STATE OF KERALA Vs. MOHANRAJ AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the State of Kerala against the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 82 of 2002 of the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc I), Thodupuzha for enhancing the sentence imposed by the appellate court. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 were charge -sheeted in C.C. No. 68 of 1999 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court. Devikulam for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 342, 348, 365 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge against them is that on 5 -5 -1998 at 11.00 a.m., accused Nos. 1 to 5 kidnapped one Krishnan (P.W. 1) from House No. 3272 in Ward No. IX of Munnar Panchayath, KDH village. The accused persons wrongfully confined him, attempted to obtain signature in stamp papers and caused hurt to him and thereby committed the aforesaid offences. Munnar Police registered the crime and after investigation, laid charge before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Devikulam.

(2.) During trial, prosecution examined P.W. 1 to P.W. 12 as witnesses and marked Exts. P -1 to P -10. The incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence were denied by the accused while questioning him. They examined D.W. 1 to D.W. 3 and marked Ext. D -1 and D -2. After analysing the evidence, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused under Sections 323, 348 and 365 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. But, the learned Magistrate convicted the accused under Sec. 342 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to simple imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs.1,000 each. In default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for two months. It was also directed that if the fine amount is recovered from the accused, Rs.2,000 shall be paid to P.W. 1 as compensation. Against that, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 82 of 2002 before the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc I), Thodupuzha, where, the conviction under Sec. 342 was confirmed and modified the sentence. Being aggrieved by that this appeal for enhancing the sentence.

(3.) Sec. 340 Penal Code defines wrongful confinement. Wrongful confinement is a form of wrongful restraint. The essential ingredients are (i) wrongful restraint of a person (ii) the restraint must be to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits beyond which he has a right to proceed. Apex Court in Raju Pandurang Mahale Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2004 S.C. 1677 held that there must be total restraint and not a partial one. Therefore, I run of the opinion that a physical blockade of a person either by encirclement in a manner to prevent that person from proceeding beyond encircled area or a complete blockade amounts to wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement.