Section 340. Wrongful confinement.

From Advocatespedia, ASSN: 153632
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wrongful Confinement


Section 340 of Indian Penal Code says-

Wrongful confinement is defined under Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code. 1860. It is serious offence .Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code provides punishment for wrongful confinement.

1) Meaning: Wrongful Confinement -


Wrongful confinement means, a person is wrongfully restrained from advancing beyond certain constricted range.


Few instances – first tying an individual to a trunk of a tree, second locking up an individual in a room amount to wrongful confinement.

2) Definition : Wrongful confinement -


Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 describes wrongful confinement as, "whoever wrongfully restrains any individual in such a way as to restrict that individual from advancing beyond certain constricted range, is said "wrongfully to confine" that individual."


Illustrations:


(a) Ram causes Shyam to move within a walledj space, and locks Shyam. Shyam is thus prevented from advancing in any direction beyond the constricted line of wall. Ram wrongfully confines Shyam.


(b) Robert places men with firearms at the outlets of a building, and tells John that they’re going to fire at John if John attempts to run off the building .Therefore, Robert wrongfully confines John.



Essential criteria:


To invoke Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code following criteria are essential :


(i) An individual voluntarily restraint an individual.


(ii) The act is done in such a way as to restrict that individual from advancing beyond constricted range or limit.



3) Punishment for wrongful confinement.


Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code says that, whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment of either as interpreted for a term which may prolong to one year, or with fine which may prolong to one thousand rupees, or with both.


Under Section 340 of the Code the offence made is cognizable, bailable compoundable and triable by any magistrate.




4) For three or more days wrongful confinement


Section 343 of the Indian Penal Code says that, whoever wrongfully confines any person for three days or more, shall be punished with imprisonment of either illustration for a term which may prolong to two years, or with fine, or with both.


The offence under this Section is cognizable, bailable, and compoundable with the permission of the court. And triable by any Magistrate.


5) For ten or more days wrongful confinement.


Section 344 is a stride further in the direction of advocating grave punishment for wrongful confinement which may continue for ten days or more. Section 344 of the Code defines that, "whoever wrongfully confines any person for ten days, or more, shall be punished with imprisonment of either as interpreted for a term which may prolong to three years, and shall also be accountable to fine."


The offence Under Section 344 of the code is Cognizable, bailable, Compoundable with the permission of the Court and triable by any Magistrate.


6) Wrongful confinement of person for whose liberation writ has been issued (Section 345):


Whoever keeps any person in wrongful confinement, knowing that a writ for the release of that person has been duly issued, shall be punished with imprisonment of either as interpreted 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.


Essential criteria:

To invoke Section 345 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 following essential criteria has to be satisfied


(i) The accused kept the complaint in detention or confinement


(ii) Such keeping in confinement was unjustified.


(iii) A writ habeas corpus had been duly furnished


(iv) The accused knew about the issue of the aforesaid writ and in spite of it kept the complaint in confinement illegally.

To apply this Section the prosecution must prove that the accused acted with the apprehension. Under this Section the offence is Cognizable, Bailable, Non-compoundable and triable by a Magistrate of first Class.


7) Wrongful confinement in secret :


Section 346 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 says that, "whoever wrongfully confines any person in such way as to indicate an 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 herein-before mentioned, shall be punished with imprisonment of either as interpreted for a term which may prolong to two years in addition to any other punishment to which he may be accountable for such wrongful confinement.


Essential element required :


To invoke Section 346 of The Indian Penal Code following essential criteria are to be satisfied -


(i) The accused wrongfully confined or detained an individual


(ii) To prevent him from advancing beyond a limit is pressed; and

(iii) Such Confinement was Secret.


Under Section 346 of the Code the offence is cognizable, bailable, compoundable with the permission of the court and triable by any Magistrate.



8) Wrongful confinement to extort property, or constrain to illegal act.

According Section 347 of Indian Penal Code, whoever wrongfully confines any person for the purpose of extorting from the individual confined, or from 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 ease the commission of an offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either as interpreted for a term which may prolong to three years, and shall also be accountable to fine.


Essential criteria:


To invoke Section 347 of the Indian Penal Code following ingredients are to be satisfied -


(i) The accused confined an individual


(ii) Such Confinement was wrongful


(iii) Such Confinement was for the purpose of -


a) extorting from the confined person, or

b) constraining the doing of an illegal act by the confined person, or

c) giving information easing the commission of any offence

U The offence nder Section 347 of the code the offence is Cognizable, Bailable, Non-compoundable and triable by any Magistrate.

9) Wrongful confinement to extort confession, or compel restoration of property :

Section 348 of the Indian Penal code says that, 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 lead to the detection of an offence or misconduct, or for the purpose of compelling 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 as interpreted for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be accountable to fine.



The offence under Section 348 of the Indian Penal Code is Cognizable, Bailable, and Non-compoundable and triable by any Magistrate punishment includes imprisonment which may prolong up to three years either rigorous or simple and shall also be accountable to fine.

indiankanoon.org/doc/906606/

R. Nandakumar vs State Of Tamil Nadu Represented By ... on 9 September, 1998

Mookan alias Ayyappan, aged about 35 years who died due to torture by police-was a resident of Kunda Goundanur near Balaviduthi in Manapparai Taluk. Mookan alias Ayyappan, aged about 35 years who died due to torture by police-was a resident of Kunda Goundanur Mookan near Balaviduthi in Manapparai Taluk. Likewise, the family of the deceased Arokyasamy who died in the Police firing on 13.12.89 are also entitled to a reasonable compensation. In such situation, by way of public interest litigation, he has filed the present writ petition for appropriate relief in favour of the victims. Respondents are directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 in favour of N. Nallammal. Respondents are directed to pay a sum of Rs.50, 000 each in favour of the deceased who died in the firing. To also pay an amount of Rs 5000 who were injured in firing


State of Gujarat vs. Keshav Lai Maganbhai Gujoyan (1993 CrLJ 248 Guj),

In this case the crucial issue that was in contention was “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.”


State vs. Balakrishnan (1992 CrLJ 1872 Mad),

In this case the complainant pleaded to the court, who was detained in the police station. The Court ultimately remarked that when a particular citizen enters a police station, even if the jurisdiction extends to the police station they cannot act in ‘rude’ manner. Hence it was held that the accused committed the offence of wrongful confinement.


Conclusion

Illegal detention cases have their own significance, from this; we conclude the people need to aware of their rights so that they should not be misused by the public authority. Illegal detention and arrest have a demoralising effect on the person. He is publicly humiliated emotionally drained out just because of his unawareness about their right. The public authority is misusing its power in the name of the security of the state.



Advocate Anamika Roy Choudhary

Legal Researcher- Advocates Pedia Foundation



www.srdlawnotes.com/2017/05/wrongful-confinement-offences-affecting.html
www.advocatekhoj.com/library/bareacts/indianpenalcode/343.php?STitle=Wrongful+confinement+for+three+or+more+days&Title=Indian+Penal+Code%2C+1860
indiankanoon.org/doc/906606/