A voluntarily goes to attend the marriage of his friend B on the invitation of B. During the marriage, before dinner, A requested to family members of B to give permission to return back to his home. The family members of B insisted that…

Question: A voluntarily goes to attend the marriage of his friend B on the invitation of B. During the marriage, before dinner, A requested to family members of B to give permission to return back to his home. The family members of B insisted that he return after dinner. A again expressed his desire to depart for home. The family members of B told him that he would be beaten by them if he goes without having dinner on the eve of the marriage of his closest friend, but took no action in this respect. A stayed there till dinner and left for home at midnight after having dinner. The family members of B did nothing to prevent A except expressing their desire by words and there were sufficient occasions for A to leave the place before dinner. Have the family members of B committed the offence of wrongful confinement? Give reasons and also refer to case law. if any, on the point.

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [A voluntarily goes to attend the marriage of his friend B on the invitation of B. During the marriage, before dinner, A requested to family members of B to give permission to return back to his home. The family members of B insisted that…]

Answer

Section 340, IPC defines Wrongful confinement as:

Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceedings beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said “wrongfully to confine” that person.

The essential ingredients of the offence of ‘wrongful confinement’ are:

1. wrongful restraint of a person, and
2. the restraint must be to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits beyond which (s)he has the right to proceed.
3. There must be total restraint and not partial ones

In the case of State of Gujarat v. Keshav Lai Maganbhai Gujoyan (1993 CrLJ 248 Guj), it was discussed by the court that:

“For a charge of wrongful confinement, proof of actual physical restriction is not essential. It is sufficient if the evidence shows that such an impression was produced in the mind of the victim, a reasonable apprehension in his mind that he was not free to depart.

If the impression creates that the complainant would be forthwith seized or restrained if he attempts to escape, a reasonable apprehension of the use of the force rather than its actual use is sufficient and important.”

For wrongful confinement, there must be:

1. it is an absolute or total restraint or obstruction of personal liberty.
2. wrongful confinement is a form of wrongful restraint.
3. certain circumscribing limits are always necessary.
4. Movement in all directions is obstructed.

However, in the present case, there is no such reasonable apprehension created in the mind of A by the members of B that they may inflict use of force

Also, family members of B did nothing to prevent A except for expressing their desire by words and there were sufficient occasions for A to leave the place before dinner. So the family members have not committed the offence of wrongful confinement.

---

Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

1. IPC Mains Questions Series Part I: Important Questions
2. IPC Mains Questions Series Part II: Important Questions
3. IPC Mains Questions Series Part III: Important Questions
4. IPC Mains Questions Series Part IV: Important Questions
5. IPC Mains Questions Series Part V: Important Questions
6. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VI: Important Questions
7. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VII: Important Questions
8. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VIII: Important Questions
9. IPC Mains Questions Series Part IX: Important Questions
10. IPC Mains Questions Series Part X: Important Questions

---

1. Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary and Entrance Exams
2. Legal Bites Academy – Ultimate Test Prep Destination