Wrongful restraint & Wrongful confinement
Wrongful Restraint and Wrongful Confinement
1. Wrongful Restraint
Definition:
Wrongful restraint occurs when a person intentionally prevents another from moving freely in any direction in which they have a right to move.
It involves obstructing a person’s free movement without lawful justification.
The restraint need not be physical force alone; it can be by threat or intimidation that causes a person to refrain from moving.
Essential Elements:
There must be intentional obstruction or prevention of movement.
The movement must be lawful and in a direction the person has the right to go.
The restraint must be without lawful authority.
Example:
If A stands in front of B’s doorway to prevent B from leaving his house, it is wrongful restraint.
2. Wrongful Confinement
Definition:
Wrongful confinement occurs when a person intentionally prevents another from moving anywhere, i.e., confines them within certain limits.
It is a more severe form of restraint where the person is not just prevented from moving in one direction but is completely confined within boundaries.
It involves depriving the victim of their liberty of movement entirely.
Essential Elements:
Intentional prevention of movement in all directions.
The person is confined within definite boundaries.
The confinement must be without lawful authority.
Example:
If A locks B inside a room or house against B’s will, it amounts to wrongful confinement.
Distinction Between Wrongful Restraint and Wrongful Confinement
| Aspect | Wrongful Restraint | Wrongful Confinement |
|---|---|---|
| Nature of Restriction | Prevents movement in one or more directions | Prevents movement in all directions; complete confinement |
| Degree of Restriction | Partial restriction | Total restriction |
| Extent | Restricts free movement but not complete liberty | Deprives liberty of movement entirely |
| Example | Blocking a person’s way on a road | Locking a person in a room |
Relevant Case Law
1. Raghunath v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Facts: The accused blocked the complainant’s path on a public road.
Held: It was held to be wrongful restraint because the complainant was prevented from moving freely.
Principle: Obstruction of lawful movement in any direction is wrongful restraint.
2. K. Venkateshwar v. State
Facts: The accused confined the victim inside a room without consent.
Held: This constituted wrongful confinement as the victim’s liberty to move was completely denied.
Principle: Wrongful confinement requires confinement within definite limits.
3. Bhajan Singh v. State
Facts: The accused prevented the victim from leaving a shop.
Held: The court observed the difference between wrongful restraint and confinement. Here, it was wrongful restraint because movement was prevented in one direction only.
Principle: Partial obstruction is wrongful restraint; total obstruction is wrongful confinement.
Summary Table
| Feature | Wrongful Restraint | Wrongful Confinement |
|---|---|---|
| Definition | Obstructing movement in one or more directions | Preventing movement in all directions |
| Liberty Restriction | Partial | Complete |
| Boundaries | No specific boundaries required | Confined within definite limits |
| Legal Consequence | Punishable offense | More serious offense |
| Case Example | Raghunath v. State | K. Venkateshwar v. State |
Conclusion
Wrongful restraint involves preventing a person from moving freely in a direction they have a right to move, but not total confinement.
Wrongful confinement is a more severe offense where a person is confined within definite boundaries, completely restricting their liberty.
Both are offenses against personal liberty and can be distinguished based on the degree and extent of restriction imposed on the victim.
RELATED Blog
0 comments