Wrongful confinement to extort confession, or compel restoration of property
Section 348 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with wrongful confinement to extort confession, or compel restoration of property. Whoever wrongfully confines any person for the purpose of extorting from the person confined or any person interested in the person confined any confession or any information which may lead to the detection of an offence or misconduct, or for the purpose of constraining the person confined or any pe 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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 the purpose of extorting from the person confined or any person interested in the person confined any confession or any information which may lead to the detection of an offence or misconduct, or for the purpose of constraining the person confined or any person interested in the person confined to restore or to cause the restoration of any property or valuable security or to satisfy any claim or demand, or to give information which may lead to the restoration of any property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Of criminal force and assault
Section 348, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 127 Wrongful confinement Close, with changes 75%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
-
Sanganagouda A. Veeranagouda vs State of Karnataka
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A police officer who makes an arrest without warrant is directly duty-bound under CrPC Section 56 to produce the arrested person before the nearest magistrate without unnecessary delay and within 24 hours excluding transport time. This duty vests in the arresting officer personally and does not depend on whether he is the investigating officer or on any written authorization from the investigating officer. Failure to produce the arrested person within 24 hours, resulting in unlawful detention, constitutes wrongful confinement punishable under IPC Section 348, regardless of whether the investigating officer bore broader investigative authority.
On this section: Wrongful confinement - key issue of case; applied to establish that keeping accused beyond 24 hours without magistrate production constitutes wrongful confinement even if investigating officer had investigation authority
-
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; conviction confirmed as part of custodial torture
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 learned Sessions Judge thought it fit and proper to treat recovery under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act as substantive evidence and convicted accused on that basis alone. There is no other evidence against the accused. 2. The accused, six in number, faced prosecution for the offences under Sections 451, 395, 363, 364, 348 and 120B of Indian Penal Code. Among them, accused Nos.2 to 6 were found not guilty of any of the offences and were acquitted. The 1 st accused was found guilty of the offence under Section 392 IPC and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default clause …
Questions about Section 348
What have the courts held on Section 348 of the Indian Penal Code?
Sanganagouda A. Veeranagouda vs State of Karnataka (29 Sep 2005) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Wrongful confinement - key issue of case; applied to establish that keeping accused beyond 24 hours without magistrate production constitutes wrongful confinement even if investigating officer had investigation authority. Another 1 judgment on this section is set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2005 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Section 348 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 348, section 348 IPC, section 348 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 348 in bns. 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 Sanganagouda A. Veeranagouda vs State of Karnataka (29 Sep 2005).
What should I read with Section 348 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 348 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 348 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 348, 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.