Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person, in attempting wrongfully to confine that person, shall be punished with 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.
IPC Section 357: Simplified Explanation
IPC Section 357 of the Indian Penal Code deals with the offence of “assault or criminal force in an attempt to wrongfully confine a person.” This section applies when an individual uses assault or criminal force against another person to wrongfully confine them. The key element here is the combination of assault or criminal force with the intent to restrict another person’s freedom of movement unlawfully.
Key elements of this section include:
- Assault or Criminal Force: The individual must commit an act of assault (as defined under IPC Section 351) or use criminal force (as defined under IPC Section 350) against another person.
- Intent to Wrongfully Confine: The act must be carried out to wrongfully confine the person.
Is IPC Section 357 Bailable?
Yes, IPC Section 357 is a bailable offence. This means that an individual charged under this section can obtain bail from the police station or through the court, depending on the specifics of the case and the authorities’ discretion.
IPC Section 357 Punishment
The Punishment under IPC Section 357 for assault or criminal force in an attempt to wrongfully confine a person includes:
- Imprisonment for a term that may extend to one year,
- or with a fine,
- Or with both.
The Punishment reflects the importance of protecting individuals from unlawful confinement and the serious nature of using force to restrict someone’s freedom.
Example of IPC Section 357
A real-life example of IPC Section 357 involved a case where a security guard forcibly detained a visitor to a building by pushing him into a room and locking the door without any lawful authority or justification. The visitor was confined in the room against his will and could not leave. The security guard was charged under IPC Section 357 for using criminal force to wrongfully confine the visitor. The court found the security guard guilty and sentenced him to imprisonment and a fine. This case highlighted the legal protections against wrongful confinement and the consequences of using force to unlawfully restrict someone’s freedom of movement.
In another instance, during a protest, a group of individuals forcefully restrained a government official in his office, preventing him from leaving. The individuals used physical force to confine the official, who was eventually rescued by the police. The perpetrators were charged under IPC Section 357 for their actions. This case underscored the importance of respecting individuals’ freedom of movement and the legal repercussions for those who attempt to wrongfully confine others using assault or criminal force.
