Wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement are crimes under the criminal code involving unlawful restriction of the freedom of movement of a person. Even though the terms may have several similarities, it is evident that they carry different legal consequences. This article expounds on the differences between wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), their meaning, objectives, ingredients, punishments, and important cases.
Meaning of Wrongful Restraint
Wrongful restraint is defined under Section 339 of the Indian Penal Code. Wrongful restraint is referred to as obstruction, which obstructs a person from proceeding in any direction to which he is entitled to proceed. It says that whoever wrongfully restrains any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond such restraint is said to commit wrongful restraint. In other words, it is the partial curtailment of a person's rights for free movement or restricting him or her from going in some direction without completely imprisoning within any barriers. The key essence of wrongful restraint is the restraint of an individual's free movement without confining such an individual to a particular boundary.
Unlike wrongful confinement, which absolutely restricts all movements, wrongful restraint only restricts the movement in one particular direction, thus leaving the individual free to move in any other direction.
Are you interested in pursuing a career in Law? The Legal School in collaboration with IndusLaw has created a unique 4-month program for a Certification in Mergers & Acquisitions, Private Equity and Venture Capital Laws for fresh law graduates as well as professionals looking to advance in their careers! Enquire now for details!
Ingredients of Wrongful Restraint
For wrongful restraint to constitute an offense, the following essential ingredients must be present:
Obstruction of movement: There is an obstruction that exists at the hand of the accused that prevents the complainant from moving in a particular direction to where they have a right to move. The obstruction can be physical in nature, like blocking a road, or other means, like threats.
Right to Move: The person injured must have a legal right to move in the direction from which he is being obstructed. If the person injured has no legal right to move that way, then the act cannot be termed as wrongful restraint.
Knowledge or Intent: The accused must either have an intention to cause obstruction to the movement of the injured person or must know that his act would cause obstruction to the victim's movement. It has to be a willful act.
No Total Confinement: The restraint must not amount to total confinement. The victim should be left with the liberty to move in other directions so that wrongful restraint becomes distinguishable from wrongful confinement.
Objectives of Wrongful Restraint
The object of wrongful restraint statutes is to protect an individual's right to liberty of locomotion. According to Indian law, the right to move about freely in any direction where he legally has a right still exists. The provision of wrongful restraint aims at protecting personal liberty by preventing others from wrongfully obstructing someone's movement. It ensures that no person be so restrained or overreached as to thwart the conduct of his day-to-day life. This also promotes public order. This is because no person shall wrongfully restrain another's right to freedom to move about in public passages.
Punishment for Wrongful Restraint
As defined in Section 341 of the IPC, the punishment for wrongful restraint is:
Imprisonment: Imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month.
Fine: It may go up to ₹500.
Both: The court can sentence both imprisonment and fine, which would depend upon the nature of the offense.
The punishment is relatively lenient because wrongful restraint is held to be a minor offense in comparison to wrongful confinement.
Notable Cases of Wrongful Restraint
Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan (1958):
On this, the Supreme Court held that wrongful restraint can be defined as a situation wherein a person is unlawfully stopped from moving in any direction to which he has a legal right so to move. Here, while pronouncing judgment, the court placed importance on the fact that to amount to wrongful restraint, there has to be some intentional act of obstruction.
S. Moideen v. State of Kerala (1994):
In the present case, the accused had erected physical obstructions on a public road, which restricted the movement of the complainant. Such an act has been held by the court to amount to an act of wrongful restraint inasmuch as the complainant had a legal right to move along the road but was prevented from doing so by the accused.
Check out the highest paid lawyer in India! And know about the highest paying law firms in India!
Meaning of Wrongful Confinement
Wrongful confinement is defined under Section 340 of the IPC as any act under which a person confines another in such a manner that he is restricted from going beyond certain limits. In other words, wrongful confinement is a more serious form of wrongful restraint because it involves the absolute curbing of the movement of a person within a boundary. It involves absolute restraint on the liberty of the victim, holding the victim within a definite boundary whether it is physical or implied, without lawful cause.
That is to say, wrongful confinement is the aggravated version of wrongful restraint. While wrongful restraint restricts the person from moving in a particular direction, wrongful confinement restricts a person from moving in any direction so as to keep him confined to a space.
Find out all about pursuing a Career in Law in India!
Ingredients of Wrongful Confinement
In order to make out the offense of wrongful confinement, the following essential ingredients must be proved:
Complete Restraint: The captive should be totally deprived of going out of a given area. Such restriction should not allow the captive out of the limits set forth by the attacker.
Definite Bounds or Boundaries: The victim must be restricted to definite boundaries. That boundary can be physical, such as a room or a building, or even conceptual, such as preventing a person from going beyond a certain point without physically confining the individual.
With or Without Intent: It should be either with or without the intention of confining the victim. Or he must know that his acts would automatically result in the confinement of the victim. There must be a conscious act to restrain the person from going beyond the established limits.
Without Lawful Authority or Excuse: It should be absolutely without any lawful authority or excuse. If restraint is legal as policemen acting on their authority, it would amount to wrongful confinement.
Objects of Wrongful Confinement
The main purpose of the legal provision on wrongful confinement was to protect a citizen's right to freedom and liberty. This law further provides that nobody should be deprived of the right to free movement or confined to any place against his will. This provision ensures the freedom of personal liberties and restrains unlawful confinements that may lead to physical and psychological vulnerabilities. It is from this principal perspective that Article 21 of the Indian Constitution maintains the fundamental rights of personal freedom as well as the right to life.
Punishment for Wrongful Confinement
According to section 342 of the IPC, penalties for wrongful confinement are as follows:
Imprisonment: imprisonment for a term that may extend to one year.
Fine: Up to ₹1,000.
Both: Both imprisonment and a fine can be given according to the seriousness of the offense by the court.
Enhanced Punishments for Aggravated Forms of Wrongful Confinement
Wrongful confinements can take aggravated forms in various ways. For these aggravated forms, IPC throws higher punishments like:
Confined for more than 3 days (Section 343): Imprisonment may extend to 2 years.
Wrongful confinement for a period exceeding 10 days (Section 344): Imprisonment may extend to 3 years.
Confounding a man for ransom (Section 347): Imprisonment may extend to 3 years
Confounding a man to compel him to do or omit to do any act which he is not legally compelled to do or omit to do against his will (Section 348): Imprisonment may extend to 3 years.
Notable Cases of Wrongful Confinement
Iqbal v. State of Maharashtra (1975):
It was a case of wrongful confinement by police authorities. In this case, the Supreme Court held that the detention of a person in a police lockup for reasons not covered under law was wrongful confinement. It established the principle that even the government authorities do not come within its immunity when an individual is wrongfully confined without lawful authority.
Bheem Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, 1985:
Here, the police wrongfully detained an MLA. It was held by the court that detention without following the proper legal procedure of the elected representatives is wrongful confinement. The Supreme Court directed that the state compensate the petitioner for illegal detention. The case brought into focus the state's duties toward protecting personal liberty and in observing the rule of law.
Difference Between Wrongful Restraint and Wrongful Confinement
While both wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement are on the same theme of preventing a person from moving freely without proper authority, they are in fact distinct on the level of the constraint imposed and the resulting legal consequences. This chapter details the comparison thus:
1. Nature of Restriction:
Wrongful Restraint: It involves preventing one from moving in one direction in which they had the right to move, though restraining them from moving in all directions.
Wrongful Confinement: Here, the case is weightier since one is limited within certain walls and restricted outside the walls.
2. Degree of Offense:
Wrongful Restraint: This offense is slight because one is able to move in other directions or areas.
Wrongful Confinement: This is a more serious crime since a person is completely restrained from moving about.
3. Punishment:
Wrongful Restraint: According to Section 341 of the IPC, punishment is there with up to one month's imprisonment or even a fine of ₹500, or both.
Wrongful Confinement: According to Section 342 of the IPC, this carries a punishment of up to one year's imprisonment or a fine of ₹1,000, or both.
4. Nature of Movement:
Wrongful Restraint: Restrains a person from making a particular movement but allows movement in all other directions.
Wrongful Confinement: Imprisonment within certain limits does not allow a person to leave the definite limits.
5. Examples:
Wrongful Restraint: Not allowing a person to go into a street or building.
Wrongful Confinement: Shuts someone inside a room or house.
CriteriaWrongful RestraintWrongful ConfinementDefinitionObstructs movement in a specific directionRestrains movement within certain boundariesScopePartial restriction of movementComplete restriction of movementSeverityLess seriousMore seriousPunishmentImprisonment up to 1 month or fine of ₹500Imprisonment up to 1 year or a fine of ₹1,000ExamplesBlocking someone's path on the streetLocking someone in a roomSection in IPCSection 341Section 342
Click here to read about the POSH Act!
Conclusion
While wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement denote unlawful restraint of a person's liberty, wrongful restraint is characterized by only partial obstruction, while wrongful confinement results in the complete deprivation of an individual's liberty to move. The knowledge of how to differentiate between them is essential in the proper application of the law because each of these two offenses is different from one another in its severity and punishment. It is through the keen review of the facts that legal practitioners must be able to discern whether any given act falls within the scope of wrongful restraint or wrongful confinement.
Difference Between Wrongful Restraint and Wrongful Confinement FAQs
1. What are wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement?
Wrongful restraint restricts a person from moving in a particular direction, whereas wrongful confinement completely confines a person within a certain boundary.
2. Can wrongful restraint turn into wrongful confinement?
Of course, the obstruction may become wrongful confinement when it escalates into complete restrictions within certain boundaries if wrongful restraint develops into wrongful confinement.
3. For wrongful restraint under IPC, what is the punishment?
Under Section 341 of the IPC, wrongful restraint will be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one month, or with a fine which may extend to ₹500, or with both.
4. What are the punishments for wrongful confinement?
Wrongful confinement, under Section 342 of the IPC, can even prolong to imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with a fine which may extend to ₹1,000, or with both.
5. How can a wrongful restraint or wrongful confinement offense be proved against a person?
A legal defense may be valid and can prove lawful justification for the obstruction or confinement, like exercising lawful authority, necessity, or consent of the person.
