A 'Different' Series By Sushmita #4: Wrongful Restraint Vs Wrongful Confinement

Coverage of this Article

Difference between Wrongful Restraint and Wrongful Confinement

-Section 339 of the Indian Penal Code defines wrongful restraint as, “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.”

Cases of wrongful restraint

-The circumstances in Madala Perayya vs. Varugunti Chendrayya (1954 CrLJ 283 Mad) were that the accused and the complainant were both joint owners of a well and hence both had the right to utilise the water for agricultural purposes.

Cases of wrongful Confinement

-In the case of State of Gujarat vs. Keshav Lai Maganbhai Gujoyan (1993 CrLJ 248 Guj), the court stated, "Proof of real physical limitation is not required for an allegation of unlawful detention."

Conclusion

-The Indian Constitution's Articles 19 and 21 provide everyone the right to freedom of movement and personal liberty across the country.

Difference between Wrongful Restraint and Wrongful Confinement

Cases of wrongful restraint

• The circumstances in Madala Perayya vs. Varugunti Chendrayya (1954 CrLJ 283 Mad) were that the accused and the complainant were both joint owners of a well and hence both had the right to utilise the water for agricultural purposes. The accused prevented the complainant from utilising the water and the complainant's bullocks from moving. The Court found that the accused had engaged in unjust restraint in violation of Section 339.
• The landlord was accused of stopping his tenant, Shoba Rani, from using the restroom in the case of Shoba Rani vs. The King (1950-51 CrLJ 668 Cal.). The landlord had engaged in unjust restraint under Section 339 by preventing the tenant from utilising anything that he had the right to use.

Cases of wrongful Confinement

• In the case of State of Gujarat vs. Keshav Lai Maganbhai Gujoyan (1993 CrLJ 248 Guj), the court stated, "Proof of real physical limitation is not required for an allegation of unlawful detention." It is sufficient if the evidence reveals that such an image was created in the victim's mind, that he had a reasonable fear that he was not free to go. A reasonable anticipation of the use of force rather than its actual use is adequate and crucial if the impression is created that the complaint will be apprehended or restrained immediately if he attempts to flee."
• When the case of State vs. Balakrishnan (1992 CrLJ 1872 Mad) was presented to court, the complainant was kept at the police station, and the accused asserted that the complainant was free to leave the police station at any time. When a civilian enters a police station, the officers' power prevails in that area, and they treat the citizen in a brusque manner, according to the Court. The accused was found guilty of improper imprisonment by the court.

Conclusion

The Indian Constitution's Articles 19 and 21 provide everyone the right to freedom of movement and personal liberty across the country. The Indian Penal Code stipulates sanctions for anybody who infringes on another's freedom of movement or personal liberty in order to attain the Constitution's aim.

When a person is restrained from moving forward despite having the option to move back, left, or right, this is known as Wrongful Restraint. A one-month prison term or a fine of Rs. 500 is the penalty. Wrongful confinement, on the other hand, encompasses a wide range of restrictions imposed over a period of time, such as the ban of leaving a room, building, or park, among other things. The penalty is a year in prison or a fine of one thousand rupees, or both.