Submitted By: Kadiyaa Beula Grace (Semester IV, BBA LLB Symbiosis International University, Hyderabad)
DETAILED INTRODUCTION:
The case, Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir deals with the tort of false imprisonment. It can also be called unlawful imprisonment. False imprisonment is a total restraint of a person without any lawful justification. As per the Indian penal code, it can also be called wrongful confinement under section 340. Section 339 to Section 348 mentions, that proof of wrongful prosecution is necessary to seek a request from Habeas Corpus when it comes to public policing. Similarly, if any legal criminal proceeding is been taken maliciously, it is called malicious (criminal) prosecution. False imprisonment can be initiated on any private individual’s act or on an authorized person’s act. But for malicious prosecution can be based on judgment or judicial order.
False imprisonment is not a tort “prima facie” which means ‘from the beginning’ but malicious prosecution is a tort from the beginning. A tort is a civil wrong that is of French origin. The word ‘tort’ is derived from the Latin word ‘TORTUM’ which means twisted or crooked act. A tort is a civil wrong other than those covered under breach of trust or contract which the law will redress by unliquidated damage. For false imprisonment, there is no need for modified intention but in malicious prosecution, the plaintiff has to prove malice on the part of the defendant. Malicious prosecution can be initiated after acquittal[1] which means declaring him innocent. Discharge means releasing him on the benefit of the doubt when there is no proper proof against him. Whenever an accused is released on the benefit of the doubt, he will be called discharged from allegation. In this case, an investigation will be continued and if any doubtful evidence is found, he can be arrested.
Unlawful Detention:
Unlawful imprisonment is one of the main factors for false imprisonment. If the plaintiff is in a position to show that the crime of false imprisonment is carried out along with the defendant without any valid excuse or proper authority, he shall be found responsible.
Essentials of False Imprisonment:
There are 4 essentials to false imprisonment. They are:
- Period of Confinement
- The Intention Factor
- Knowledge of the Plaintiff
- Place of Confinement
Period of Confinement:
The length of imprisonment must be looked at in order to assess the degree of imprisonment and to what extent liability needs to be granted for damages or injuries suffered. Also, imprisonment accepted by statute will be struck down as unconstitutional outside a fair amount of time. For instance, if an individual locked anybody inside a room without knowing that someone is in the room, they are made responsible for false imprisonment.
The Intention Factor:
The wrongfulness of unlawful imprisonment would usually be deliberate. An individual is not accountable for false imprisonment unless his or her conduct is committed to the process of implementing a containment or believing that it would lead to such a containment with reasonable assurance. Malice[2] is not related to this misconduct. It is typically for the court to decide, as a matter of course, the motive of the defendant in a suit for false imprisonment from the facts. It may constitute negligent acts as unlawful imprisonment. For instance, Both C and D are staff, and C is oblivious that D is already in the distribution centre, and locks him inside the distribution centre. For false imprisonment, he will indeed be found accountable.
Knowledge of the Plaintiff:
If the individual is imprisoned in a room when one of the entrances known to the complainant is locked, and the room seems to have more than one entrance-exit lock, there seems to be no provision that the complainant claiming false imprisonment was notified of the limitation on his liberty at the time of his confinement, but the applicant has no evidence of the very same, the defendant would also be found liable. Therefore, since it is actionable per se, the individual trapped does not seem to be mindful of that same enclosure or be affected by all of this.
Place Of Confinement:
If any location is being used over a certain period of time to restrict a prisoner, this would lead to false imprisonment. The individual who is restricted is infringed on his rights and constitutional freedom[3]. If an individual has forced somebody else to put herself or himself in a position which really is difficult to escape but without the aid of those persons, by language or by any actions, the failure to offer such help shall constitute an act of incarceration[4] necessary to make that person responsible for the intent of assaulting the other individual.
Defences For False Imprisonment:
Some of the defences for false imprisonment are stated below:
- Consent: An individual who’s already given the authority to be enclosed or imprisoned without intimidation or deception or wrongdoing cannot then claim to be part of false imprisonment.
- Volenti non-fit Injuria: The Volenti Non-fit Injuria maxim means taking the chance willingly. If a party who, acting in compliance with the complainant, attempts to curtail his own freedom and decides to engage in a premise that will lead in his or her loss of rights and inflict injury to him or her.
- Lawful Manner: The criminal should conduct in due process of justice and therefore should restrict an individual to a warrant as the act may be explained without the need for a warrant in the eye of the law.
- Valid Arrest: Demonstrably false reasons for detention are not true where an individual has been arrested because of lawful order or because of lawful arrest where a person may be considered as committing a serious crime or crime. Furthermore, without excuse, a person may be legally arrested for arresting a resident.
Remedies For False Imprisonment:
The following are the remedies for false imprisonment:
- Actions for damage
- Nominal and Compensatory Damages
- Punitive, Exemplary and Aggravated Damages
- Writ of Habeas Corpus
- Self Help
Actions for damage:
Unlawful imprisonment in different cases does injury to the complainant. Any forms of injury are emotional agony, physical pain, insufficient time and income, as well as reputational damage. It is up to the judge to determine the seriousness of that injury.
Nominal and Compensatory Damages:
The usual principle of an individual personal tort action seems to be that, with the exception of conditions, the complainant is allowed to recover a sum that would be right and equal, authorizing a reward for exemplary damages. Mere wrongful imprisonment forms the basis for the payment of at minimum compensatory damages, but the grant of compensatory damages can be insufficient and flawed only if the evidence indicates that there is a right to higher damages.
Punitive, Exemplary and Aggravated Damages:
The tribunal can pay exceptional or compensatory damages where incarceration is carelessly, intolerably, embarrassingly and malicious purposes influenced in a design to manipulate and harm. In cases in which the act of the defendant is carelessly insensitive to the interests of others or in conscious or willful breach of such rights, punitive damages may be awarded and those damages are granted to include deterrence. Exemplary damages can be given in cases, such where the state violates authority. In a larger sense, punitive damages could be granted if the incarceration of a trivial individual in itself would be malicious or harm falls to the emotions of the claimant. Authorities have also ruled that within a suit for wrongful incarceration or false imprisonment, malice would merit order for exceptional or punitive damages. If the false incarceration was taken on in good conscience, without wrongdoing in fact or in statute and because there is no element of willfulness or injustice, exemplary or exceptional liability would not be permitted.
Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Habeas Corpus[5] is a form of court-issued writ. The writ of habeas corpus is issued by the Supreme Court under Article 32 and the High Court under Article 226. The underlying sense of the word “HABEAS CORPUS” is to carry the body to justice or introduce the body. If he is unfairly imprisoned, an appeal for this can be made by the complainant or by any other party on his request.
Self-help:
Self-help is the very first principle of criminal justice. Any person has the right to protect himself against some form of external attack or threat apprehension and extreme threat.
Literature Review:
For this paper, the mainly focused topic is false imprisonment. Resources for this topic are certainly less. There are some websites, articles and journals used for this paper. one of the most extreme ways of abuse of human rights is the act of false imprisonment. Non-violence, shared respect and human dignity of the individual are the foundation of the Indian socio-legal system (viswanth, 2013). An act of false imprisonment per se is enforceable. Because of the infringement of constitutional rights as a result of arbitrary arrest and inhumane punishment, the laws pertaining to unlawful arrest need to be stricter (Joshi, 2019). The act of detention or the procedure of confining a prisoner need not be inside the grounds of a jail or prison, it may also take place in a public field where there is also an infringement or complete restriction on the movement of a person by someone without a reasonable cause in that case. (shramanadwibedi)
Case laws relating to false imprisonment:
Bhim Singh V. State Of Jammu And Kashmir AIR 1986 Sc 494
This case was argued under the Supreme Court of India in which the bench consists of Hon’ble Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy and Hon’ble Justice V. Khalid. 22 November, 1985 is the date decided[6]. An MLA of Jammu and Kashmir Mr. Bhim Singh were arrested between intervening between 9th and 10th December of 1985 and was arrested and kept in police detention, he was intentionally prohibited from entering the National Assembly sessions to be held on 11 September 1985. Bhim Singh was not produced before magistrate till December 13th. Of not knowing any information about her husband, Bhim Singh’s wife filed a writ of Habeas Corpus in front of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The court observed that the police officers used their authority in an unnecessary and forceful manner. The plaintiff was granted reasonable liability for such gross violations of his civil rights by way of exemplary expenses. The respondent which is the state Jammu and Kashmir was told to pay the amount of 50,000 to the plaintiff within 2 months from the date of judgment and the amount was to be deposited with the registrar of the court.
Rudul Shah V. State Of Bihar AIR 1086, 1983 Scr (3) 508
This case was argued in the Hon’ble Supreme Court under the bench which consisted of Hon’ble Justice Y. V. Chandrachud (CJI), Hon’ble Justice A.N.Sen and Hon’ble Justice R.B.Misra. 1st August 1983 was the date of judgment[7]. Mr Rudul Shah was imprisoned in 1953 for murdering his wife. He had been discharged by the Court of Sessions, in 1968, but was sentenced to be jailed until further order of the State Legislature. He was imprisoned for more than 14 years and then he filed a writ of Habeas Court petition under Article 32[8] for his discharge on the basis that his imprisonment in the jail was unlawful. In contrast to rupees 5000, which had already been compensated to rudul shah , the court directed the State Government to pay the damages of rupees 30,000 and explained that all this right of recovery was in includes the right of appeal to the court of law for the claim for damages.
SEBASTIAN M.HONGRAY v. UNION OF INDIA, 1984 SCR (3) 544
This case was argued in the Hon’ble Supreme Court under the bench which consisted of Hon’ble Justice Desai and Hon’ble Justice D.A. 23rd April 1984 was the date of judgement[9]. In this Sebastian Hongray case, two individual persons were taken into custody by the authority of the armed forces in Manipur of Assam but were not presented in accordance with a writ of habeas corpus and it was claimed that, when in military custody, those individuals persons may have sustained an excruciating death. The Hon’ble Supreme Court ordered the Union of India to pay exemplary compensation for the involvement of the military authority in the assassination of the two people.
D.K.Basu v. State of West Bengal AIR 1997 SC 416
This case was argued in the Hon’ble Supreme Court under the bench which consisted of Hon’ble Justice Kuldip Singh and Hon’ble Justice A.S.Anand. 18th December 1996 was the date of judgement[10]. In this situation, a report was submitted from the non-social group. Organization on the issue of lock-up killings in the government of Bengal of the West. This report and the note were viewed as a written request. He passed it. Contrary to this, the state government of West Bengal has lodged an application for this. In this respect, they replied that there had been no
Lock-up killings as well, and there was an investigation of whether there were any. Everyone who has done that will move ahead. After all of this has been completed, the court took centre stage and determined that the police regulation should have been in place and that there should be some fixed guidelines about a citizen being arrested. In this circumstance, the court has said that the locks-up killings should be decreased. It would give an immediate toll on the public’s confidence in the law and command. All the High Courts were ordered by that of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to search on the specifics and penalties levied on inmates in and the prison. They were required to include a comprehensive list of all the people who have been convicted and yet have still been in lock-up.
Herring V. Boyle 1834 AIR 1884 1 M&R 377
This case was argued in England and Wales under the judges Bolland B and Baron Gurney[11]. Until the mother charged a sum alleged to be owed to him, a schoolmaster wrongfully declined to authorize a middle schooler to go to his mother. In the exclusion of the child, a discussion was made between both the mother and the schoolmaster. The decision was upheld to not become a case of false arrest as the child wasn’t really consciously aware of his restriction that is he did not realize and may not have been mindful of the fact because he’s under custody.
Conclusions And Suggestions:
In conclusion, false imprisonment is to impose a constraint solely on an individual person’s activity or even prohibit his or her activity. Article 21[12] can also be applicable under false imprisonment. False imprisonment was said to have happened where, in the lieu of the latter’s permission and any dominant sanction or excuse in the eyes of the government, an individual being should be imprisoned by another individual being.
[1] After conducting a fair trial if an accused is released by saying not guilty, he is said to be acquitted i.e., there will be no further enquiry or arrest without proper proof.
[2] Intention to commit unlawful act by harming without legal justification or excuse ruined a person’s reputation
[3] Article 19 of Indian constitution
[4] the act of imprisoning someone or the state of being imprisoned
[5] A writ of habeas corpus is used to put before the court an inmate and other such detainee to decide whether the arrest or custody of the individual is legitimate.
[6] AIR 1986 SC 494
[7] AIR 1086, 1983 SCR (3) 508
[8] Article 32 of the Indian constitution.
[9] 1984 SCR (3) 544
[10] AIR 1997 SC 416
[11] AIR 1884 1 M&R 377
[12] Article 21 of the Indian constitution
