WRONGFUL RESTRAINT AND WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT
1. INTRODUCTION:
Wrongful Restraint and Wrongful Confinement are crimes that stop someone from going where they're allowed. We'll cover Wrongful Restraint in Section 339 and Wrongful Confinement in Section 340, making it easy to understand.
2. RELEVANT PROVISIONS:
Sections 339, 340 to 348 of P.P.C. 1860.
Cross Reference:
Ordinance LXXXVI of 2002
3. MEANING OF WRONGFUL RESTRAINT:
According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary;
"Wrongful restraint means illegally preventing, restricting or limiting another from the doing of some act".
4. STATUTORY DEFINITION OF WRONGFUL
RESTRAINT:
Section 339 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, says if someone stops another person from going where they have the right to go, it's called Wrongful Restraint. But, if someone believes they have the right to block a private path over land or water, that's not considered Wrongful Restraint.
5. SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 339 OF P.P.C:
Section 339 is about someone intentionally blocking another's path, not about accidental blockages. To convict someone of Wrongful Restraint, it must be shown that the blocked person had a real right, not just permission, to go that way.
6. CONCEPT OF WRONGFUL RESTRAINT:
To understand the concept of wrongful restraint we have to look at the following explanations;
Explanation: 'A' builds a wall across a path along which 'Z' has a right to pass. 'Z' is thus prevented from passing. 'A' commits the offense of wrongful restraint.
Explanation: 'A' places an obstruction on a road over which 'B' had a right of passage for men and cattle, thereby preventing cattle from passing but leaving a portion of the way in such a condition as to be passable by human beings; 'A' commits no offense.
Case Law: Saminda Pallai Case, 1882
Held: "The slightest unlawful obstruction to the liberty of the subject to go when and where he likes to go, provided that he does so in a lawful manner, cannot be justified and is punishable under this section."
7. ESSENTIALS / INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 339 OF P.P.C:
Following are the essentials/ingredients of Section 339;
(1) OBSTRUCTION:
Wrongful Restraint involves physically blocking someone's way, preventing them from going where they want. For it to count as Wrongful Restraint, there must be a physical blockage; just telling someone not to go somewhere doesn't qualify.
(II) VOLUNTARY OBSTRUCTION BY ACCUSED:
Section 39 of the P.P.C. says an act is voluntary if done with intention. For it to be Wrongful Restraint, the person must intentionally block someone's way, like stopping a car to prevent someone from traveling.
The obstruction has to be of a person. Restraint of a Venice alone does not amount to wrongful restraint
Explanation: Where the car was stopped from proceeding further on a public road but the persons on it were free to go anywhere they wished to, it is not a case of wrongful restraint Thus the essence of this offense is obstructing a human being
8. PREVENTING MOVEMENT IN ANY DIRECTION:
Wrongful Restraint means completely stopping someone from going where they choose. It's an attack on their freedom to move by any means, like walking, driving, or riding.
9. PERSON HAS A RIGHT TO MOVE IN THAT DIRECTION:
Everyone has the right to move freely in public places. Any attempt to limit this right is illegal, except in the case of a genuine belief that the action is lawful (except bona Fide Claim).
10. MEANING OF WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT:
Wrongful Confinement is legally restricting someone's movement within certain boundaries or walls.
11. STATUTORY CONFINEMENT: DEFINITION OF WRONGFUL:
According to Section 340 of the P.P.C. 1860, Wrongful Confinement happens when someone is prevented from leaving a specific area by wrongful means.
12. SCOPE OF SECTION 340 P.P.C:
Wrongful Confinement requires completely stopping someone from moving. Simply watching someone without physically blocking them doesn't count.
CONCEPT OF WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT:
Wrongful Confinement means trapping someone in an enclosed area so they can't leave. For example, if 'A' locks 'Z' in a room, 'A' has wrongfully confined 'Z'.
Case Law: Bird Vs. Jones
It was ruled that any total restraint on a person's freedom, even briefly, counts as Wrongful Confinement and is punishable.
13. ESSENTIALS / INGREDIENTS OF WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT:
Following are the essentials/ingredients of wrongful confinement,
(1) RESTRAINT:
To restrain means to obstruct however slightly the liberty of a person to move about. According to the first essential; confining restraining is important. Confinement is impossible with it.
(II) WRONGFUL AND TOTAL RESTRAINT:
Wrongful confinement is a form of wrongful restraint. Where a man is kept within a limit out of which he wishes to go, and has a right to go. To constitute wrongful confinement the person must be restrained from all directions. Partial restraint does not amount to wrongful confinement.
Explanation: 'A' places men with lethal weapons outside the building where 'Z' is kept and is told that he would be killed if he left the building. 'Z' is totally and wrongfully confined.
(Ⅲ) PREVENTS THAT PERSON FROM PROCEEDING BEYOND CERTAIN CIRCUMSCRIBING LIMITS:
If one man obstructs the passage of another in a particular direction, leaving him at liberty to stay where he is or to go wherever directed to it will not amount to wrongful confinement By the subscribing limits means the boundaries, which may be narrow wide, tangible or visible but they must be confining.
14. PROOF OF WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT:
Proof of actual physical obstruction is not essential to support a charge of wrongful confinement. It may be proved when there is an impression produced in the mind of the person detained to lead him reasonably to believe that he was not free to depart and that he would be restrained if he tried to. Thus belief by a person that he cannot depart and if he tried would immediately be seized is enough to prove wrongful confinement.
15. CASES WHERE NO CHARGE OF WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT CAN BE BROUGHT UP:
Following are the cases where the charge of wrongful confinement cannot be brought up;
(1) NO DESIRE TO LEAVE:
No wrongful confinement can be charged where no desire to proceed existed. This includes cases where the person being detained consented to it.
(i) Explanation: Where 'A' has no desire to leave the house and 'Z' looks her in; there is no wrongful confinement.
(Ⅲ) Means of Escape Available: It would be on wrongful confinement if the person detained has means to escape which he could easily avail.
16. DURATION OF CONFINEMENT; IMMATERIAL:
The time during which a person is kept in wrongful confinement is immaterial. Detention through the exercise of moral force, without the use of physical force is sufficient to constitute this offence. However such duration is very important for the punishment.
17. PUNISHMENT FOR WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT:
(1) PUNISHMENT FOR WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT; UNDER SECTION 342 OF P.P.C:
Whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished
with
(1) Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or
(2) Fine which may extend to three thousand rupees; or
(3) Both.
PUNISHMENT FOR WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT FOR THREE OR MORE DAYS; UNDER SECTION 343 OF P.P.C: (11)
Whoever wrongfully confines any person for three or more days shall be punished with;
(i) Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years; or
(ii) Fine; or
(iii) Both.
PUNISHMENT FOR WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT FOR TEN OR MORE DAYS; UNDER SECTION 344 OF P.P.C:
Whoever wrongfully confines any person for ten or more days shall be punished with;
Imprisonment of either description for a term which- may extend to three years; and.
(ii) Fine shall also be imposed.
(IV) PUNISHMENT FOR WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT KNOWING WRIT OF LIBERATION HAS BEEN ISSUED; UNDER SECTION 345 OF P.P.C:
Keeping Someone Wrongly Confined After Release Order:
If someone continues to wrongfully confine another person even after knowing that a release order has been issued, the punishment includes:
- Jail time of up to two years, plus
- Any additional prison time required under other laws in this chapter.
(V) PUNISHMENT FOR WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT IN SECRET; UNDER SECTION 346 OF P.P.C:
Whoever wrongfully confines any person in a manner that such confinement may not be known to any person interested in the person confined or any other public servant shall be punished with
(i) Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, in addition to
(ii) Any term of imprisonment to which he may be liable for such wrongful confinement.
PUNISHMENT FOR WRONGFUL GAIN INCITEMENT TO EXTORT PROPERTY OR CONSTRAIN TO ILLEGAL ACT UNDER SECTION 347 OF P.P.C:
Whoever wrongfully confines any person to extort property or constrain to an illegal act shall be punished with;
(1) Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years; and
Fine, shall also be imposed.
PUNISHMENT FOR WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT TO EXTORT CONFESSION OR COMPEL RESTORATION OF PROPERTY; UNDER SECTION 348 OF P.P.C:
If someone wrongfully keeps a person confined to force a confession, get information, or make them return property or valuables, the punishment is:
- Up to three years in jail, and
- A fine.
18. ILLEGAL DETENTION BY POLICE CONFINEMENT? WRONGFUL
If a police officer makes a lawful arrest, they can't be charged with wrongful confinement. But, if the police hold a suspect without officially arresting them during an investigation, it's illegal and considered wrongful confinement.
19. SIMILARITIES OF WRONGFUL RESTRAINT & WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT:
Following are the similarities of wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement,
Both offenses are against the fundamental rights of freedom of movement as provided in Article 15 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
In both the offences physical obstruction is necessary.
Both are considered crimes against the human body.
Both restrain movement where the movement is the right of the victim.
20. CONCLUSION:
Wrongful confinement is more severe than wrongful restraint. It can lead to one year in jail, a Rs. 3000 fine, or both. Wrongful restraint involves preventing someone from going where they have the right to be, without necessarily stopping their movement entirely. Wrongful confinement, however, means physically blocking a person from moving where they want to go.