Wrongful Restraint and Confinement: Distinctions and Examples
Wrongful Restraint and Wrongful Confinement Under Penal Code: Definitions, Distinctions, and Examples
Introduction:
Wrongful confinement and wrongful restraint are two offenses recognized in the Penal Code. Both offenses entail the unlawful restraint of a person's freedom of movement. However, there is a difference between the two offenses. This article aims to explain the difference between wrongful confinement and wrongful restraint, their definitions, and their respective punishments, as well as provide examples and case laws to illustrate their applications.
Wrongful Restraint and Wrongful Confinement are offenses against the person to stop his movement to which he has a legal right by either putting restraints or by confining him within a particular place from where he cannot move out. We will discuss the concept of wrongful restraint Under Section 339 and wrongful confinement Under Section 340.Relevant Provisions:
Sections 339,340 to 348 of P.P.C. 1860.
Wrongful Restraint
Meaning of Wrongful Restraint:
According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary: Wrongful restraint means illegally preventing, restricting, or limiting another from doing some act.
Definition of Wrongful Restraint:
Wrongful restraint is defined as the intentional obstruction of any person, animal, or thing with the intention of preventing that person or thing from proceeding in any direction in which that person or thing has a right to proceed. This obstruction can be done in several ways such as by physical force, threat of force, or by confining or detaining a person. However, the restraint must be without lawful justification to qualify as wrongful.
According to Section 339 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860; “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 restrain that person. An exception is also provided by this section as; “The obstruction of a private way over land of water which person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct, is not an offense within the meaning of this section.”
Scope and Applicability of Section 339 of the Penal Code:
Section 339 relates to voluntary obstruction by a person and not to obstructions that are not voluntarily Continued by persons accused of obstruction throughout the time it lasts. Before a person can be convicted of an offense of wrongful restraint, the prosecution must prove that the complainant had a right distinguished from a license to proceed in a particular direction or that he had the right of way.
Examples of Wrongful Restraint:
Suppose a person intentionally blocks the entrance of a building to prevent someone from entering it, even though that person has a right to enter the building. In that case, it can be considered wrongful restraint. Similarly, if someone stops another person from leaving a room or a vehicle, it would also be an example of wrongful restraint.
Explanation of the Concept of Wrongful Restraint:
In order to understand the concept of wrongful restraint we have to look at the following explanations,
- ‘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.
- ‘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.”
Essentials/Ingredients of wrongful restraint as per Section 339 Of P.P.C:
(I) Obstruction:
The key element of wrongful restraint is obstruction i.e. hindrance. The victim's path has to be obstructed so as to physically stop him from moving around or moving where he wants to. To constitute wrongful restraint a physical obstruction should be caused. Thus verbal prohibition does not fall into this category.
(II) Voluntary Obstruction by Accused:
Voluntary commission of an act has been defined Under Section 39 of P.P.C as causing a thing with intention. To constitute wrongful restraint the obstruction caused has to be done so with the intention of the accused. The voluntary obstruction of a car; with intent to stop or restrain the traveling person in it would amount to wrongful restraint.
(III) Any Person:
The obstruction has to be of a person. Restraint of a vehicle ‘alone does not amount to wrongful restraint.
Explanation: Where the car was stopped from proceeding further on a public road but the persons in it were free to go anywhere they wished to: it is not a case of wrongful restraint. Thus the essence of this offense is causing obstruction to a person i.e. a human being.
(IV) Preventing Movement in any Direction:
To constitute wrongful restraint the obstruction should be complete and successful as to prevent the person obstructed from proceeding in any direction. The wrong defined here is a wrong against the person; and is not complete if the person is at liberty to go anywhere that he pleases. Proceeding in any direction means proceeding in a particular direction where the victim wants to go and proceed includes going by car, horse, or any other mode.
(V) Person has a Right to Move in that Direction:
All members have equal rights in public streets to move in any direction they want. Any restraint to such right would be considered unlawful. However, there is an exception to this rule as;
- (i) Exception; Bona Fide Claim: If an act is done in good faith under the belief that it is justified by law, a conviction under this section will not stand.
- (ii) Explanation: A’ passes over ‘B’s land, ‘B’ stops him. This case will not fall under wrongful restraint.
Punishment for wrongful restraint; u/s 341 of Pakistan penal code 1860:
- (i) Simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or
- (ii) Fine which may extend to Rs. 1500/-; or
- (ii) Both.
This punishment is for the offense of wrongful restraint when it does not amount to wrongful confinement and when it is not accompanied by violence or causing bodily harm.
You may also read Right of Self defense
Wrongful Confinement
Meaning of wrongful confinement:
Statutory Definition of Wrongful Confinement:
Wrongful confinement is defined as the intentional confinement of any person for any length of time in circumstances that do not justify the confinement. Such confinement must be against the person's will, without lawful authority or justification, and must be done with the intention of causing harm, or dishonestly inducing a person to do or to omit to do something that he would not have done or omitted if he were not in such confinement.
Under section 340 of the Pakistan Penal Code: 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.
Scope of Wrongful Confinement As per Section 340 of the Penal Code:
An essential ingredient of this offense is a physical obstruction to the movement of a person. There must be a total restraint, not a partial one. The mere keeping of a watch on a person without in any way hindering his movement by physical impediments in his way does not fall under this Section.
Examples of Wrongful Confinement:
Suppose a person intentionally locks another person in a room, preventing them from leaving, even though the person wishes to leave. In that case, it can be considered wrongful confinement. Similarly, if a person is kidnapped and kept in captivity against their will, it would also be an example of wrongful confinement.
Concept of Wrongful Confinement:
in order to understand the concept of wrongful confinement we have to look at the following explanation;
Explanation: ‘A’ causes ‘Z’ to go within a walled space and locks ‘Z’ in. ‘Z’ is thus prevented from proceedings in any direction ‘beyond the circumscribing line of the wall. ‘A’ wrongfully confines ‘Z’.
Case Law: Bird Vs. Jones.
Held: Wrongful confinement is a total restraint on the liberty of a person; for however short time it will be punished.
Essentials/Ingredients of Wrongful Confinement:
(i) Restraint:
To restrain means to obstruct however slightly the liberty of a person to move about. According to the first essential; to confine restraining is important. Confinement is impossible without 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 it is essential that the person must be totally 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) Prevention of 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 he wants to, it will not amount to wrongful confinement. The term circumscribing limits means the boundaries; which may be narrow or wide, tangible or visible but they must be confining.
Proof of Wrongful Confinement:
Proof of actual physical obstruction is not essential to support the charge of wrongful confinement. It may be proved when there is an impression produced in the mind of the person detained so as 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.
Cases where No Charge of Wrongful Confinement can be brought up:
(i) 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.
Explanation: Where "A’ has no desire to leave the house and ‘Z’ looks her in; there is no wrongful confinement.
(ii) Means of Escape Available:
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 in reference to the punishment.
(i) Punishment For Wrongful Confinement: Under Section 342 of P.P.C:
- (i) imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year; or
- (ii) Fine which may extend to three thousand rupees; or
- (iii) Both.
(ii) Punishment for Wrongful Confinement for Three or More Days: Under Section 343 of P.P.C:
- (i) Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend for two years; or
- (ii) Fine; or
- (iii) Both.
(ii) Punishment For Wrongful Confinement For Ten or More Days: Under Section 344 of P.P.C
Whoever wrongfully confines any person n for ten or more days shall be punished with;
- (i) 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:
- (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 under any other section of this chapter i.e, Chapter XVI-A.
(v) Punishment for Wrongful Confinement in Secret: Under Section 346 of. P.P.C:
- (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.
(vi) Punishment For Wrongful Confinement To Extort Property or Constrain To Illegal Act; Under Section 347 of P.P.C:
- (i) Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years; and
- (ii) Fine shall also be imposed.
(vii) Punishment For Wrongful Confinement to Extort Confession or Compel Restoration of Property; Under Section 348 Of P.P.C:
Whoever wrongfully confines any person for the purpose of extorting confession or any information which may lead to detection of any offense or misconduct or for the purpose of constraining the person confined to restore the property or valuable security shall be punished with;
- (i) Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years; and
- (ii) Fine shall also be imposed.
Illegal Detention by Police is Wrongful Confinement?
Where an arrest made by a police officer is strictly legal, he cannot be proceeded against for wrongfully confining a person. But informal detention of a suspect by the police during the whole period of investigation without arrest is illegal and amounts to wrongful confinement.
Similarities between Wrongful Restraint & Wrongful Confinement:
- (i) 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.
- (ii) In both offenses physical obstruction is necessary.
- (iii) Both are considered crimes against the human body.
- (iv) Both restrain movement where the movement is the right of the victim.
The distinctions between Wrongful Restraint and Wrongful Confinement:
The primary difference between wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement is the degree of restraint involved. In wrongful restraint, the person is prevented from proceeding in a particular direction, while in wrongful confinement, the person's freedom of movement is completely restricted. Wrongful confinement also requires an element of dishonesty or an intention to cause harm or induce the victim to do something against their will. Therefore, while both offenses involve restraining a person's freedom of movement, the degree and intent of the restraint are different.
Following are differences/distinguishes between wrongful restraint and wrong confinement;
|
Wrongful Restraint |
|
Wrongful Confinement |
|
|
Nature of obstruction |
|
|
In the case of wrongful restraint, there is a partial
restraint on the liberty of a subject. |
|
While in the case of wrongful confinement,
there is total restraint and it is a kind of total
imprisonment. |
|
|
Area of obstruction |
|
|
Wrongful restraint is keeping a man out of the place where he wishes
to be or has a right to go |
|
Wrongful confinement is keeping a man within the limits out of which
he wants to go. |
|
|
Restriction on movement |
|
|
In case of wrongful restraint, a person obstructed is obstructed to
move to a particular direction and he can move or go towards any
direction if he so pleases |
|
In wrongful confinement, he cannot go or move in any direction
whatsoever. |
|
|
Intensity of offense |
|
|
Wrongful restraint is a less serious offense than Wrongful
confinement. |
|
wrongful confinement is a more serious offense than wrongful
restraint. |
|
|
Punishment |
|
|
Wrongful restraint is punishable with one-month Rs. 1500/fine or both.
|
|
Wrongful confinement is punishable with one year, Rs. 3000/fine, or
both. |
Conclusion:
In conclusion, wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement are two distinct offenses recognized under the Penal Code. Wrongful restraint involves the intentional obstruction of a person's freedom of movement in a particular direction, while wrongful confinement involves the complete restriction of a person's freedom of movement for an extended period, coupled with an element of dishonesty or intention to cause harm. Both offenses are punishable by imprisonment and/or a fine. It is essential to understand the difference between the two offenses to ensure that the correct charge is brought against an accused person. It is also important to note that the punishment for these offenses can be severe, and individuals should be aware of the consequences of their actions to avoid committing such crimes. Wrongful restraint is keeping a man out of a place where he wishes to be and has a right to be. In wrongful restraint, there need not be a stoppage of the movement. On the other hand Wrongful Confinement is the physical obstruction to the movement of a person. It is committed when a person is obstructed when he wants to move.