What Is False Imprisonment?

When someone intentionally prevents another person from exercising their freedom, they are said to be imprisoned in violation of the law. False imprisonment is a legal offense that can be prosecuted in both civil and criminal courts when someone intentionally restricts another person's freedom.

To constitute this wrong two things are necessary:

1. The total restraint of the liberty of a person
   The person may be detained in one of two ways (a) physically such as by putting hands on someone (b) symbolically such as by an officer merely stating that someone is needed and requiring them to accompany him.
    
2. The detention must be lawful
   It makes no difference how long the detention lasts, however, it must not be legal. Every form of confinement-including being forcibly detained in public-is an imprisonment, whether it takes place in a common prison, a private home, a stock, or any other setting. In the leading

Case of Bird Vs Jones, Coleridge J.said:
The factors which constitute false imprisonment are:

• Probable cause of imprisonment.
• Plaintiffs knowledge for imprisonment.
• Intent of defendant during imprisonment and confinement period matters.

This applies to both government and private confinement. Whether the constraint is total or partial, it is nonetheless illegal under criminal law. The offence of "wrongful confinement" as defined in SECTION 340 OF IPC occurs when the constraint is total and the individual is barred from leaving specific set limits.

According to this, illegal incarceration is punishable under the Indian Penal Code and is sufficient grounds for a writ of habeas corpus. Although it is not required, the person should be imprisoned in a place from where there is no possibility for him to escape other than with the help of the person who is imprisoning him. Wrongful

Section 340 Of Indian Penal Code 1860

Bhimsingh Vs State Of Kashmir, 9 September 1985.
Rudul Shah Vs State Of Bihar,1983

Incarceration may be considered an intentional tort as well as a criminal, depending on the laws of the specific jurisdiction.

One need not confine the person by locking them up under the guise of false imprisonment. Basically, the defendant must forcibly bind a person to a location where a reasonable person, under normal circumstances, would assume they are unable to flee. The plaintiff must have good reason to fear that leaving that specific circumscribed region would put him in danger. However, it is not a case of wrongful imprisonment if that person stays there voluntarily or after giving his own permission, which was not obtained by pressure or undue influence.

Examples:

1. False imprisonment occurred when the defendant locked the plaintiff in a room without his consent. However, it is not false imprisonment if the plaintiff is aware of the reality.
2. False incarceration also includes when a security guard or police officer holds someone against their will for a protracted period of time because of how they appear or because they wear certain religious symbols.
3. Situations that are not considered as false imprisonment
4. Imprisonment does not have to be mandatory in the broad sense to quality as false imprisonment. False incarceration occurs when someone's personal freedom is violated, whether through being kept inside a building or being unable to leave their current location.

Consent Of The Plaintiff

The plaintiff's assent is a crucial factor in determining whether a scenario qualifies as false imprisonment or not. False confinement is not deemed to have occurred if the plaintiff was either aware of the circumstances or consented to being restrained. However, the plaintiff's assent must not have been obtained through deceit, compulsion, or unfair influence.

In the famous case of R (L) v. Bournewood Community and Mental Health NHS Trust (1997), it was decided whether or not false imprisonment occurred when a mentally ill patient with the capacity to provide consent was admitted to a psychiatric facility. The complainant was an autistic patient who spent over thirty years at the facility. After that, he was released and lived under the watchful eye of a career. He was going to the hospital for a routine checkup when he got very agitated and had to be admitted again.

Section 340 Of Indian Penal Code 1860
Bhimsingh Vs State Of Kashmir, September 1985
Rudul Shah Vs State Of Bihar 1983
A lawsuit was brought on his behalf, arguing that the hospital staff's actions amounted to wrongful detention because the patient did not give his consent. The patient was not imprisoned, according to the Queen's Bench Division, since he lacked the mental capacity to fully understand the circumstances.

Defenses Of False Imprisonment

The absence of one or more of the components is the most common defence for false incarceration. For instance, if the victim consents to being imprisoned, wrongful imprisonment was not committed.

However, there are alternative ways to counter an allegation of false detention. These common denials of allegations of false incarceration.

Valid Arrest

False arrest allegations are invalid if someone was detained as a result of a lawful arrest or a legally mandated detention, or if there is reasonable suspicion that the individual in question committed a felony or engaged in wrongdoing. A person may also be held legally if they unlawfully detain a citizen.

Consent To Restraint

Without evidence of fraud, coercion, or wrongdoing, a person who consents to being detained or imprisoned cannot thereafter assert that they were a victim of wrongful incarceration. As a result, the defence of voluntary assent to false detention is frequently used.

Landmark Cases

Bhimsingh Vs State Of Kashmir

In this case the petitioner, MLA of J&K was to participate in the Assembly meeting. His combatants on the way to save you him from attending the Assembly consultation were given him arrested wrongfully with the assist of a few executives and police. The Magistrate additionally granted remand to police without compliance of the necessary requirement of manufacturing of the accused within side the Magistrate's Court earlier than reminding him to police custody. He turned into launched after the Assembly consultation were given over. The Supreme Court held the State chargeable for wrongful arrest and detention of the petitioner and ordered a reimbursement of Rs. 50,000 to be paid to the plaintiff.

Rudal Shah Vs State Of Bihar

Section 340 Of Indian Penal Code 1860

In this case, the petitioner, an under-trial, he was unjustly sentenced to several years in prison despite being acquitted by the court. The Patna High Court said that as soon as the court finds that the accused person is innocent, he should be released. Arrest after that is illegal. The state had to pay Rs. 30,000 as compensations.

Conclusion
False imprisonment may result from the defendant's negligence or malice, but since the victim is the plaintiff, consideration must be given to the defendant's location, length of confinement, and degree of force employed when determining the amount of compensation to be given. The aforementioned factors will guarantee that the injured party receives just compensation.

Written By:

1. Daksh Goel &
2. Gauri Singh