Punishment for Wrongful Restraint - Section 341

Punishment for Wrongful Restraint - Section 341

Chapter sixteen of the Indian Penal Code talks about the offences affecting the human body under which wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement are given. The first someone does either to take revenge or want to cause harm or injury to any person is to obstruct the path of the person and stop him/her from going in any direction, sometimes it is done for revenge and sometimes it is committed by the person with ulterior motives. We will discuss what is wrongful restraint? What are the exceptions of wrongful restraint? What is wrongful confinement? What is the difference between wrongful confinement and wrongful restraint?

Wrongful Restraint: Section 339 of the Indian Penal Code talks about wrongful restraint, according to this section if a person obstructs another person from going in any direction that person has the right to go is wrongful restraint.

Obstruction: Obstruction means when a person blocks another person from going somewhere by using physical force or by threatening that person. When this obstruction is voluntarily and wrongfully it is called wrongful restraint.


Consult the best lawyer online


Exception: If a person obstructs another person’s way over any private land and water believing that he/she has the lawful right to stop the person and the person obstructs the other person in good faith is not an offence under section 339 of the Indian Penal Code.

Ingredient: In this section, there are certain key points that are required to consider the crime as wrongful restraint which is as follows:

  1. The person obstructing the way has to do it voluntarily.

  2. The person should not be able to go in any direction where that person has the right to go due to the obstruction caused by the other person.

Difference between Wrongful Restraint and Wrongful Confinement

  1. Wrongful Restraint: Wrongful Restraint is defined as when someone obstructs the other person from going in any direction using physical force or threat. But it is a partial restriction on a person's liberty.

  2. Wrongful Confinement: Wrongful Confinement is defined as when someone voluntarily and wrongfully restraint the other person from proceeding in a way that is beyond certain limits, or wrongful confinement can be defined as when a person kept another person in which the person wishes to go and having the right to go but cannot because of the limits or boundaries. Wrongful Confinement is a total restriction on a person’s liberty.

  3. Wrongful restraint is included in wrongful confinement or it can also be said that wrongful restraint is a major part of wrongful confinement but wrongful confinement is not included or not a part of wrongful restraint.

  4. It is necessary to have certain limits or boundaries for wrongful confinement but for wrongful restraint boundaries are not necessary.

  5. In wrongful restraint the person whose path is obstructed is such a way that either one or certain direction is obstructed by the other person but the person who is restraint should have the option to move in another direction but in wrongful confinement, the person is restraint in such a way that such person should not have a way to go or move or has to move against his/her will.

What is the Punishment for Wrongful Restraint?

Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code talks about the punishment for wrongful restraint, according to this section if a person commits the offence under section 339 of the Indian Penal Code or if a person wrongfully restraint someone then that person should be punished with simple imprisonment up to one month or fine up to five hundred or both.

Whether Wrongful Restraint is a bailable offence or a non-bailable offence?

Wrongful Restraint is a bailable offence.

Whether Wrongful Restraint is a cognizable offence or a non-cognizable offence?

Wrongful Restraint is a cognizable offence.

Illustrations

  1. Ram voluntarily leaves his angry oxen on Shyam’s way to obstruct his movement or stops him from going in the direction Shyam wants to and has the right to go.

  2. Mohan has a dangerous dog with him. He told Sohan if he tried to move or tried to go anywhere, he would charge his dog on him. Mohan has committed an offence under section 339 of the Indian Penal Code.

  3. Meena and Sheena were best friends and they both like the same boy Rohan. Rohan told Meena to meet him in the nearby café for coffee but Sheena did not want her to go so she locked Meena in a storeroom where there is no window or any other way except the door which was locked from outside. Here Sheena has committed Wrongful Confinement, not Wrongful Restraint.

  4. Rohan put some drums in the way where Sohan is going to stop him from going in that direction or to obstruct his path. Rohan has wrongfully restrained Sohan.


Get in touch with the best lawyer online


Case Laws: 

Emperor v. Ramlala: In this case, the Bombay High Court discussed whether the obstruction caused for vehicles having passengers can amount to wrongful restraint or not? Court held that if the person or persons sitting inside a vehicle or on a vehicle and the path is obstructed by someone but the person can walk and go without any hindrance then it won’t amount to wrongful restraint.

In re Peria Pannuswami Goundan: In this case, the court clarifies that the person obstructing the path of the person riding a horse cannot say that or defend himself/herself by saying that the person riding the horse had the option to get down and walk.

Gopal Reddi v. N.Lakshmi Reddi: In this case, Court held that if someone voluntarily obstructs a cart having passengers or people traveling is wrongful restraint, and the fact that the people sitting on the cart have the option to get down and walk without any hindrance or peacefully is immaterial.

In re M. Abraham: In this case, a bus driver intentionally stopped the bus in a way to obstruct the path or road so that the buses behind him cannot move further or to stop the buses behind him from proceeding in their direction. The court held him guilty under section 339 of the Indian Penal Code.

Conclusion: Hence it is concluded that when someone voluntarily obstructs the path or obstruct the person from moving in any direction where that person has the right to go through physical force or threat is wrongful restraint and the person committing the offence is liable to be punished with imprisonment for up to one month or fine up to five hundred or both.

This article was drafted by Ms. Charu Shrivastava, B.A.LLB(H), Galgotias University, Greater Noida. U.P.
Offence Punishment Cognizance Bail Triable By
Wrongful Restraint Imprisonment, of 1 month or fine or both Cognizable Bailable Any Magistrate
Offence Wrongful Restraint
Punishment Imprisonment, of 1 month or fine or both
Cognizance Cognizable
Bail Bailable
Triable By Any Magistrate

BOOK A SERVICE




Consult a Lawyer Now