The article has been written by Harsh Rampuria from Institute of Law, Nirma University. The author analyses the important elements of wrongful confinement and the administration of justice in the Indian context.
Table of Contents
Introduction
The Constitution of India provides to all its citizens the crucial fundamental rights in Article 19 and Article 21. This Article provides for the freedom of movement throughout the territory of India and the right to life and liberty respectively. Further, The Indian Penal Code lays down several penal measures in case any violation takes place in freedom to movement and personal liberty. Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code, therefore, deals with the offence of wrongful confinement. The punishment for the violation of this section is provided from Section 342 to 348.
What is “wrongful confinement”?
As the terms suggest in a literal sense it means the confinement of a person within certain limits. Section 340 of the penal code describes the offence as-
“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.” The best-suited illustration to further explain this section can be the act of person A to prevent movement of person B by locking him in a room. Further, the Act also lays down an exception. It states that if a person in good faith believes that he has the lawful right to obstruct or so obstruct a private way over land and water then it will not amount to wrongful confinement.
What is the administration of criminal justice?
The concept of administration of criminal justice refers to the performance of activities such as detection, pretrial release, detention, adjudication, supervision or rehabilitation of accused persons. Through these measures, it is ensured that critical issues and policy dimensions are ensured in the field of correctional criminal administration system. Also, in the modern world, the legal system requires a receptive, broad, and an open mind to resolve various issues faced by the legal system.
Essential ingredients
Firstly, to establish an offence of wrongful confinement under Section 340 of Indian Penal code the complainant should prove the following two ingredients:
- The accused must have wrongfully restrained the person. It is important to note that an offence of wrongful restraint can be established by the following elements:
- The presence of an Obstruction;
- The obstruction prevented the complainant from moving in a particular direction; and
- The complainant must have the right to move in that particular direction.
- Such wrongful restraint was to prevent the complainant from moving beyond the certain circumscribed limits beyond which he/she has the right to proceed.
The criminal administration system in our country is divided into three stages namely investigation, inquiry and trial. The provisions are laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Firstly, Investigation is the primary stage for police and usually begins after the recording of the First Information Report (FIR). Section 154 provides with the information received by a police station with respect to cognizable offences to be reduced in writing and signed by an informant and also entered into the concerned register.
Thereafter, Section 156(1) requires that the concerned officer shall investigate the facts and circumstances of the case without an order from concerned Magistrates. If the Magistrate also receives the information regarding the commission of cognizable offences then he may order an investigation. In such cases, “a person is spared both from the trouble and expenses of prosecution and investigation of the case.” Secondly, the inquiry is dealt under Section 177-189 of the code, it consists of the magistrate, either on receiving the police report or based on the complaint by other persons (satisfied of the facts of the case). Lastly, the third stage of criminal administration is trial. In a literal sense, the term “Trial” means the judicial adjudication of a person’s guilt or innocence. Under the code criminal trials have been further categorized into three divisions possessing varied procedures also called a warrant, summons and summary trials.
Objective
Firstly the objective of the provision of wrongful confinement is to ensure that the freedom of an individual is protected. Therefore, whenever a person has the right to proceed towards a particular direction then the law must ensure that the right is also available to the concerned person. Therefore, even if there is a presence of unlawful obstruction, it is deemed to be wrongful restraint. Importantly, it is not required that obstruction is caused should be by physical action nor is the presence of the accused person essential for restraint to become wrongful under these sections. Further, the presence of assault is also not required for this act to amount to the wrongful restraint. The mere use of words by others to cause an obstruction on the path of a particular person will result in an offence under this section. When a person obstructs another by-
- Causing it to appear to that other person that to proceed would be:
- impossible
- difficult
- dangerous
- Or by actually causing it to be impossible, difficult or dangerous for that other person to proceed.
Hence, it must be concluded that to invoke the provision of this section and to substantiate the offence under the code, it is essential for the complainant to prove his right way over the land. Secondly, as far as the objective of any administrative system is concerned it is to protect the society from criminals and law-breakers. Therefore, the law holds out the punishments to lawbreakers as well as an attempt to make actual offenders suffer from punishments for their crimes.
Punishment
Section 342 of Indian Penal Code provides for punishment for the wrongful confinement. It states that the person who wrongfully confines another shall be liable for one year of imprisonment or with the fine of one thousand rupees or both. It is important to note that the offence is cognizable, Bailable and Triable by any Magistrate. Further, it is compoundable by the person so confined with the permission of the court. The criminal administrative system has laid down the procedure.
Pertinent case laws
To understand the administration of the criminal justice system in cases of Wrongful confinement it is important to note the following case laws. In the case of the State of Gujarat vs. Keshav Lai Maganbhai Gujoyan (1993 CrLJ 248 Guj), 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.” Also in State vs. Balakrishnan (1992 CrLJ 1872 Mad), the court was pleaded by the complainant 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.
Section 343 to 348 of the code deals with the types of Wrongful Confinement and interlink with the administration of justice system embedded in them.
- Wrongful confinement for three or more days (Section 343)
“Whoever wrongfully confines any person for three days or more, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.” It is important to note that the classification of this section is Cognizable, Bailable and Triable by any Magistrate. Also, it is compoundable by the person who is confined through the permission of the court of law.
- Wrongful confinement for ten or more days (Section 344)
“Whoever wrongfully confines any person for ten days or more, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.” It is important to note that the classification of this offence is that it is Cognizable, Bailable and Triable by any Magistrate. Also, it is compoundable by the person confined after due permission of the court.
- 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 liberation of that person has been duly issued, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description 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.” It is important to note that the classification of this offence is that it is Cognizable, Bailable and Triable by the Magistrate of the first class. Also, this offence is non-compoundable.
- Wrongful confinement in secret (Section 346)
“Whoever wrongfully confines any person in such manner 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 hereinbefore mentioned, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years in addition to any other punishment to which he may be liable for such wrongful confinement.” It is important to note that the classification of this offence is Cognizable, Bailable and Triable by Magistrate (first class). Also, it is a compoundable offence by a person confined with the permission of the court.
- Wrongful confinement to extort property, or constrain to an illegal act (Section 347)
“Whoever wrongfully confines any person for the purpose of extorting from the person 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 facilitate the commission of an offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.” It is important to note that the classification of this offence is Cognizable, Bailable and Triable by any Magistrate. And it is not a compoundable offence.
- Wrongful confinement to extort confession, or compel restoration of property (Section 348)
“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 constraining 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 description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.” It is important to note that the classification of offence is Cognizable, Bailable and Triable by any Magistrate and it is non-compoundable.
Conclusion
It can be concluded from the analysis made above that the offence of Wrongful confinement is in the form of a circle. It means that there are restrictions on all fronts and the person is not allowed the basic freedom of movement. Further, the distinction is made based on the type of wrongful restraint that has been imposed upon another person. Thereafter, The administration of justice mechanism ensures that the critical issues in the field of the criminal justice system are well insured to the person. It has been held by the Supreme Court that a reasonable apprehension is enough in the minds of the person of being entangled under the wrongful confinement.
References
- http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-856-administration-of-justice.html
- https://www.historydiscussion.net/history-of-india/ancient-india/administration-of-justice-in-ancient-india/6268
- https://www.barandbench.com/topic/wrongful-confinement
- https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/tag/administration-of-criminal-justice/
LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:
