Wrongful Restraint

WRONGFUL RESTRAINT
Introduction
 The Constitution of India confers the right to
freedom of movement to every person
throughout the territory of India and
guarantees personal liberty under Article
19 and Article 21.
 There are certain provisions that
safeguard personal liberty against deprivation
by an individual or group other than the State.
 Section 339 and 340 of Indian Penal Code,
1860 (IPC) define Wrongful Restraint and
Wrongful Confinement respectively. IPC
makes wrongful restraint and wrongful
confinement punishable under Section 339 to
348.
Meaning
The term ‘wrongful’ indicates injurious conduct
and violation of rights whereas the word ‘restraint’
has been categorized
as lawful and unlawful. Lawful restraint aims to
prevent the occurrence of any violation of any law
and rights of others on the contrary unlawful
restraints aim to violate the law and the rights of
others.
Definition
According to Section 339 of the Indian Penal
Code;
“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.”
The exception to this section is that if a person
in good faith believes himself to have a lawful
right to obstruct and so obstruct a private way
over land or water, then it does not amount to
wrongful restraint.
When a person obstructs another by-
1. Causing it to appear to that other person
that to proceed would be;
1. impossible
2. difficult
3. dangerous
2. Or by actually causing it to be impossible,
difficult or dangerous for that other person to
proceed
Illustration
 Chitra is walking on a public road on which she
has a right to pass. Rajesh obstructs this path
despite knowing that he had no right to stop
the path. As Chitra was prevented from
passing, Rajesh can be said to have wrongfully
restrained Chitra. The word obstruct signifies
obstruction through physical or threatening
means, when an obstruction is unlawful it
becomes wrongful restraint.
Ingredients
To establish the offence of wrongful restraint the
complainant must prove all the following
essentials:
1. That there was an obstruction:- Voluntary
obstruction means any kind of obstruction
which is done voluntarily with the knowledge
that it will keep the person out of the place
where his wishes to and has right to be, It can
be a physical obstruction which can be a
physical force or threat when such force or
threat is wrongful it becomes wrongful
restraint.
2. That the obstruction prevented the
complainant from proceeding in any direction:-
This section implies that the obstruction
should be of such a nature that it restraints the
person to which he has a right to proceed; in
other words we can say that the obstruction
must be a restriction on the normal movement
of a person, there should be a intention to
cause obstruction
3. That the person/complainant so proceeding
must have a right to proceed in the direction
concerned.
Objective
The objective of this section is to ensure that
the freedom of a person is protected. When a
person has a right to proceed in a particular
direction then the law must ensure that such
right is available to the person. Even if there is
a slight unlawful obstruction, it is deemed to be
wrongful restraint.
*It must be noted that to invoke this section

and to prove the offense under this section,
the complainant needs to prove his right of
way over the land.
Punishment
 Section
341 of IPC imposes punishment against
the wrongdoer under Section 339 with simple
imprisonment for a term which may extend
to one month or with a fine which
may extend to five hundred rupees, or with
both.
In the case of Shoba Rani vs. The King 1950-51,

the landlord was accused of preventing his
tenant who was the tenant from using the
bathroom. By stopping the tenant from using
something that he had the right to use, the
landlord had committed wrongful restraint
under Section 339.
Har Vansh Singh v. State of U.P. In this case a

boy of 15 years caught hold of a man from the
back to enable the accused his brother to
attack, it was held that the common intention
of the murder cannot be inferred therefore his
conviction got converted under section 339.
WRONGFUL
CONFINEMENT
Meaning
According to Section 340 of IPC “whoever
wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner
as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond
certain circumscribing limits is said to have
committed the offence of wrongful confinement.”
Illustration
 Radhika causes Anamika to go within a walled
space and locks Anamika in. Anamika is thus
prevented from proceeding in any direction
beyond the circumscribing line of the walls and
so Radhika has wrongfully confined Anamika.
 Locking up a man in a room amounts to
wrongful confinement.
Ingredients
The essential ingredients of the offense of
wrongful confinement are:
1) Wrongful restraint of a person- ‘Wrongful

confinement’ is a species of wrongful restraint
while in wrongful restraint there is a partial
suspension of one liberty and in wrongful
confinement there is total suspension of liberty
beyond certain prescribed limits.
2) Prevent the person from proceeding- This
section implies that such restraint must prevent
the person from proceeding beyond certain
circumscribing limits. There will be no wrongful
confinement when a desire to proceed has never
existed, nor can a confinement be wrongful if it
was consented to by the person affected.
3) Moral force- For the offence of wrongful

confinement proof of actual physical restriction is
not necessary it is sufficient if evidence shows that
an impression is created in the mind of the victim
as to create a reasonable apprehension in his or
her mind. In other words we can say that
detention through the exercise of moral force
without the accompaniment of physical force is
sufficient to constitute the offence
4) Forced to walk- Where a person is forced to

walk under duress to a particular direction than it
will be an offence under this section, it means an
act by which a person is prevented from
proceeding towards a particular direction.
Punishment
 Section 342 of IPC states that
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.
CASE LAWS
In the case of State of Gujarat vs. Keshav Lai
Maganbhai Gujoyan it was discussed by the
court that “For a charge of wrongful
confinement, proof of actual physical
restriction is not essential. It is sufficient if
the evidence shows that such an impression
was produced in the mind of the victim, a
reasonable apprehension in his mind that he
was not free to depart. If the impression
creates that the complainant would be
forthwith seized or restrained if he attempts
to escape, a reasonable apprehension of the
use of the force rather than its actual use is
sufficient and important.”
a case named Gopal Naidu v. Unknown 1922,

In this case, two police officers arrested
without warrant a person who was drunk and
creating a disturbance in a public street and
confined him in the police station, it was held
that the arrest having been made by the
police officers without a warrant for a non-
cognizable offence, their action amounted to
wrongful confinement.
Wrongful restraint Wrongful Confinement

It is the genus i.e. it is a It is species of wrongful
wider term and includes restraint i.e. type of
several types of wrongful restraint
restraints under it
It prevents a person It keeps a person within
from proceeding in a certain circumscribing
direction in which that limits
person has a right to
proceed
There is only a partial There is total
suspension of one’s suspension of liberty
liberty. beyond certain
circumscribing limits
Punishment section 341 Punishment section
Imprisonment upto 1 342. Imprisonment of 1
month or fine Rs 500 or year or fine Rs 1000 or
both both

Wrongful Restraint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wrongful Restraint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wrongful Restraint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WRONGFUL RESTRAINT

*It must be noted that to invoke this section

In the case of Shoba Rani vs. The King 1950-51,

Har Vansh Singh v. State of U.P. In this case a

1) Wrongful restraint of a person- ‘Wrongful

3) Moral force- For the offence of wrongful

4) Forced to walk- Where a person is forced to

a case named Gopal Naidu v. Unknown 1922,

Wrongful restraint Wrongful Confinement

You might also like