Legal provisions regarding Wrongful Restraint under section 339 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Wrongful Restraint:
According to Section 339 of the Indian Penal Code, 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 to restrain that person.
Exception:
The obstruction of a private way over land or water which a
person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to
obstruct, is not an offence within the meaning of this Section.
Illustration:
A obstructs a path along which Z has a right to pass, A not
believing in good faith that he has a right to stop the path. Z is
thereby prevented from passing. A wrongfully restrains Z.
Ingredients of Wrongful Restraint:
The essential ingredients of ‘Wrongful Restraint’ are:
1) Voluntary obstruction of a person;
2) The obstruction must be such as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which he has a right to proceed.
Object:
Object of this section is to protect the freedom of a person to
utilise his right to pass in his way. Every man’s person is sacred and
that it is free, the law visits with its penalties those who abridge his
personal liberty, though he may have no design upon his person. The
offence of wrongful restraint is complete if one’s freedom of movement
is suspended by an act of another done ‘voluntarily’ that is to say,
done with that intention or with the knowledge or belief in its
likelihood.
Definition of Terms
Voluntarily-
According to Section 39 of IPC, “A person is said to cause an
effect ‘voluntarily’ when he causes it by means whereby he intended to
cause it, or by means which, at the time of employing those means, he
knew or had reason to believe to be likely to cause it.
The term ‘voluntarily’ implies the exercise of volition or will
in causing the effect with the intention of causing it, or at least,
with the knowledge that it was likely to be so caused.
Obstruction:
‘Obstruction’ in Section 339 means physical obstruction, though
it may be caused by the use of physical force as well as by the use of
menaces or threats.
Person:
By a person is meant a human being. A child of a tender age who cannot walk of his own is also a person.
Wrongful Restraint:
Wrongful restraint means the keeping a man out of a place where
he wishes to be, and has a right to be. The expression ‘wrongful
restraint’ implies the keeping a man out of a place where he wishes and
has a right to be.
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.
In wrongful restraint there need not be any stoppage of the
movement; it may be directed into a channel different from the direction
in which the victim intends to move. Physical presence of the
obstructer is not necessary nor is actual assault necessary, the fear of
immediate harm restraining a man out of place where he wishes to be and
has a right to be is sufficient to constitute and offence under
Sections 339 & 341.
The slightest unlawful obstruction to the liberty of the subject
to go when and where he likes to go provided he does so in a lawful
manner, cannot be justified and is punishable. It is only on two
occasions there will be no offence for obstruction: (i) the obstruction
of a private way over land and water which a person in good faith
believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct, is not an offence;
(ii) a person who bona fide believing in his right to a property asserts
his claim thereto cannot be convicted of this offence.
Mere verbal prohibition does not constitute wrongful restraint.
Mere direction or demonstration will not constitute wrongful restraint.
Obstruction to vehicle alone does not constitute ‘wrongful’ restraint as
defined in Section 339 as obstruction of a person only comes within its
purview.
However, an obstruction caused to a vehicle carrying passengers,
amounts to wrongful restraint of the passengers. The fact that the
passengers are free to get down and proceed in the desired direction
does not take the obstruction to the passengers outside the ambit of
wrongful restraint.
Illustrations of Wrongful Restraint:
The following illustrations given in the original Draft Code elucidate the meaning of Section 339:
a) A builds a wall across a path along which Z has a right to
pass. Z is thereby prevented from passing. A wrongfully restrains Z.
b) A illegally omits to take proper order with a furious buffalo
which is in his possession and thus voluntarily deters Z from passing
along a road along which Z has a right to pass. A wrongfully restrains
Z.
c) A threatens to set a savage dog at Z, if Z goes along a path
along which Z has a right to go. Z is thus prevented from going along
that path. A wrongfully restrains Z.
d) In the last illustration if the dog is not really savage, but
if A voluntarily causes Z to think that it is savage, and thereby
prevents Z from going along the path. A wrongfully restrains Z.
All persons have a right to use a public place or public way in a
lawful manner and no one has right to prevent another from using it
without incurring the risk of being penalised under Section 339.
The following are some of the illustrations of wrongful restraint:
1) A has taken a house from В on rent. A has gone out after
closing the house. В puts his own lock on the premises in A’s absence
[Lalloo Prasad v. Kadar Nath (1963) 2 Cr.LJ 543]
2) The accused, a landlord obstructed the tenant from using the
bathroom. The accused was held guilty of wrongful restraint [Sobha Rani
v. The King (1950) Cr.LJ 668].
3) A was on the roof of a house. В removes the ladder and thereby
detains A on the roof [Telapolu Subbadu v. R (1884) 1 Weir 340].
4) A and В were co-owners of a well. A prevented В from taking
out water from the well on the plea that В had not paid his share of
expenses incurred on the well [Lahanu v. R (1925) 27 Bom. LR 1419].
The following are some cases where no wrongful restraint is constituted:
1) Where a tenant was partially obstructed from entering the
premises by the closure of one of the doors, it did not amount to
wrongful restraint as he was still free to enter the premises [Sankar
Chandra Ghose v. State (1981) Cr.LJ 1002 (Cal.)]
2) A prevents the passage of animals of В by putting certain
obstruction on a road over which В had a right of passage for men and
cattle leaving a narrow portion of the way for men only to pass [(1899) 8
Weir 340].
3) Where a person obstructs a private path claimed by way of a
right of easement over his land and which right was not admitted, he
does not commit the offence of wrongful restraint [Basam Bhowmick AIR
1963 Cal. 3].
4) A put up a tin sheet projection over C’s compound wall so as
to hang over his paved courtyard at A height of about 7 feet above
ground and the projection did not prevent any moving below it. It was
held that A did not commit wrongful restraint because the projection did
not prevent anyone from moving below it. [Chhagan Vihal v. R (1927) 29
Bom. LR 494].
5) A and В were two joint owners of a shop. A put his lock on the
shop which was let out by B, the other joint owner without A’s consent.
The tenant made a complaint against A. It was held that A had committed
no offence inasmuch as A had put his lock to a house of which he was
the joint owner and the complainant was the tenant [Bai Samrath v. R
(1917) 20 Bom LR 106].
6) Where the complainant only stated in the complaint that the
accused had by keeping his car in front of his garage obstructed the
passage of his car, no offence of wrongful restraint was made out as
there was no obstruction to human body at all [Shankarlal v. State
(1975) Cr.LJ 1077 (Gau.)].
This offence is cognizable, bailable, compoundable and is triable by any Magistrate.
No comments:
Post a Comment