Wrongful confinement for three or more days
Section 343 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with wrongful confinement for three or more days. Whoever wrongfully confines any person for three days or more, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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 for three days or more, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 343, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 127 Wrongful confinement Close, with changes 80%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
-
Ram Prakash Chaddha vs The State of Uttar Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the stage of considering discharge application under Section 227 Cr.PC, the court must confine its consideration to 'the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith' (prosecution materials only) and determine whether a prima facie case exists based on grave suspicion emerging from such materials. Mere suspicion, supposition, or conjecture not founded on materials on record cannot justify framing charges. In cases of criminal conspiracy, there must be at least an allegation of agreement between conspirators; absent such allegation or evidence of agreement in prosecution materials, charges of conspiracy cannot be framed merely on basis of suspicious circumstances. The court is not a mere post office of prosecution but must exercise independent judicial mind to protect accused from frivolous prosecution, especially at pre-trial stage.
On this section: Wrongful confinement; appellant was charged under this section
-
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 for three or more days; charged but not separately discussed
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.
Questions about Section 343
What have the courts held on Section 343 of the Indian Penal Code?
Ram Prakash Chaddha vs The State of Uttar Pradesh (15 Jul 2024) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Wrongful confinement; appellant was charged under this section. Another 1 judgment on this section is set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court.
How do I find court cases under Section 343 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 343, section 343 IPC, section 343 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 343 punishment. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 2 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Ram Prakash Chaddha vs The State of Uttar Pradesh (15 Jul 2024).
What should I read with Section 343 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 343 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 343 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 343, 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.