Wrongful Restraint and Wrongful Confinement
Chapter Twenty-Nine
Syllabus topic 1, "Offences under Indian Penal Code"
Pages 134 to 138 of 802
In one line
Wrongful restraint is stopping a person from going where he has a right to go; wrongful confinement is stopping him from going anywhere at all beyond a boundary.
In the wording a student can write in an exam: by section 126(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which he has a right to proceed is said wrongfully to restrain him, and by section 127(1) whoever wrongfully restrains a person in such a manner as to prevent him from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits is said wrongfully to confine him.
Why the law protects free movement in two grades
The interest protected is the same in both: a person's liberty to move. What differs is how completely it is taken away.
Restraint blocks a direction. The person may go anywhere else, so the deprivation is partial.
Confinement encloses. The person may not go beyond a boundary in any direction, so the deprivation is total, and section 127 grades the punishment upward by how long it lasted and why it was done.
The provisions themselves
Section 126(1), wrongful restraint. 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.
The 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."
The 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, and Z is thereby prevented from passing. A wrongfully restrains Z.
Section 126(2), the punishment. Simple imprisonment which may extend to one month, or fine up to five thousand rupees, or both.
Section 127(1), wrongful confinement. Wrongfully restraining a person in such a manner as to prevent him from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits.
Section 127(2) to (8) grade it. The ordinary punishment is up to one year, or fine up to five thousand rupees, or both. Confinement for three days or more: up to three years, or fine up to ten thousand rupees, or both. Confinement for ten days or more: up to five years, and a fine of not less than ten thousand rupees. Keeping a person confined knowing that a writ for his liberation has been duly issued: up to two years, in addition to any other term under this Chapter, and fine. Confining in a manner indicating an intention that the confinement or its place should not be known to any interested person or public servant: up to three years, in addition to any other punishment, and fine. Confining to extort property or a valuable security, or to constrain the person to do anything illegal or give information facilitating an offence: up to three years and fine. Confining to extort a confession or information leading to the detection of an offence or misconduct, or to compel restoration of property, satisfaction of a claim, or information leading to restoration: up to three years and fine.
Wrongful Restraint and Wrongful Confinement
Broken down: the difference in one sentence
In restraint the person can go somewhere else; in confinement he cannot go anywhere. That is the whole of it, and every examination question on this pair is testing it.
"A right to proceed" is essential to both. A person obstructed from entering a place he has no right to enter is not wrongfully restrained.
Restraint must be total in the direction obstructed. A partial obstruction that merely makes passage inconvenient is not restraint; the person must be prevented.
Confinement needs circumscribing limits, but they need not be walls. A ring of people, a locked compound, or a guarded field will serve, so long as the person cannot pass beyond the boundary in any direction.
Confinement is a species of restraint. Section 127 opens "Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner", so every wrongful confinement is also a wrongful restraint. The converse is not true.
The Exception in section 126 is narrow and precise
It applies only to a private way over land or water. Obstructing a public road is outside it altogether.
It requires good faith, which by section 2(11) means with due care and attention. A person who never troubled to find out whether the way was private cannot rely on it.
It requires a belief in a lawful right to obstruct, not merely a belief that obstruction is convenient or customary.
Distinctions that carry marks
| Wrongful restraint, s.126 | Wrongful confinement, s.127 | |
|---|---|---|
| What is prevented | Proceeding in a direction the person has a right to take | Proceeding beyond circumscribing limits in any direction |
| Escape route | The person may go elsewhere | None |
| Punishment | Simple imprisonment up to one month, or five thousand rupees, or both | Up to one year, rising by duration and purpose to five years |
| Relationship | The wider offence | A species of the wider offence |
| Duration or purpose | Sub-section | Maximum |
|---|---|---|
| Ordinary | 127(2) | One year, or five thousand rupees, or both |
| Three days or more | 127(3) | Three years, or ten thousand rupees, or both |
| Ten days or more | 127(4) | Five years, and a fine of not less than ten thousand rupees |
| Knowing a writ of liberation has issued | 127(5) | Two years, in addition to any other term |
| Concealed confinement | 127(6) | Three years, in addition to any other punishment |
| To extort property or constrain to an illegal act | 127(7) | Three years and fine |
| To extort a confession or compel restoration | 127(8) | Three years and fine |
Wrongful Restraint and Wrongful Confinement
A worked example
Prakash parks his truck across the only gate of Nanda's compound, so that she cannot drive out. She can still walk out through a side door.
Restraint or confinement? Wrongful restraint under section 126. She is prevented from proceeding in a direction she has a right to take, but she is not prevented from going beyond circumscribing limits altogether, because the side door remains. The maximum is simple imprisonment for one month, or five thousand rupees, or both.
Change one fact: he also bolts the side door from outside. Now she cannot leave at all, so it is wrongful confinement under section 127, and the ordinary punishment under sub-section (2) is up to one year.
She is kept there for four days. Sub-section (3) applies, raising the maximum to three years, or a fine up to ten thousand rupees, or both.
Twelve days. Sub-section (4) applies: up to five years, and a fine which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees.
Prakash tells nobody where she is and moves her at night so that her family cannot find her. Sub-section (6) adds up to three years, in addition to the punishment for the confinement itself, because he confined her in a manner indicating an intention that the confinement or its place should not be known.
Her family obtains an order for her release and Prakash keeps her anyway. Sub-section (5) adds up to two years, in addition to any other term under this Chapter, for keeping a person in wrongful confinement knowing that a writ for her liberation has been duly issued.
A different case. Suppose Prakash blocks a footpath running across his own field, honestly believing after making enquiries that the path is private and that he may close it. The Exception to section 126(1) protects him, because the obstruction is of a private way over land and he believes in good faith that he has a lawful right to obstruct it.
What beginners get wrong
Thinking confinement needs a building. It does not. Any circumscribing limits will do, including a group of people standing round.
Thinking restraint requires physical contact. It does not. An obstruction is enough, and a threat that in fact prevents movement can obstruct.
Thinking the periods in section 127 are minimum sentences. They are not. Three days and ten days describe the duration of the confinement, and they raise the maximum punishment.
Wrongful Restraint and Wrongful Confinement
Applying the Exception to a public road. It is confined to a private way over land or water.
Limits and criticism
The punishment for restraint is very light. One month or five thousand rupees for a total obstruction of a person's movement in a direction he has a right to take, and the figure reflects a much older sense of the gravity of the interference.
"Certain circumscribing limits" is not defined, and whether a person could have escaped by an unreasonable or dangerous route has to be worked out case by case.
The aggravations in section 127 do not include the case of a confinement by a public servant as such, which is left to the offences in Chapter XII and to the specific hurt provisions in sections 120 and 121.
Quick revision
Section 126(1). Voluntarily obstructing a person so as to prevent him proceeding in any direction he has a right to proceed. Exception: obstruction of a private way over land or water believed in good faith to be lawfully obstructable.
Section 126(2). Simple imprisonment up to one month, or fine up to five thousand rupees, or both.
Section 127(1). Wrongful restraint preventing the person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits.
Section 127(2) to (8). One year ordinarily; three years for three days or more; five years and a minimum fine of ten thousand rupees for ten days or more; two years extra for keeping a person confined despite a writ; three years extra for concealed confinement; three years for confinement to extort property or constrain to an illegal act; three years for confinement to extort a confession or compel restoration.
The relationship. Every wrongful confinement is a wrongful restraint; not every restraint is a confinement.
Test yourself
1. State the difference between wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement in one sentence. Restraint prevents a person from proceeding in a direction he has a right to take while leaving him free to go elsewhere; confinement prevents him from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits in any direction.
2. What does the Exception to section 126(1) protect, and what must the person show? The obstruction of a private way over land or water. The person must show a belief in good faith, which by section 2(11) means with due care and attention, that he had a lawful right to obstruct it.
3. A person is confined for eleven days. Which sub-section applies and what is the punishment? Section 127(4): imprisonment up to five years, and a fine which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees.
4. What is added where the confinement is kept secret? Section 127(6) adds imprisonment up to three years, in addition to any other punishment for the confinement, where the person is confined in a manner indicating an intention that the confinement or its place should not be known to an interested person or a public servant.
Wrongful Restraint and Wrongful Confinement
5. Must there be walls for a wrongful confinement? No. Any circumscribing limits suffice, so long as the person cannot proceed beyond them in any direction.
The rest of this subject
These notes are cut from the University's printed syllabus. Open the syllabus itself, or the past papers, for the same subject.