Wrongufl & Kidnapping

WRONGFUL RESTRAINT AND CONFINEMENT
WRONGFUL RESTRAINT
The essential ingredients of 'wrongful restraint' are: (i) voluntary obstruction of a person, and
(ii) the obstruction must be such as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in
which he has a right to proceed.
Physical obstruction by mere verbal prohibition constitutes wrongful restraint. S 341 does not
deal with the means of restraint, but with the effect of the means. Mere direction or
demonstration will not constitute wrongful restraint. In wrongful restraint, physical presence
of accused is not always necessary. Where, therefore, the complainant and his wife and
daughter occupied a house and during their temporary absence, the accused put a lock on the
outer door and thereby obstructed them from getting into the house, it was held that the accused
was guilty of wrongful restraint. However, a house-owner, who partially restrained his tenant
by closing one of the door leaves of the main entrance gate, was not held guilty of wrongful
restraint as the complainant had sufficient passage to move in and out.
The 'wrong' defined is a wrong against a 'person' and if a man is prevented from taking his
animal or cart along with him in one direction, that will not be an offence within the section.
But it would amount to wrongful restraint if a person was going to his field with his bulls
through a pathway and the accused came there and obstructed him and his bulls and beat and
drove away the bulls and the complainant, by fearing that if he proceeded further he would also
be beaten, came away.
Wrongful confinement
The essential ingredients of the offence of 'wrongful confinement' are: (i) wrongful restraint of
a person, and (ii) the restraint must be to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain
circumscribing limits beyond which (s)he has right to proceed.
In wrongful confinement, a person is restrained from proceeding in direction beyond a certain

area; in wrongful restraint, he is restrained from proceeding in some particular direction, though
free to proceed elsewhere.
KIDNAPPING & ABDUCTION
KIDNAPPING
KIDNAPPING IS OF TWO KINDS: KIDNAPPING FROM INDIA, AND KIDNAPPING FROM LAWFUL
GUARDIANSHIP.
Kidnapping from India
The words used in the section are 'beyond the limits of India'. This means that the offence under
this section is complete, the moment a person is taken outside the geographical territory of
India. It is not necessary that the persons should reach their destination in some other foreign
territory. By the same token, if, a person is apprehended before he crosses the Indian border,
then the offence will not be complete. At best, it may amount to an attempt to commit the
offence of kidnapping from India under s 360, IPC. Till then, he has a locus paenitentia.
Kidnapping from lawful guardianship
This section contemplates that there must be some active part played by the accused for 'taking'
the minor. Simply permitting or allowing a minor to accompany one will not amount to an
offence.
In S Varadarajan v State of Madras , a girl who was on the verge of attaining majority
voluntarily left her father's house, arranged to meet the accused at a certain place and went to
the sub-registrar's office, where the accused and the girl registered an agreement o marry. There
was no evidence whatsoever that the accused had 'taken' her out of the lawful guardianship of
her parents, as there was no active part played by the accused to persuade her to leave the
house. It was held that no offence under this section was made out.
In State of Haryana v Raja Ram , the prosecutrix was a young girl of 14 years. She became
friendly with a person called Jai Narain, aged 32, who was a frequent visitor. When Jai Narain
was forbidden by the prosecutrix's father from coming home, he sent messages through one
Raja Ram. She was constantly persuaded to leave the house and come with Jai Narain, who
would keep her in a lot of material comfort. One night, the prosecutrix arranged to meet Jai
Narain in his house and went to meet him where she was seduced by Jai Narain. Jai Narain was
convicted under s 376 for rape of minor and Raja Ram under s 366. The question before the
Supreme Court was whether Raja Ram could be said to have 'taken' the minor girl, since she
willingly accompanied him. The Supreme Court held that it was not necessary that the taking
or enticing must be shown to have been by means of force or fraud. Persuasion by the accused
person, which creates willingness on the part of the minor to be taken out of the keeping of the
lawful guardian, would be sufficient to attract the section. Persuading or soliciting a minor to
abandon legal guardianship at any stage by a person is sufficient to hold him responsible under
s 361, IPC. However, 'taking away' is distinct from 'allowing' a minor to 'accompany'. The
former, unlike the latter, implies a certain active role on the part of the accused in making the
minor to leave or keep out of the legal guardian.
The word 'entice' connotes the idea of inducement or pursuance by offer of pleasure or some
other form of allurement. This may work immediately or it may create continuous and gradual
but imperceptible impression culminating after some time in achieving its ultimate purpose of
successful inducement. Inducing a minor girl by promise of marriage to leave the house of her
guardian amounts to enticement within the meaning of the section.
Keeping of Lawful Guardian
The term used in the IPC is 'lawful guardian' and not 'legal guardian'. The expression 'lawful
guardian' is a much more wider and general term than the expression 'legal guardian'. 'Legal
guardian' would be parents or guardians appointed by courts. 'Lawful guardian' would include
within its meaning not only legal guardians, but also such persons like a teacher, relatives etc,
who are lawfully entrusted with the care and custody of a minor.
The meaning of the words 'keeping of the lawful guardian' came up for consideration before
the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v Raja Ram. The court observed that the word 'keeping',
in the context, connotes the idea of charge, protection, maintenance and control. It is not
necessary that the minor should be under physical possession of the guardian. It suffices for
the purpose of the section if it is under the continuous control of the guardian. Hence, a minor,
who goes on a visit either with or without consent of the guardian, or goes on street, still is in
'keeping' of the guardian, it goes 'out of the keeping' when it is driven away from parental roof
or control. The court compared it with the language used in English statutes, where the
expression used was 'take out of the possession' and not 'out of the keeping'. The difference in
the language between the English statutes and this section only goes to show that s 361 was
designed to protect the sacred right of the guardians with respect of their minor wards.

Wrongufl & Kidnapping

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wrongufl & Kidnapping

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wrongufl & Kidnapping

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WRONGFUL RESTRAINT AND CONFINEMENT

In wrongful confinement, a person is restrained from proceeding in direction beyond a certain

Kidnapping from India

Kidnapping from lawful guardianship

Keeping of Lawful Guardian

You might also like