Punishment for wrongful confinement
Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with punishment for wrongful confinement. Whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1862. Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
Whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Section 342, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 127 Wrongful confinement Close, with changes 82%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Subhash Krishnan vs State of Goa
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal trials involving identification evidence, when multiple independent eyewitnesses positively identify the accused in court with specific reference to identifying features (such as distinctive clothing) and distinctive acts performed during the crime, and when such in-court identification is corroborated by: (a) participation in prior test identification parade conducted within reasonable time of occurrence (24 days) where accused did not challenge procedures; (b) recovery of vehicle and weapons linked to appellant; (c) credible evidence of previous acquaintance supporting enduring impress of identity; (d) consistent medical/forensic evidence; and (e) circumstances of arrest at scene with weapons, the absence of formal cross-examination of key witness (due to unavoidable circumstances) or initial non-mention in complaint does not vitiate the trial or conviction. The purpose of investigation is to set law in motion and collect evidence; if investigative procedures are thereafter followed lawfully and evidence collected is sufficiently corroborated, conviction can be upheld despite technical defects in initiation of investigation.
On this section: Punishment for wrongful confinement - applied to punish forcible restraint of deceased by use of criminal force causing unconsciousness before placing in van
-
M. Vijayakumar vs The State of Tamil Nadu
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
To sustain a conviction under Section 306 IPC for abetment of suicide, the prosecution must establish: (1) that the victim committed suicide, (2) that the accused abetted the commission of suicide through a positive act of instigation or aiding, (3) that the accused possessed clear mens rea (guilty mind) with the intention to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide, and (4) that there was an active or direct act by the accused that led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option. In the absence of evidence establishing these elements, particularly the mens rea and active act, conviction cannot be sustained. Furthermore, Section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked to shift the burden of proof from the prosecution to the accused unless the prosecution has first established a prima facie case.
On this section: Wrongful confinement - the appellant was acquitted of this charge by the High Court, which undermined the prosecution's case for abetment of suicide.
-
Pravat Chandra Mohanty vs The State of Odisha
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When police officers abuse their position of authority and commit custodial violence resulting in death, such offense is a matter of grave public concern affecting entire society and cannot be compounded merely on agreement of parties. The Court must exercise discretion based on public interest and nature of offense. Even when refusing to compound non-compoundable offense, Court can consider settlement between parties for purpose of reducing sentence. Wooden lathi and batten are weapons capable of causing death depending on manner of use. Custodial violence by police requires proportionately stringent punishment to have effective deterrent effect and instill confidence in criminal justice system.
On this section: Wrongful confinement. Applied to convict appellants for confining deceased at police station.
-
Pratap Kumar Choudhury vs The State of Odisha
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When public servants, particularly police officers whose primary duty is to protect law and order, abuse their official position and commit acts of brutality resulting in death, such offences cannot be compounded even with the agreement of the victim's family and the settlement of compensation, as they constitute violations of fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution and are matters of grave public concern affecting the entire society. The punishment for such violations must be proportionately stringent to have effective deterrent effect and instill confidence in the criminal justice system. However, the fact of settlement and compensation between parties can be considered as a relevant circumstance for determining the quantum of sentence even when compounding is refused.
On this section: Wrongful confinement - applied to convict for unlawful detention of the deceased at police station
-
Tarun Jit Tejpal vs The State of Goa Home Department Home Secretary
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the stage of framing charges under Sections 227-228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out whether the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The court has the power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to be applied is whether there is ground for presuming that the offence has been committed, not whether ground for conviction has been made out. Even strong suspicion founded on material which leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged would justify the framing of charge against the accused. The court cannot conduct a mini-trial or weigh the evidence as if it was conducting a trial. The submissions made by the accused on merits and probable defence are not required to be considered at this stage. The decision in Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab regarding vitiation of trial when complainant and investigating officer are the same applies prospectively only, as held in Varinder Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, and does not apply to cases where criminal prosecution was initiated prior to the Mohan Lal decision.
On this section: Wrongful confinement - one of the offences charged against the appellant
-
Ashwani Kumar @ Ashu vs State of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal trials involving circumstantial evidence and conspiracy, eyewitness identification without test identification parade is admissible and can support conviction if the witness is trustworthy and reliable, provided such identification is corroborated by independent circumstantial evidence including extra-judicial confessions, recovered weapons, telephonic communications and documents. However, mere telephonic communications without proof of exclusive control or personal involvement in conspiatorial acts are insufficient to establish guilt when the communications are explainable by familial or legitimate relationships. The burden of proof remains on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt through competent and corroborating evidence.
On this section: Applied in early FIR No. 38 for wrongful confinement allegations in the false fraud case filed by family against Sukhwinder Singh
-
Darshan Singh vs State of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a witness is trustworthy and reliable and has opportunity to observe and recall the incident, the absence of a test identification parade does not render their in-court identification inadmissible or unsafe if it is supported by credible corroborating material evidence such as medical evidence, other eyewitness accounts, recoveries of items connected to the crime, and incriminating statements. Conviction under Sections 364, 302, and 307 read with Section 120B IPC can be sustained on the basis of such circumstantial evidence if the circumstances are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with innocence. However, conviction must not be based on mere suspicion or telephone communications alone without concrete corroborating evidence, as the standard of proof requires evidence to be sufficient and convincing.
On this section: Cited in the initial false FIR registered by the victim's family members against the victim's husband; later found to be false and closure ordered.
-
Mohd. Imran Khan vs State(govt. of National Cap. Ter. of Delhi)
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A prosecutrix's testimony in a rape case, if found to be worthy of credence and reliable, requires no corroboration and can sustain a conviction. A woman who is the victim of sexual assault stands at a higher pedestal than an injured witness as she suffers from emotional injury. Her evidence must be appreciated in the background of the entire case with heightened sensitivity. Threats and coercion negate any notion of consent, and a minor cannot legally consent to sexual intercourse regardless of her apparent willingness or voluntary accompaniment. The court must not allow infirmities in investigation to undermine the credibility of victim testimony when the evidence is otherwise reliable.
On this section: Wrongful confinement and criminal intimidation - Added during investigation but not the primary focus of the judgment.
-
Mohd. Imran Khan vs State(govt. of National Cap. Ter. of Delhi)
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The testimony of a prosecutrix in a rape case, if found to be worthy of credence and reliable, does not require corroboration from other witnesses or evidence to secure conviction; the court may convict the accused on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if satisfied of its truthfulness. A woman in Indian society would not falsely accuse someone of rape knowing the severe social consequences and stigma she would face throughout her life. Therefore, her credible testimony must be evaluated with appropriate sensitivity to the trauma of rape, and the court should have no hesitation in accepting her evidence when it bears marks of reliability. The presence of knife threats, coercion, and the minor age of the victim are material factors negating the effect of the victim's voluntary accompanying of the accused, and do not indicate consent.
On this section: Wrongful confinement and criminal intimidation: Added charges during investigation regarding threats with knife and confinement.
-
Dharmatma Singh vs Harminder Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The High Court cannot exercise its inherent power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash criminal proceedings at an interlocutory stage when the Magistrate has not yet applied judicial mind to the police reports filed under Section 173 and Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Magistrate has the statutory duty and judicial discretion to independently evaluate all police reports (both initial and further investigation reports) and determine whether to take cognizance of offences, regardless of police recommendations. The High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 cannot be exercised to circumvent or short-circuit the Magistrate's statutory role. Exercise of Section 482 powers before a Magistrate applies judicial mind to the merits of the case would violate the procedural hierarchy and legislative scheme of the Criminal Procedure Code.
On this section: These sections were part of the cross-charges filed against Harminder Singh and others, relating to wrongful confinement, causing hurt and grievous hurt, and rioting.
-
State of H. P vs Suresh Kumar @ Dc
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Conviction for the offence of rape under Section 376 IPC can be based on the sole testimony of a credible rape victim, particularly when the victim is a minor child whose testimony is firm, convincing, and remains unshaken during cross-examination. Such conviction is justified when the victim's testimony is corroborated by medical evidence and family witness accounts, and the victim demonstrates no signs of tutoring or parental influence. Courts should not insist on independent eyewitness corroboration before accepting reliable victim testimony in rape cases, as doing so amounts to adding insult to injury. Medical evidence indicating recent sexual intercourse, even if slightly ambiguous regarding the precise date, can effectively corroborate the victim's account when the timeframe mentioned by the victim falls within the period of possible recent intercourse identified by medical examination.
On this section: Wrongful confinement - Applied as the accused allegedly confined the victim to his locked room before committing rape.
-
S. Ramakrishna vs State Rep. by Pub. Prosr. , H. C. A. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A prosecutrix in a rape case is a competent and credible witness whose testimony need not be corroborated as per mandatory legal requirements under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Her evidence must be evaluated with the same care and weight as that of an injured witness in physical violence cases. When a prosecutrix demonstrates no strong motive to falsely involve the accused, and the totality of circumstances supports her credibility, conviction can be sustained based substantially on her testimony. Medical evidence confirming presence of human semen and protozoa, when read holistically rather than by isolated clinical impressions, establishes rape. The age of the victim becomes immaterial when the rape allegation is based on absence of consent and violent sexual assault rather than statutory age provisions.
On this section: Wrongful confinement - Applied to the facts where accused gagged victim's mouth and tied her hands during the sexual assault.
-
Manik vs The State of Maharashtra Home Department Secretary
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a dead body is recovered and subjected to autopsy and necrotomic evidence is adduced to establish cause of death, failure to prove that the dead body is of the person allegedly murdered by the accused must have fatal and adverse consequence on the prosecution case. The case of an untraceable dead body is different from a case where the dead body is traced and evidence is adduced to prove the identity of the deceased. In the latter case, upon failure to prove identity, the prosecution cannot be permitted to advance a case that the dead body is untraceable. However, this principle applies only when the prosecution itself has put forth the case that the dead body was recovered. In such circumstances, when once identification of the dead body as that of the alleged victim based on fingerprint test is reversed by the High Court, in the absence of appeal by the State or the victim, it cannot be said that the dead body is that of the alleged victim, either for holding the accused guilty of murder under Section 302 IPC or under Section 304 IPC. (Justice C.T. Ravikumar's view, which represents the majority position on this specific issue)
On this section: Wrongful confinement; charged but not separately discussed in judgment
-
Amit Kesar vs Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, can quash criminal proceedings or FIR based on a compromise reached between the accused and the complainant, particularly in cases involving private disputes between family members. Section 320 CrPC does not limit or affect these powers. When parties have genuinely resolved their differences and are living peacefully together, continuing the criminal prosecution would serve no fruitful purpose and would result in a wasteful mock trial, contrary to the interests of justice.
On this section: Wrongful confinement; one of the charges in the FIR that was quashed
-
Marfing Tamang @ Maaina Tamang vs State (nct of Delhi)
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The word 'forthwith' appearing in Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, mandates that the grounds of arrest must be communicated to an arrestee immediately and simultaneously with the issuance of the arrest memo, not later within 24 hours. Any delay in communicating grounds of arrest, including communication during remand proceedings, violates the statutory requirement and the constitutional guarantee under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. The grounds of arrest must be reduced to writing and served upon the arrestee at the time of arrest itself, and the arrestee must be given meaningful opportunity to consult legal counsel after receiving such grounds before being subjected to remand proceedings.
On this section: Offences alleged against petitioner including wrongful confinement, kidnapping, abduction, trafficking, sexual abuse. These serious allegations formed basis of FIR.
-
Rajinder Notial @ Suma vs State of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While the conviction of the accused for sexual assault on a minor is legally sustainable and should be upheld based on the evidence on record, the quantum of sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the circumstances of the case. When an accused has already undergone substantial imprisonment and has reformed during the protracted litigation, the court may exercise its discretionary power to reduce the sentence to the period already served, provided a fine is imposed to maintain the deterrent effect of the law and ensure that the sentence is neither excessively harsh nor lenient.
On this section: Wrongful confinement; applied to the accused confining the victim in a closed room during the assault incidents
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… The Trial Court charged all seven accused persons for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 302, 364, 449, 450, 380/34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860[2]( page-1-1) . Later, accused nos. 6 and 7 were distinctly charged for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 342, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. After trial, the Trial Court, vide order dated 05.06.1992, convicted the accused persons listed as accused nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 for the commission of offences under Section 302/34 and 364/34 of IPC. They were acquitted of <span id="page-1-0"></span><sup>1</sup> Prosecution …
-
… The Trial Court charged all seven accused persons for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 302, 364, 449, 450, 380/34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860[2]( page-1-1) . Later, accused nos. 6 and 7 were distinctly charged for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 342, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. After trial, the Trial Court, vide order dated 05.06.1992, convicted the accused persons listed as accused nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 for the commission of offences under Section 302/34 and 364/34 of IPC. They were acquitted of <span id="page-1-0"></span><sup>1</sup> Prosecution …
Questions about Section 342
What have the courts held on Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code?
Subhash Krishnan vs State of Goa (17 Aug 2012) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Punishment for wrongful confinement - applied to punish forcible restraint of deceased by use of criminal force causing unconsciousness before placing in van. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 13 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: IPC 342, section 342 IPC, section 342 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 342 in bns and ipc 342 punishment. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Subhash Krishnan vs State of Goa (17 Aug 2012).
What should I read with Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 127 (Wrongful confinement), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 342, came into force on 01 Jan 1862, having been enacted on 06 Oct 1860. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 499. Defamation1512 words
- 464. Making a false document1223 words
- 300. Murder1172 words
- 378. Theft980 words
- 108. Abettor745 words
- 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property727 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 7b7d4fe6-206b-4e33-81f1-b98b018acaf6). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.