Submitted By: Kadiyaa Beula Grace (Semester IV, BBA LLB Symbiosis International University, Hyderabad)
Table of Contents
Definition of false imprisonment according to Black’s law dictionary:
“The unlawful arrest or detention of a person without warrant, or by an illegal warrant, or a warrant illegally executed, and either in a prison or a place used temporarily for that purpose, or by force and constraint without confinement.”
“False imprisonment consists in the unlawful detention of the person of another, for any length of time, whereby he is deprived of his personal liberty.”
As per the Indian penal code, it can also be called wrongful confinement under section 340. False imprisonment violates articles 20 and 21 of the Indian Constitution which talks about the right to life and freedom. False imprisonment consists of elements, defences and remedies of false imprisonment.
False imprisonment is not an unintentional tort. A tort is a wrongdoing that causes damage to someone. This harm may take the form of physically or psychologically, as well as property destruction. The tort form is defined by the tortfeasor’s psychological response. In contrast to torts caused by automobile crashes or slides and falls, deliberate torts are not caused by incompetence or careless conduct. Intentional torts, on the other hand, are crimes performed with purpose. The tortfeasor willfully commits the tort that causes injury to the other person.
Based on the rules of the country, false imprisonment can also be a crime as well as an intentional tort. A tort is a legal offence that ends in a determination of guilt or non-liability. Being ruled guilty entails having to pay monetary penalties. A criminal offence, but on the other side, is a legal case initiated by the prosecution to protect the public interest. It can be subjected to penalties or detention. False imprisonment as a crime ranges by country, however, the components are usually the same. The prosecution must demonstrate, beyond a possible suspicion, that almost all requirements of false imprisonment are fulfilled. False imprisonment is, in very many circumstances, a misdemeanour.
Some of the situations where a tort can come under false imprisonment are:
- An armed bank robber, for example, demands people to get down on the ground and threatens to kill them if they try to escape. They are indeed being kept in opposition to their desire and they recognize they could be murdered or experience substantial physical injury if they try to flee. Clients who were held hostage in a bank would be entitled to sue, and the bank robber may be punished with the crime of false imprisonment. Based on the situation, these offences will be classified as misdemeanours or felonies. if the police officers go outside their jurisdiction, they could be punished with wrongful imprisonment (such as detaining someone without justification).
- Blocking the doorway from the outside when an individual is inside a room, constitutes the tort of false imprisonment.
- In the famous case of Bhim Singh V. State Of Jammu And Kashmir we can witness false imprisonment against Mr Bhim Singh due to the misbehaviour, lack of evidence and irresponsible behaviour of the police officers, the state was ordered to pay the amount of rupees 50,000.
The subsequent conditions must be satisfied in an attempt to validate false imprisonment declare as a tort in a civil lawsuit:
- Willful restraint occurred;
- the restraint occurred without approval; and
- the restraint occurred in violation of the constitution.
In India, the first case involving false imprisonment to be blowed the lid off and settled by the Supreme Court was A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras. Union of India, which demonstrated the landmark importance regarding the understanding of human rights and their interplay.
SCOPE OF THE STUDY:
This paper analyzes a comparative analysis of false imprisonment as to whether it is a crime or a tort. This includes some important landmark cases, illustrations and examples. This paper will be easy to understand and will be in-detailed. The data was collected from valuable and official sources that are accurate and correct. The scope of the study sticks to both India and foreign regions in accordance to geographical aspect and coming to the depth of the topic I will be covering the difference between false imprisonment as crime and a tort, the period of confinement to false imprisonment so on and so forth.
- To gain familiarity with False Imprisonment
- To analyze the effect of law on society
- To evaluate from a historical perspective
Doctrinal analysis, as well as the comparative method, has been used in the analysis. The current thesis is focused on the researcher’s primary data collection as well as secondary data from books, magazines, and internet media. A doctrinal analysis encompasses the meaning of terms as well as points to precedents applicable to the present situation. The current study is heavily reliant on existing legislation and how it has worked. It is essential to study doctrinal research and analyse different applicable laws in place before conducting a successful study on such a subject. As a result, the researcher suggests doctrinal testing as the best match for the present case study.
- H. Aston, Motive as an Essential Element of the Crime of False Imprisonment, 38 DICK. L. REV. 184 (1933).
Black’s law dictionary
 Article 20(1) provides: No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.
 Article 21 of the Indian constitution: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law, nor shall any person be denied equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.
 the person committing the tort
 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
 AIR 1986 SC 494
 1950 AIR 27