refers to violation or infringement of legal rights of a plaintiff/petitioner
without causing them any harm, loss or damage. False imprisonment occurs when the essentials
of what constitutes false imprisonment are present. This case had the petitioner deprived of his
personal liberty, the petitioner also had knowledge of him being restrained in police custody and
unlawful detention had taken place for wrongful purposes. In the publication of the judgment, the
court also cited the cases of Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar and Anr. (1983) and Sebastian M.
Hongray v. Union of India (1984).

(August-September 2022)
 A BRIEF SUMMARIZED CONCLUSION OF THE RESEARCH

As per the case scenario provided, the essentials of false imprisonment will apply to the given
situation. There is a notable deprivation of personal liberty and unlawful detention without
reasonable justification. As knowledge of restraint presents itself to be a superfluous and defunct
essential, it is not necessary to satisfy this essential. The employer and owner of the farm, R has
effectively attempted to conceal N’s location by responding to other workers that he left the
premises early in the morning and made concerted efforts to conceal his location. Under the
definition of section 340 in the Indian Penal Code, 1860, R can be held accountable for
wrongfully confining N. The punishment for wrongful confinement is stated in the section 342 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and it prescribes punishment for a term upto one year or a levied
fine not extending one thousand rupees or both.3 Thus, R is liable to the provision of section 340
and 342 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3
Indian Penal Code, §6, No. 340, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India).

(August-September 2022)