Skip to main content

WRONGFUL RESTRAINT AND CONFINEMENT (Section 339-340)

WRONGFUL RESTRAINT AND CONFINEMENT (Section 339-340)

Wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement are two offences according to the I.P.C. under Sec- 339 and 340, which punishes the individuals for the violation of a person's movements.

Wrongful restraint (Section 339):

A person who voluntarily obstructs another, so as to prevent him from proceeding in any direction in which that person had a right to go, is guilty of wrongful restraint.

Exception:
A person who, in good faith, believes that he has a right to pass.

Eg:
1) A removed the ladder and prevented B from getting down the roof of a

house.
2) A builds a wall across a path along which B had a right to pass.

In all these cases the accused is guilty of wrongful restraint.

Punishment (Sec- 341):

Sec-341 provides punishment for wrongful restraint.
It is simple imprisonment for a term, which may extend to one month or with a fine which may extend up to Rs.500 or both.



page1image389950512 page1image389950800 page1image389951088 page1image389951440 page1image389951728 page1image389952016

In Sobha Rani V

The King

The accused a landlord obstructed or prevented the tenant from using the bath room.
The accused was held guilty of wrongful restraint under Sec-339.

Wrongful confinement (Section 340):

A person who wrongfully restraints any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits is guilty of wrongful confinement.

Eg:

  1. 1)  A causes Z to go within a walled space and locks Z in.

    Z is thus prevented from proceeding in any direction beyond the

    circumscribing line of the wall. A is guilty.

  2. 2)  A keeps his men with guns and warns Z that if he ever tries to leave the

    building they would kill him. A is guilty.

    Punishment (Sec-342):

This depends on how many days a person is confined by the accused. Sec- 342 provides punishment for confinement even for a single hour. The punishment is one year imprisonment or fine of Rs.1000/- or both.

In BhimSingh V

State of Jammu and Kashmir

In this case, an MLA of Jammu and Kashmir Assembly was awarded an exemplary damage of Rs.50, 000/- by the Supreme Court for the unlawful arrest.



Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Republic Day 26 Jan 2021 Celebration at ETA GARDEN Apartment

 Republic Day 26 Jan 2021 Celebration at ETA GARDEN Apartment I, Trilok Chand Gupta Joint Secretary of ETA Garden have celebrated and raised our country Flag at our pavilion. It's been published in the News Paper for welcoming people for Flag Hoisting.
Post a Comment
Read more

THEFT (Section 378)

  THEFT (Section 378) Sec-378 Indian Penal Code defines theft. A person is guilty of theft is he takes with dishonest intention, any moveable property, out of the possession of any person, without his consent and moves with the property. 1)  If an item is attached to the earth, it cannot be stolen, but if it is freed from the earth it may be stolen. 2)  Moving the property is essential. Removing an obstacle amounts to theft. Eg: 1) A cuts down a -tree from the field of Z with a view to dishonestly taking the 2) tree. He has committed theft. A meets a bullock cart carrying valuable articles, he causes it to be moved in a different direction with a dishonest intention to take it. This is theft. Essentials: 1. Dishonest taking. 2. Moveable property 3. Out of the possession of the person 4. Without consent 5. Moving with the property 1. Dishonest Taking: The dishonest intention is the gist of the offense. The accused must make wrongful gain or wrongful loss. The taking must b...
Post a Comment
Read more

Insanity (Section 84)

  Insanity (Sec-84) Act of a person of unsound mind is given under Sec-84 as, “Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that what he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law” The law of Insanity was introduced by a leading case of McNaughton. In R V Mc. Naughten Facts: Daniel Mc. Naughten the accused, murdered Mr. Drummond, the private secretary of Sir. Robert Peel, the Prime Minister of England, by confusion that Mr. Drummond was Sir. Robert Peel. He was tried for murder. On behalf of the accused, the defense counsel pleaded that, the accused due to the insanity, he was not able to know that he was violating the laws of God and man. It was established that the accused lost his power of control of mind, while committing the offence, a medical report was also produced to that effect. Judgment: The court acquitted Mc. Naughten on the grounds of Insanity. Mc. Naug...
Post a Comment
Read more