Open Access Research Article
CRITICAL ANALSYIS OF FALSE IMPRISONMENT LAW OF TORTS
Published Paper
Article Details
CRITICAL ANALSYIS OF
FALSE IMPRISONMENT
LAW OF TORTS
Authored By- Soumya Pandey
SCHOOL OF LAW, NARSEE
MONJEE INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES, BENGALURU
LAW OF TORTS BATCH 2022-2027
SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:
PROF. Alisha Thomas Soumya Pandey Assistant Professor SAP ID:81012200234
NMIMS (SOL),
Bengaluru BA.
L.L.B 1ST YEAR
TABLE OF CONTENTS
|
S.NO
|
CONTENTS
|
PAGE NO.
|
|
1.
|
ABSTRACT
|
6
|
|
2.
|
INTRODUCTION
|
6
|
|
3.
|
LITERATURE REVIEW
|
9
|
|
4.
|
STATEMENT OF PRBOLEM
|
11
|
|
5.
|
RATIONALE OF STUDY
|
12
|
|
6.
|
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
|
12
|
|
7.
|
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
|
12
|
|
8.
|
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
|
12
|
|
9.
|
CHAPTER-1
NATURE SCOPE OF FALSE IMPRISONMENT
|
13
|
|
10.
|
CHAPTER-2JUDICIAL
PRECEDENT OF FALSE IMPRISONMENT IN 18TH & 19TH
CENTURY
|
21
|
|
11.
|
CHAPTER-3:
JUDICIALPRECEDENT OF FALSE
IMPRISONMENT IN 21ST
CENTURY
|
26
|
|
12.
|
CHAPTER-4
CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF FALSE IMPRISONMENT
|
30
|
|
13.
|
CHAPTER 5: SUGGESTION AND
CONCLUSION
|
32
|
|
14.
|
BIBLOGRAPHY
|
33
|
ABSTRACT
The term "false" is "erroneous" or "wrong." False imprisonment occurs when a person is imprisoned in a prison or other
enclosed location without legal justification or their consent. No person can imprison another without legal reason
accepted universally and especially
in all democracies. Article 211 of the constitution deals with
personal liberty of a person. It can
be used by both public and private prisons.2S.3403 of the Indian Penal Code 4 specifically addresses
"wrongful confinement 5
" and makes reference to this law. Indian Penal Code S. 339 and 3486 are dedicated to answering a wide
range of supplementary questions on this subject. The basic elements of false imprisonment are restrain of personal liberty
of a person7, the restraint
must be against
plaintiff’s will, it must be unjustified or unreasonable.
This research paper deals with the topic of false imprisonment in law of torts, the topic that
is covered is its explanation, elements, restraint , awareness of plaintiff-whether it is
a necessary element or not, what happens under the arrest by a private
individual and a public officer,
defences, remedies. Other than the subtopics this research was conducted
with the help of some
leading cases.
KEYWORD: False imprisonment,
total restrain, unlawful detain, Article 21, trespass of person.
INTRODUCTION
Even though it is a relatively new tort—it wasn't recognised until almost half a century
ago—negligence is expanding at such a rapid rate that it is beginning to
eclipse other torts on the basis of a
general principle toward which it is moving, which states that it is actionable to cause foreseeable harm to another
person in an unreasonable or careless manner. Trespassing is one of
1 Part III. —Fundamental
Rights. —Arts. 19—21
2 Garner, p. 636
3 Wrongful confinement
4 INDIAN PENAL CODE,1864
5 Sec.340 IPC 1864
6 Section 339: Wrongful Restrain, IPC
1860 Section 340: Wrongful Confinement, IPC 1860
Section
341: Punishment for wrongful restraint, IPC 1860 Section 342: Punishment for wrongful Confinement, IPC 1860 Section
343: Wrongful confinement for three or more days, IPC 1860 Section 344: Wrongful confinement for ten or more days, IPC
1860
7 Art.21
torts
that has helped keep the law of torts alive. Its core tenet was that a wrong may be legally actionable if it
directly infringed on a protected interest
and if the wrong could not be justified. However,
the perpetrator may still
be held accountable for their actions under a different legal theory if the
invasion was indirect despite being predictable,
or if it was the product of an omission
rather than an affirmative act.8
l TRESSPASS:
When there is immediate and direct
injury of a personal or quantifiable and corporeal type done to the individual or property of the plaintiff, the
law will indicate violence even if there was no actual use of violence. This is so because trespassing is considered an act of violence under the law,
regardless of whether any actual injury was done or not.9
Torts such as assault, battery,
and false imprisonment were created to protect individuals from being physically harmed
or having offensive inferences made about their
person. These torts were created to shield a live person from any reference to
his person that would violate his respect for himself or others.10
l TYPES OF TRESSPASS TO PERSON
1. ASSAULT:
An assault is an attempt or a threat to do a corporeal hurt
to another, coupled with an apparent
present ability and intention to do the act. When unskilled use the word "attack," they usually mean the actual
act of using force, such as when Person A strikes Person B. This is an incorrect use. Therefore,
it is correct to say that "popular assault began when legal
assault ends.11"
2. BATTERY:
"Battery" 12is defined as "the purposeful and direct use of harm against another person without justification. "To establish battery, one must make body contact with another person, however little.
8 Ratanlal & Dhirajlal ,2019, The law of torts, Published by Lexis Nexis, 28th Edition
ISBN:978938548410
9Jowitt’s Dictionary of English Law, Vol. 2 (1977) at p.1804 and Funk &
Wagnall’s Standard Handbook
(1973) at p. 391
10 B.M Gandhi, Law of Torts, 4th edition, pg no.158
published by: Eastern Book Company,2016 ISBN:9789388206402
11 A.K Jain, 2016, Law of Torts, Published
by - Delhi. Ascent Publication,8th edition, ISBN- 9788193555606
12 Trespass to person
As such, it is considered to be battery
to take another
by the collar,
spit in his face, knock over a chair or vehicle in which another
is seated, pour water over another, or force another to undergo a medical examination without his or her will. Close physical
contact is necessary for battery operation (may be indirect contact).13
3. FALSE IMPRISONMENT:
The word "false" can also mean "incorrect" or "wrong." The plaintiff does not have to prove
the defendant's fault in a strict liability tort case.14
A
complete limitation of a person's liberty falsely is known as false
imprisonment in tort law. This
essentially implies preventing a person from engaging in any kind of mobility, which may take place in a jail
or another confined environment. For a conviction
of imprisonment, it is not essential that the person be physically detained; rather, the person must be constrained in
such a way that he or she has no opportunity
of fleeing, irrespective of the person's intention. A person must have
been unlawfully restrained by another
individual for the charge of false imprisonment to be upheld as a viable
option. False incarceration is a kind of torture
that not only violates the subject's constitutional right to freedom
but also attacks
his dignity and reputation. The idea that one person cannot put another in
jail without going through the proper legal channels is a notion that is recognized all around the world, particularly in democracies. Therefore, protection for a person's
life and their
right to personal
liberty 15is guaranteed by the constitution of India,
namely Article 21, 16which has been enacted.
The
main elements of false imprisonment are that
there must be a)
real or constructive - constraint on a
person's liberty, the restraint must be entire as opposed to partial, the restraint
must be against the will of the plaintiff, and
it must be irrational.
It is important not to confuse the confinement of one's body with a simple loss of independence. To be considered incarceration, a person's liberty must be completely restricted; partial restriction is not the same thing. Even if it's just for a little while, complete confinement is captivity. In the situation of partial restraint, the methods of escape have to be known and reasonable.17
13 IBID
14 SUPRA NOTE 10
15 Supra note 7
16 SUPRA NOTE 1
17 SUPRA NOTE 10
LITERATURE REVIEW
ARTICLES
1. )Torts: False Imprisonment: Detention
of Insane Person18
The author in this article talks about the false imprisonment of
unsounded mind person. In case, the
plaintiff sued the defendant physician for false imprisonment for keeping the plaintiff in jail under the
false preteens that the plaintiff was insane. Even
though there was evidence indicating that the plaintiff
was not of stable mind when
she was initially imprisoned, she was not released until ten days later. This is despite the fact
that the plaintiff had been
held against her will.
l The author
mention that in common law it is mentioned that unsounded mind person
can be imprisoned if he/she
is dangerous to others and here in the case there is total restrain of plaintiff and false
imprisonment would lie under defendant as it
is exception to “insane person”
as per the common law.
2. Statute of Limitations. False
Imprisonment19
l The author
talks about statute of limitations of false imprisonment, he states when the underlying cause of action is
finished, the clock on the statute of limitations starts ticking. In some types
of lawsuits, the real injury,
which occurred as a direct
result of the defendant's behaviour, is required for the completion of
the cause of action.
l The author mentions that the statute
of limitations may start to run even though not all
of the damage has been incurred yet, with subsequent losses only adding to the total amount of damage sustained.
However, the detention of the plaintiff may be
seen to be an ongoing trespass, with each minute of detention giving
rise to a new cause of action
in the legal proceeding.
Person, Michigan Law Review, Apr., 1951, Vol. 49, No. 6 (Apr., 1951), pp. 917-919, The Michigan Law Review Association.ISSN-
19 Statute of
Limitations. False Imprisonment, Columbia Law Review, Apr., 1925, Vol. 25, No.
4 (Apr., 1925), pp. 505-506,
Published by: Columbia Law Review
Association, Inc., ISSN-0010-1098
3. False Imprisonment: Elements of Liability: Termination of Originall Proceeding20
l The author
mentions that in Boesch v. Kick 21,the plaintiff in an action for false imprisonment did not say that the proceeding that led to her arrest
and detention in an insane
asylum had been resolved when she initiated
her suit to seek damages
for her detention. Instead, she claimed
that she had been wrongfully incarcerated. This accusation was without merit, as it was
held.
l The author
mentions that the court that heard the initial case stated that malicious prosecution allegations would have been
necessary to proceed with the lawsuit. It is
generally acknowledged that the plaintiff in a malicious prosecution suit must allege and establish that the original
proceeding against him was dismissed in his favour.
l The
situations appear to be the result of a misunderstanding of the difference between malicious prosecution and false incarceration. The wrongful detention
is the crux of a false imprisonment claim, and a prior legal proceeding is not necessary to establish injury.
Ø
BOOKS
1. RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, THE LAW OF TORTS22
l The author in this book, states what constitutes the false imprisonment. He defines false
imprisonment as a total
restrain of freedom of an individual.
l The author
states there is no relevance to the length of time that the incarceration will continue.
But there can be no legal basis for it.
l The person
can be held either (a) actually, which means physically, like when you put your hands on someone, or (b)
constructively, which means with just a show
of authority, like when an officer tells anyone that he is wanted and
makes him follow.
20 False Imprisonment: Elements of Liability: Termination of
Original Proceeding, Michigan Law Review, Vol. 21, No. 6 (Apr., 1923), pp. 704-705, Published by: The Michigan
Law Review Association, False Imprisonment: Elements of Liability: Termination of Original Proceeding
on JSTOR
21 Boesch v. Kick, (N. J., I922),
II9 Atl. I
22 Ratanlal & Dhirajlal
,2019, The law of torts, Published by Lexis Nexis, 28th Edition
ISBN:978938548410
2. A.K JAIN, LAW OF TORTS,201623
l The author
mentions the basic definition of false imprisonment on the context to the case Ram Pyare Lal v Om Prakash24
where he defines false imprisonment as
"Every restriction of the individual freedom of one person by
another is in law an imprisonment and, if imposed
without legitimate cause, constitutes a false imprisonment which is both a criminal offence
and an actionable tort," says the law."
l The authors
talk about the remedy of trespass person where he describes three remedies to the trespass of the person
which are action for damage, self-help and habeas corpus.
3.
B.M GANDHI, LAW OF TORTS,4TH EDITION25
l The author
explains the definition of false imprisonment with context to Onkarmal case26 in which
the false imprisonment to be occur the essentials are described that are total
restrain, liberty of person, unlawfully
or unreasonable.
l The author
describes Article 21 of the constitution states protection of life and liberty of a person27, where he states in this perish civilization we must be educated to respect for the right of individual.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
When
analysing the false imprisonment, the basic idea we get is restraining person
by another person from moving either
in a prison or enclosed place. The person before being arrested must be aware of reason of imprisonment. Due to
false imprisonment, the plaintiff
suffers his life of liberty and personal freedom. If civilisation is not to expire in a country as it has in others
too well-known to be mentioned, we must educate
ourselves to see that respect
for individual rights is the genuine stronghold of democracy. The
agenda of the article is to state the basic issues of false imprisonment and its
analysis.
23 A K Jain, 2016, Law of Torts, Published by - Delhi. Ascent Publication,8th edition, ISBN- 9788193555606
24 Ram Pyare Lal v Om Prakash 1977 Cr LJ 1984
25 B.M
Gandhi, Law of Torts, 4th edition, pg no.158 published by: Eastern
Book Company,2016 ISBN:9789388206402
26 Onkarmal v.
Banwarilal, AIR 1962 Raj 127.
27 Art.21 No person shall be deprived of his life or personal
liberty except according
to the procedure established
by law.
RATIONALE OF STUDY
One
type of tort that has persisted in part is the trespass. After enduring a
violation of their freedom and being
physically restrained from moving around, victims of false imprisonment can file a claim for trespass to the person under the tort of false imprisonment. Personal freedom originates in the guarantee of individual security.
The plaintiff's harm was caused
by the defendant's unlawful restriction of his freedom.
This study will compare and
contrast the rates of false imprisonment in India with those in other nations,
as well as investigate its causes
and potential solutions.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1. What is the meaning and essential of false imprisonment in law of
torts?
2. What is trespass
to person and its types?
3. Who is liable for false imprisonment?
4. What are remedies
to trespass a person?
5. What is interpretation of false
imprisonment in 21st century?
6.
What is difference between false imprisonment in India and other foreign
countries?
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
l
To understand and define concept of false imprisonment
in law of torts.
l
To study the concept of trespass.
l
To understand who is
liable for false imprisonment.
l
To know the essential
for false imprisonment in torts.
l
To know about evolution of false
imprisonment from Indian and foreign
cases.
l
To analyse false imprisonment in context to 21st century.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
I have opted Specifically, doctrinal, analytical, and comparative research
methods would be used to carry it out. Indian Penal Code, Fundamental Rights
of India , Prison Act, 1894 , Law of torts. Books,
journals, scholarly articles,
online journals, research reports, and other published materials
served as secondary
sources which has helped me during
my research work.
CHAPTER-1:
MEANING NATURE AND SCOPE OF FALSE IMPRISONMENT
It's
generally knowledge that no one can arbitrarily restrict another person's
liberty if they don't have a valid
legal defence. If no such defence exists, the person whose independence has been violated might file
a false imprisonment lawsuit against the person responsible. The most prevalent
situation in which the defence
of lawful authority applies in relation to inmates
who are sentenced to serve time in prison for
offences for which
they have been duly convicted is in lawsuits
for false incarceration.
l
BASIC DEFINITION OF FALSE IMPRISONMENT:
The definition of the term "false" is "erroneous" or "wrong." False imprisonment occurs
when a person is imprisoned in a prison or other enclosed location
without legal justification or their consent.
False incarceration is considered both a civil
wrong and a criminal offence
under common law. It can be used by
both public and private prisons. 28
S.340
29 of the Indian Penal Code specifically addresses "wrongful confinement" and makes reference to
this law. Indian Penal Code S. 339 and 34830 are dedicated to answering a wide range of supplementary questions on this subject.
False
imprisonment may also be defined as an action on the side of the defendant that leads to the plaintiff's imprisonment. For
a conviction of imprisonment, it is not essential
that the person be physically detained; rather, the person must be constrained in such a way that he or she has no
opportunity of fleeing, irrespective of the person's intention. What matters
most is not how long somebody is detained for, but instead
that there is no legislation
to justify their incarceration. The act of preventing a prisoner from moving their property (which is
another name for things) when they are in detention is also
regarded to be an aspect of the notion
of wrongful imprisonment.
“Every
restraint of the liberty of one person by another is in law an imprisonment
and, if imposed without lawful
cause, constitutes a false imprisonment which is both a criminal offence and an actionable tort”31
28 Supra note 2
29 Wrongful confinement
30 Supra note 6
31 Ram Pyare Lal v Om Prakash ,1977 Cr LJ 1984
In Ram Pyare Lal v Om Prakash32,
it states that restrain on freedom of person by someone else is legally considered as imprisonment, and if the constraint is carried out without
valuable legal reason it is said to be false imprisonment that is both a civil
and criminal offence.
Imprisonment in the normal sense is not essential for this crime to be
committed; a person might be
wrongfully imprisoned simply by being prohibited from leaving the location in which he finds himself,
whether that location be his own home, an open
field, a bus, or a train.33
FALSE ARREST:
A
person is considered to have been falsely arrested when a police officer or a
private person keeps them in
detention without having the authority to do so according to the law. False arrest is only regarded as an
element of false imprisonment; the two are extremely similar
to one another, with the only difference being the vocabulary used to define them, and the law considers them
to constitute a single tort. As with other deliberate torts such as assault, violence, illegal harassment, and breach of privacy, false
imprisonment is considered to be a tort. These types of infractions are
known as "torts of trespass to a person."
There are a number of valid defences to the civil wrong known as false
imprisonment. These include
the plaintiff's agreement, the complainant's voluntarily acceptance of the risk, reasonable suspicion, and the complainant's contributory negligence. Although the arguments
of probable cause and the plaintiff's agreement to the action are both full defences, the defence of contributory
negligence is the only one that may be used to
diminish the number of damages
that are awarded.
Even if one took reasonable precautions and acted in good faith at all times, they will
not be able to defend themselves against this tort.
If you think that you were wrongfully held, you have many choices: you
may file a habeas corpus petition,
seek monetary damages, or take matters into your own hands. Because wrongful detention is a kind of
tort, the most common method of rectifying the harm it causes
is to file a lawsuit
and demand monetary
compensation. If the victim has undergone bodily or mental suffering, if their reputation has been affected
as a result of the defendant's actions,
or if the accused
behaved deliberately, the court may declare the defendant responsible for these
damages. A Writ of Habeas Corpus34 is a type of legal paperwork that may be used to petition
the court for the release of an individual who
has been unfairly imprisoned. This might include you or anyone you
32 Ram Pyare Lal v Om Prakash
,1977 Cr LJ 1984
33 A.K Jain, 2016, Law of Torts, Published
by - Delhi. Ascent Publication,8th edition, ISBN- 9788193555606
34 Article 32
Constitution of India 1949
Article 2135 of the Constitution ensures that every individual
have the right to personal liberty.
As a direct result of this provision, no one, despite the legal standing, may
be subjected to treatment that is brutal,
cruel, or humiliating. In the case that this right was violated, Article
1436 of the Constitution would come into play. This is because
Article 14 guarantees that everyone has the right
to be treated equally
before the law and to be
safeguarded equally from the law. In addition, the subject of harsh treatment of convicted
criminals was expressly addressed in the Prison Act of 189437, which
was passed into law in the same year.
The management of the institution is ultimately responsible for any cases of mistreatment
or abuse that occur inside its walls.
A person may be held either
(a)
literally, which means seizing control of their body
(for example, by handcuffing them) or
(b)
constructively, which means making a public show of force.
Both
of these methods are considered to be forms of detention (such as by an officer telling
anyone that he is wanted and making him accompany
the officer).38
l
ESSENTIALS OR WHAT CONSTITIUTES OF FALSE IMPRISONMENT IN LAW OF TORTS
In
order for anything to be considered unethical, there has to be both an absolute
limit placed on the victim's
freedom and the absence of a legal explanation for the restriction.
1. TOTAL RESTRAIN:
It is against the law to restrain another
person in any way, whether
fully (in accordance with Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code)39
or in part (in accordance with Section 339 of
the Indian Penal Code)40. 41In accordance with the
standards of civil law, it is not possible to be held
legally liable for a constraint that was only partly enforced.
Therefore, there has been no unlawful incarceration if a man is barred
from moving in one way but is free
to move in any other direction or turn around. This is because the guy has
options.
35 Supra note 1
36 Part III. —Fundamental Rights
37 Act IX of 1894
38 Supra note 11
39 wrongful confinement
40 wrongful restraint
In
the leading case of Bird v. Jones, COLERIDGE, J42 stated; “A prison may
have its boundary large or narrow,
visible and tangible, or, though real, still in the conception only; it may itself be moveable or fixed: but a boundary
is must have;
and the boundary the party
imprisoned must be prevented from passing he must be prevented from leaving that place, within the ambit of
which the party imprisoning him would confine
him, except by prison-breach. Some confusion seems to me to arise from
confounding imprisonment of the
body with mere loss of freedom: it is one part of definition of freedom to be able to go whithersoever one
pleases; but imprisonment is something more
than the mere loss of this power; it includes the notion of restraint within
some limits defined by some will or power exterior to our own”
If one man physically or otherwise obstructs another's route, that man
need not feel sorry for himself; the blocked individual is free to stay
still or pursue another course
of action. In the absence of
physical force, a man cannot be unhappy as long as he is free to walk in any path, he chooses other
than the one obstructed by another man. When a
person is imprisoned, his or her freedom is severely limited,
even only for a little
period of time. This severely
limits the individual's ability to exercise
his or her will, regardless of how inconvenient that may
be.43
In
the event that there exist "means of escape," the restriction cannot
be said to be absolute. The means, on
the other hand, have to be ones that the person who is being held can understand, and they shouldn't
put anybody in danger. When a person is not physically
restrained or confined, but the freedom to go in the conveyance to which he wishes
to go or to take the article
which he wishes to carry and without
which he is not willing
to proceed, it cannot be said that he is being falsely
imprisoned. This is because the person is not willing
to proceed without
the article or the conveyance that he wishes
to take.44
It
is not required for a person to be aware that he has been incarcerated, and a
person might be incarcerated without
his awareness, for instance while he is asleep, intoxicated, or unconscious.
In Herring v Boyle45,When
a student was illegally held by his schoolmaster during
school holidays (because
his parents had not paid the tuition), the schoolmaster was found not liable for false imprisonment since the student
was not aware of the restraint. This occurred because the
41 SUPRA NOTE 4
42 Bird v. Jones, COLERIDGE, J, (1845) 7 QB 742 ,744
43 PER PATTESON, J., in Bird v. Jone (1845) 7 QB 742, 742; Parankusan v. Stuart, (1865) 2 MHC 396;
Warner v. Riddiford, (1854)
4 CBNS 180.
44 Maharani of Nabha v
Province of Madras, ILR (1942)
Mad 696
45 Herring v Boyle, (1834)
91 Cr.M & R377
student had no idea he was being detained against his will. In Merring v Grahame White Aviation Co46.In such a circumstance, a worker who was suspected of taking from the firm would be summoned to the office and made to wait in the waiting room while one or two workers stood outside. It was decided that the defendants' detention of the plaintiff
before the arrival
of the police constituted to false imprisonment. The fact that the plaintiff did not feel like he was being
unlawfully held when he was
in the waiting area was irrelevant.
Street is of the view that knowledge of imprisonment should
be necessary since
the interest protected
appears to be a mental one, like an assault. This is why he thinks it should be required. The argument made by Meering has been criticized by Goodhart, but it has received backing from Proser.In
a recent instance,
the validity of Meering's argument was upheld, whilst the accuracy
of Herring's case was called into question. In, Murray v Minister
of Defence47 ,It was decided in that case that false
imprisonment is actionable
even without proof of special damage. As a result,
it is not necessary for a person who was illegally detained
to prove that he knew that he was being held in custody or that he was harmed by his detention in order to pursue legal action against
the person who unlawfully
detained him.
2. UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT:
In
order to be considered wrongful incarceration, the detention in question must
lack any legal validity. If the
defendants submit a false complaint to the police that results in the detention of the plaintiffs, and if
the arrest of the plaintiffs was completely unjustified,
then the defendants will be held accountable for false
imprisonment48.
Not only may a defendant be made responsible for false imprisonment if they physically arrest or detain the plaintiff, but they can also be held
liable for false imprisonment if they were "active in promoting or causing" the plaintiff's
arrest or imprisonment.
An unauthorized arrest is the responsibility of the officer who gave the order to hold the suspect. For an arrest to be made, there must also be "reasonable suspicion" that the detained individual is involved in illegal activity. The very minimal need is this created by a member of the law enforcement 49 .At the time of the arrest, there must be reasonable grounds for suspicion. If
46 Merring v Grahame White Aviation Co. (1920) 121 LT 44
47 Murray v Minister of Defence, (1988) 2 All ER 521(HL)
48 Garikipati v Araza Biksham., AIR 1980 A.P. 31
49 SUPRA NOTE 11
the problem
arises after the arrest as a result
of interrogation of the accused,
then the incarceration and custody up to that point were unlawful, giving rise to a claim for false incarceration for the relevant time period.50 In Joginder Kumar v State of U. P51,A good defence for wrongful detention was determined to be a reasonable and honest belief in the existence of certain conditions that, if true,
would justify the arrest. It was so because an arrest might be rationally justified by the evidence at hand. It is the responsibility of the court
to determine
whether or not the arresting officer
had probable cause
to believe the prisoner was guilty. An officer who makes an arrest is
required by law to tell the suspect why he is being detained. Otherwise,
he may be held criminally responsible for false
incarceration.52
In
Middleweek v Chief Constable of the Merseyside Police53 ,A
person who has been lawfully
arrested and held in a jail or a criminal who has been lawfully sent to prison may initiate a case for wrongful imprisonment if the physical
conditions of their confinement are so intolerable as to render
their incarceration illegal.
It is not necessary to establish evidence of ill faith.54
In Rudal Shah v State of Bihar55,A defendant who was held in jail for an excessive amount
of time after
being found not guilty was awarded damages from
the State.
For the same reasons, keeping
a prisoner in custody after
his sentence has ended is also illegal
confinement.
When detention is justified:
When someone enters a building or other facility with the understanding that he or she would be subject to certain reasonable criteria, it is not illegal to bar that person's exit until those requirements are satisfied. Therefore, it is not unfair detention to detain someone in jail until they pay off their debts if they have a legitimate cause to remain there.56
50 Shabban Bin Hussain v Chong
Fook Kam (1969)
3 All ER 1626(PC)]
51 Joginder Kumar v State of U.P,
JT (1994) (3) SC 243]
52 SUPRA NOTE 11
53 Middleweek v Chief Constable of the Merseyside Police,
(1990) 3 All ER 662(CA)
54 SUPRA NOTE 11
55 Rudal Shah v State of Bihar, AIR 1983 SC 1086
56 SUPRA NOTE 11
In Robinson v Balmain New Ferry Co. Ltd57,The plaintiff
proceeded to the port where the defendant's ferry boats were parked in order to cross the river on one of the vessels.
He wants to leave the harbour,
but the next boat wouldn't
depart for 20 minutes. Plaintiff had paid one cent to enter, but was now refusing to pay the
requisite two cents to exit. The accused
refused to allow him to leave the pier. The defendants are not at fault since the
fees are reasonable.58
A person who has broken
the law is subject to arrest. In some situations, a judge, police
officer, or even a concerned civilian may make an arrest.
In John Lewis & Co. v Times59,The daughter of the defendant committed
shoplifting while shopping with the
plaintiff. In anticipation of the managing director's decision, they were detained
in the office for one hour. He decided to give them to the authorities. At trial, the child was found to have
committed theft, but the charge against her mom was dropped. The mother said her son was falsely imprisoned.
Since the accused did not keep her
any longer than was required to make the managing director's decision, they were
deemed not liable.60
l
WHO IS LIABLE?
Anyone who "actively promotes or causes" the plaintiff's arrest or detention
may be held guilty for false imprisonment regardless of whether or
not they participated in the actual arrest or incarceration61.Furthermore, a person's culpability may be established vicariously or via the instrumentality of a certain authority. One might be held liable
for wrongful imprisonment damages if they aid in a fraudulent
arrest by the police.62 If the police made an arrest of the plaintiff
for stealing based on genuine
but inaccurate information provided by a shop detective
and the officers testified that they had used their own discretion
in making the arrest, the store owner would not be held accountable.63
The complainant is placed under arrest by the police
without a warrant,
brought before a Magistrate, and held into custody until
further court proceedings. It is important to
note that the
57 Robinson v Balmain New Ferry Co.
Ltd. (1910) AC 295
58 SUPRA NOTE 11
59 John Lewis & Co. v Times, (1952) 1 All ER 1203
60 SUPRA NOTE 11
61 Altken vs Badwell (1827)
Mood & M 68
62 Sakik Hussain Khan vs Taffazal
Khan (1939) 43 CWN 1080
63 Grinham vs Willey
(1859) 4 H & N 496
plaintiff
has different legal recourses both before and after the remand in regards
to his incarceration. For his treatment
after the remand, he may sue for malicious
prosecution, and for his incarceration before it, he can sue for trespass for unfair imprisonment. If the wrong person
is taken into custody and kept under a court
order to which he is not a party, the person who filed the lawsuit is
not liable for whatever compensation
the wrongdoer may be owed.64
l
REMEDIES TO TRESSPASS OF A PERSON
Ø Action for damages:
Using
general damages, the plaintiff might seek monetary compensation for the degradation and suffering caused
by the trespass. In the absence of serious bodily
injury, the amount of
compensation awarded should be equal to the actual level of suffering and damage suffered.
The amount of compensation awarded
will depend on the particulars of each case. However, in
circumstances where the plaintiff asserts that the administration or its agents have behaved in an oppressive,
capricious, or illegal way, they must be exemplary. If someone is unfairly incarcerated, they have the right to demand
recompense not only for the loss of their freedom,
but also for the embarrassment, mental agony, and humiliation resulting from their condition.
The party that is being accused
for trespassing must have the responsibility to demonstrate
that they were justifiable in their activities. Thus, in a false imprisonment case, the only thing the plaintiff has
to prove is that he was detained by the defendant or his agents. As a result, the plaintiff does not have the
burden of evidence to show that there
is no reasonable explanation for the defendant's conduct; rather, the defendant has this duty. It is not needed
for the plaintiff to demonstrate that the defendant
behaved with any form of ill intent, malice,
negligence, or anything else along those lines.65
Ø Self-Help:
A person is authorized to use reasonable force to escape imprisonment without having to wait for judicial proceedings.66
64 Bheema vs Chapman (1848) 8 MHC 38
65 SUPRA NOTE 11
66 SUPRA NOTE 11
Ø Habeas Corpus:67
It
is a more expedient way to secure the release of a person who has been detained in violation of their legal rights.68The
detainer must produce the detainee before the
court and explain the basis for the detention in response to this writ.
If the court finds there is no
justification for the imprisonment, it will immediately release the prisoner. If the defendant is freed before the writ
is determined, the court may, at its discretion, impose monetary
damages as a kind of additional remedy.69
CHAPTER-2:
JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS OF FALSE
IMPRISONMENT IN 18TH AND 19TH CENTURY
l CASE-1: BHIM SINGH V. STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR,198570
FACT: Petitioner, a legislator in the Indian
state of Jammu and Kashmir,
was arrested and thrown in jail on the
morning of September 11, 1985,
with the express
intention of keeping them away from the scheduled
sessions of parliament. The allegations that he had made a seditious or malicious speech at the public
gathering near the parade field in Jammu on September 8, 1985 led to his
detention under section 153A 71 of the Indian Penal Code. His arrest
was the result of these allegations. The 13th
of September marked the first time he was brought
before a judge. His right
to vote was also infringed
during a separate assembly vote that he apparently missed, despite the
fact that the candidate for whom he
planned to vote ultimately prevailed. In this case, his vote was crucial.
67 Supra note 34
68 (Arts. 32/226 of the Constitution)
69 SUPRA NOTE 11
70 BHIM SINGH V. STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR,1985, AIR 1986
SC 494
71
Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion,
race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony, IPC 1860
ISSUE: The legitimacy of the incarceration, as well as whether or not it met the criteria for false
imprisonment, was in issue.
JUGDEMENT:
1.“If the
non-policy liberty of a member of the legislature is to be played within this fashion
one can only wonder what can happen to lesser mortals”.
2.“Police officials who are custodian of law and order within
the state should
have the best respect for private liberty
of citizen and will not float the laws by stopping to such weird
act of lawness”
It
was decided that the respondent, the State of Jammu and Kashmir, would have to pay the petitioner a total of five thousand
rupees within two months of the decision being issued.
It was required that the number be submitted to the Registrar
of the Court, where it would subsequently be made available
to the petitioner.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS:
As
the basic legal right: right to vote has been infringed for which state of
J&K has to pay compensation to
the petitioner and he was wrongfully detained so here, false imprisonment occurs.
l CASE-2: BIND VS JOHN (1845)72
FACT: Plaintiff
wanted to cross a portion
of a public road that was closed
due to a boat race.
Two police officers,
the defendant, barred
the plaintiff from passing in the desired
way, but he was permitted
to travel in the only other
direction. The plaintiff
declined to proceed in that direction and remained in
situ. Plaintiff filed a false imprisonment case against defendant.
ISSUE: The plaintiff claimed
he was unlawfully restricted because
he was not permitted to
utilise a stretch of a public road that prevented him from travelling in one direction even if all other
routes were clear.
JUDGEMENT: Partial obstruction and disturbance does not constitute imprisonment. Coleridge J. stated
at paragraph 744 of his judgement
that:
72
Bird v. Jones [1845]
7 QB 742
“a prison may have its boundary large
or narrow, visible
and tangible, or, though real, still in the conception only; it
may itself be moveable or fixed: but a boundary it must have; and that boundary the party imprisoned must be prevented from passing; he must be prevented
from leaving that place, within the
ambit of which the party imprisoning would confine him, except by prison- breach.”
A jail always has some sort of barrierr. As plaintiff
could still travel in one way, he cannot be considered imprisoned
because he was not stopped from moving through
or leaving the area. Plaintiff was not restrained in any way, nor was he subjected to any actual physical
violence; he was free to leave in any direction he chose.
CRITCAL ANALYSIS: Here, the plaintiff
cannot claim for false imprisonment as he was not restrained to an enclosed, he has choice
to move to another
direction and imprisonment means restraining person from moving anywhere.
l
CASE-3:
R V. DEPUTY GOVERNOR OF PARKSHURT PRISON
(EXPARTE HAGUE)73 ,1992
FACT: In
the time, Hague was a detainee at the Parkhurst state prison, where he was serving
a sentence. It was the deputy governor of the Parkhurst
jail who made the decision to send him to the
Wormwood Scrubs facility. The deputy then
gave the order for Hague to be isolated from the other convicts in the facility. Due to the fact that he was not permitted
to issue this order by the Prison
Rules of 1964, the segregation was in violation of the law. The Prison
Act of 1954, specifically section
47(1)74, provides the legal basis for the existence of the Prison Rules.
ISSUE:
1. Infraction of the 1954 Prison Rules might lead to a private action
for statutory obligation, right?
2. Does a prisoner's lawfully imposed sentence
count as 'detention' for evaluating if they're falsely imprisoned?
3. Does a prisoner's improper
or unpleasant treatment make his imprisonment unconstitutional?
73 R V. DEPUTY GOVERNOR OF PARKSHURT PRISON (EX PARTE
HAGUE)1992] 1 AC 58; [1991] 3 WLR 340; [1991] 3 All ER 733; (1993) 5 Admin LR 425;
[1992] COD 69; (1991) 135 SJLB 102; [1992] CLY 3651.
JUDGEMENT:
Lords opposed Hague. The 1964 Prison Rules didn't allow private
actions for statutory breaches. The Rules were meant to manage prison governance, not help prisoners. As lawful inmates, Hague and Weldon had no
residual freedom such as the jail governors.
“Prisoners who are lawfully detained do not have any
‘residual liberty’ against the prison
governors. This means that it is not false imprisonment to confine them to a particular part of the prison. Unlawful
treatment of a prisoner after their lawful
detention does not make the detention unlawful.”
CRITICAL ANALYSIS:
As Hague was lawfully detained, his personal liberty has
not been infringed and as per Prison Act,1964
sec47(1) 75 secretary has right to make
changes in the rules and regulation to maintain the discipline in the
prison.
l
CASE -4: HERD VS WEARDALE STEEL CO 191576
FACT: Herd worked in the mines. His shift
would generally begin at 9:30 in the morning,
and he would be hauled up to the surface around 4:00 in the afternoon. Herd was unwilling to work inside the mine
and requested to be hoisted out at eleven in the morning. The proprietors of the colliery, Weardale Steel, Coal and Coke Company (D), decided
that they would not raise H until 1.30 in the afternoon. H had been locked up until that
point. H lost money as a result
of his false detention.
ISSUE:
H asserted that he was falsely imprisoned in the mine because he was not permitted
to use the lift until 1:30 p.m., which was the only route out of the mine at the time.
This was the only way out of the mine at the time. This was a breach of his rights
guaranteed by the
Constitution.
JUDGEMENT: There was no false detention because of the law of volente non fit injuria, which provides that an individual cannot bring an action against another for tort or delict if they knowingly placed themselves in a position where harm might arise. Since the doctrine was used, there was no false imprisonment, hence the defendants were released. The 'damage' here is that the person
75 SUPRA NOTE 60
76 Herd v Weardale Steel, Coal and Coke
Co Ltd. [1915] AC 67
is
behind bars. The court ruled in Robinson
v. Balmain New Ferry Co77. Ltd. that Herd may only use the
exit if he met the same requirements
to leave as he did to enter the building. Herd broke the terms of his job agreement by refusing to perform
the tasks he was assigned. If he didn't stay in the mine until 1.10 p.m. on that day, the lift wouldn't
be operational because
he'd broken the contract.
CRITICAL
ANALYSIS: Herd cannot
claim for false imprisonment as he himself offered
the cause to happen which basically means volenti
non fit injuria, he himself refused to do the work.
l CASE-5: ROBERSTON V.NEW FERRY COMPANY
LTD. 191078
FACT: While Robinson paid his one cent for a ferry ride, he almost skipped
the boat and finally decided
not to take the trip. Robinson tried to leave through the same
entrance he had entered, but leaving required him to spend an additional dime. Because Robinson
didn't ride the ferry, he didn't think he had to fork over the one cent. Employees of Balmain New Ferry Co. (D) physically prevented R from leaving
until he paid the cent. R. has
filed suit for false imprisonment.
ISSUE: Robinson alleged that he was unjustly
detained when he was prevented
from leaving the ferry wharf without first paying a fee.
JUDGEMENT:
“A person can be legitimately prevented from
leaving if they had entered an earlier contracted permitting so.”
CRITICAL
ANALYSIS: Robinson verbally agreed to pay a single penny to enter and exit the ferry when he stepped
through the ticket booth. This legally bound
him to the terms of the contract, and D was within its rights to require him to comply with any reasonable
restrictions on his freedom of movement before allowing
him to pass through their turnstile after he had gone there
of his own free will. When it was determined in Bird v. Jones that whole (and not
partial) obstruction constitutes false imprisonment, the scope of the law regarding
false imprisonment was narrowed. In this case, however, the court ruled that a person's being
completely blocked from passing does not constitute wrongful imprisonment provided
there is a legitimate condition
to passing. This case
is a continuation of Bird v. Jones79, in which it was decided
that whole (as opposed to partial) blockage constitutes false detention.
77 Robinson v Balmain New Ferry Co. Ltd [1910] AC 295
78 Robinson v
Balmain New Ferry Co. Ltd
[1910] AC 295
79
Bird v. Jones [1845] 7 QB 742
CRITICAL
ANAYSIS: While entering the gate,
Robinson promised to pay fee for both
entrance and leaving so he came into contract which reduces the claiming of false imprisonment. So according to the judgement he must be asked to pay
for leaving too.
CHAPTER-3:
JUDICIAL VIEW OF FALSE
IMPRISONMENT IN
21ST CENTURY
CASE-1: WALKER V. COMMISSIONER FOR POLICE FOR THE
METROPOLIS 201480
FACT: After
an allegation that the Plaintiff had struck his partner, he got into an altercation with law enforcement. He was arrested
and charged with assault on a police
officer. His initial detention was deemed unlawful, leading to his
acquittal. A police officer was found
to have unlawfully detained him by limiting his movement while he was standing in a doorway. The officer's
actions were not in furtherance of an arrest
and did not have any reasonable suspicion that an arrest was necessary.
Damages were sought on his behalf
for his wrongful imprisonment, assault,
and malicious prosecution. His claim ultimately failed because the circuit judge didn't
believe his evidence. He filed an appeal with the higher court.
ISSUE:
Is it possible that the initial detention
of the Claimant at the doorway constituted a legal infraction, which
would render the situation a case of wrongful
imprisonment?
JUDGEMENT: LORD JUSTICE RIX SAID,” apart from the basic facts described above, almost everything else about the incident had been disputed at the trial of Mr. Walker's claim, including the circumstances of that initial detention and arrest. He went over the evidence before the circuit judge, who had rejected the Claimant’s evidence in its entirety. Nevertheless, there was a legal weakness in the Commissioner's defense to the Claimant’s claim with respect to the claims for false imprisonment and assault in that it was always accepted by the police that his initial detention in the doorway was not for the purpose of arrest, but only for the purpose of pursuing enquiries. It was accepted by defense counsel that this amounted to a detention. This enabled the Claimant to argue that that initial detention was unlawful and justified him to use reasonable force to extricate himself from what was an unlawful, if brief, imprisonment.
80 WALKER V COMMISSIONER FOR THE POLICE FOR THE METROPOLIS [2014] EWCA Civ
897
It was also submitted that this initial unlawfulness was
compounded by the failure of the
police officer to effect a lawful arrest at the time when, he did purport to
arrest the Claimant, namely immediately before the fight broke out.”
CRITICAL ANALYSIS:
Claimant cannot claim for false imprisonment as initial detention was for general enquiries
not for unlawful imprisonment.
· CASE -2: THAPINDER SINGH BAWA vs JIA LAL KHANNA &ORS, 2015:
FACTS: Defendant
no. 1 claimed in court that the plaintiff was Bawa Thapinder Singh's nephew, notwithstanding the
plaintiff's innocence. Plaintiff was enticed into a contrived criminal case by defendants. The FIR was dismissed on
May 21, 2013 in Thapinder Singh Bawa
vs. Jia Lal & Ors. The officer allegedly broke the law by launching
a phoney trial
based on the first defendant's bogus allegation. The defendants' 2–6 officials created a fake criminal
case against the plaintiff, hurting his image and breaking the law. The plaintiff suffered emotional and physical
harm and monetary losses due to the defendant's actions.
Nos. 5 and 6 didn't
adequately investigate the case, and No. 1 never told them if the
petitioner was engaged. Plaintiff claims Respondents 1–6 is individually and jointly accountable for damages caused
by their actions.
Plaintiff sued defendants for Rs. 19,500,000.
ISSUE: Evidence is required to determine whether
or not a public worker acted in good faith
while performing his official duties.
What is the minimal amount of time required to file a malicious
prosecution lawsuit against a public officer?
JUDGEMENT: In accordance with section 140 of the Delhi Police
Act, 1978, if a police officer or
other person is accused of committing an offence or wrong by acting in excess of his or her duty or authority,
or if it appears to the court that the offence or wrong, if committed
or done, was of the aforementioned nature,
the prosecution or suit shall be dismissed. The court may hear
any such prosecution against a Police Officer
or other individual, so long as it is initiated within one year of the
date of the offence and with the
Administrator's prior approval.
According to section 140 of the Delhi Police Act, the plaintiff's claim
against the fifth defendant
is time-barred since it was not submitted
within three months
of the plaintiff's cause of action accruing.
The complaint is dismissed as defendant number 5 is statutorily
ineligible. Consequently, the motion submitted by defendant number 5 pursuant to section 1 rule 10 CPC is also
granted, and defendant number 5 is removed
from the list of parties.
CRITICAL
ANALYSIS: In the aforementioned case, the public official filed a false criminal
complaint against the plaintiff, so damaging their
reputation and breaching due process. Whether
or not the plaintiff was engaged in this case was not disclosed. I suppose that
·
CASE-3: SAROL AND ANR. vs
RUBY, 201881
The plaintiff
charged the defendant
with defamation and sought obligatory injunctions. This application was filed by plaintiff 1- wife and plaintiff 2- husband, who is a head constable with the Delhi
police. Their son, who was married to the defendant
and worked for the Delhi police as a constable, falsely accused him of group sex and illicit contacts with the
plaintiff's son, with the intent to slander him in society. The plaintiffs claim they were humiliated by the
defendant's filing of such a
complaint against them and by the dissemination of such words/content by filing
a complaint with CAW Cell NE, Delhi.
In
Shri Ram Singh Batra v. Smt. Sharan Premi, 133 (2006) DLT 126, this court dealt with a claim for the recovery of
damages for defamation caused by the publication in the press of the FIR lodged
against the plaintiff
and his incarceration. A claim was made that the complaint used to register
the FIR was false. It was
decided that the criminal proceeding was still underway and that the plaintiff
had neither been exonerated nor released.
It was held I that malicious prosecution is actionable as a tort, but that the mere presentation of a false
complaint that seeks to set the criminal law in motion does not provide
an action
for
damages for malicious prosecution; (ii) that until the complainant obtains a request of conviction or disposal in his
favour, there is no civil action to file a suit against the defendant on the tort of malicious prosecution;
Thus, the lawsuit's complaint was dismissed.
ANALYSIS:
In the aforementioned case, the public official filed a false criminal complaint
against the plaintiff, so damaging their reputation and breaching due process. Again,
in this scenario, the public officer abused his or her position.
81
code of criminal
procedure, 1908 ACT No. 5 of 1908
· CASE-4: C. KISHIN CHAND vs CITY BANK N.A. & ANOTHER
The complainant maintained a membership establishment agreement with the
Bank, pursuant to which the complainant sought
authorization from the Bank for a transaction made by his (the Plaintiff's) customer, and the Bank subsequently sent an authorization code to the Plaintiff before paying the Plaintiff the
corresponding amount. During this time, the Defendant Bank filed a police report
based on a letter
it received from another bank about a fraudulent wire transfer, but without sufficient verification.
The Complaint
prompted an investigation and the filing of a First Information Report
against the Plaintiff and two other defendants. However,
the Criminal Court exonerated the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff sued the Defendant Bank for damages on the basis that the Defendant Bank acted intentionally.
However, the Honorable Madras High Court dismissed
the Plaintiff's claim. The Honorable Madras High Court has held that the Defendant Bank, having received
information of a fraudulent transaction, must tell the Police in order for the Police to investigate the issue. In addition, the Honorable Madras
High Court determined that the matter pertains to offences, not
criminals. During the investigation
alone, the defendant was indicted. Malice cannot be inferred from a simple
complaint, especially in the absence
of personal animosity between the Plaintiff and the Defendant
Bank.
ANALYSIS: In this instance. There
was no mention of the specific individual involved, thus there
was no personal animosity. Additionally, it is the responsibility of the bank to prevent any fraudulent transactions from
occurring. I support the bank's choice.
However, if the transaction was unauthorized and fraudulent, I believe it
should be reported straight to the police.
CASE-5: M. ABUBAKER
vs ABDUL KAREEM, 202182
Justice G.R. Swaminathan stated that the plaintiff needs establish more than the defendant's
acquittal in order for his malicious prosecution claim to be successful. Instead,
the burden of proof falls on the plaintiff.
(i) that there
were insufficient grounds for
the prosecution,
(ii)
that the prosecution was motivated by malice, and
(iii)that he was damaged
as a result.
82 M. ABUBAKER vs ABDUL KAREEM, 2021, S.A (MD)No. 122 of 2013
URL:https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/madras-high-court-malicious-prosecution-burden-of-proof- 393945.pdf
This
second appeal was filed by the defendant in response to the plaintiff's
malicious prosecution claim. The
petitioner had expressed worries about the leadership of the local mosque. In accordance with Sections 452 and 506(2)
of the Indian Penal Code,
it was the brother-in-law of Defendant 1 who filed the complaint against the plaintiff and his son on
behalf of the Jamath that governed the mosque. The plaintiff was arrested and detained for about twenty-four hours. He was also temporarily removed from duty. The
Judicial Magistrate later determined that he was innocent. The plaintiff filed
this action following his acquittal.
The complainant requested Rs 1.5 lakh in damages from the accused. The
trial court denied the plaintiff's claim,
but the first Appellate Court
ruled in his favour and granted him Rs 1 lakh in damages. The defendants 1 through 6 (in this case, all appellants) were found responsible by the first appellate court.
CHAPTER4:
CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF
FALSE IMPRISONMENT
False imprisonment is one of the most serious forms of human rights violation. It is vital to recognize
the human nature of the condemned offender. The
foundations of India's socio legal system are nonviolence, mutual respect, and
the maintenance of human dignity.
The use of torture in prisons is not the final remedy in the justice pharmacopoeia; rather, it is an admission that
justice has not been served to any
living person83.
All of a prisoner's fundamental rights are enforceable, but with
limitations due to imprisonment. In reality, Article
2184 of the Indian Constitution acknowledges the same thing.
Article 2085, with its sub clauses, reaffirms the same and aims to
safeguard offenders from being kept
down by ex post facto laws (Article 20(a)), double jeopardy (Article 20(b)), and self-incrimination (Article 20(c)).
83 Surendra Kumar Pachauri, “Prisoners and Human Rights”, S.B. Nangia and A.P.H. Publishing Corporation, Ed. 1999, p. 1
84 Protection of life and personal
liberty
85 Protection in respect of conviction
for offences
After analysing case laws and having detail
information for false
imprisonment we can conclude the following:
l
The right to personal liberty, freedom of life with
dignity has been guaranteed under
Art.19, 20 and 21 of constitution, and of which Art 20,21 can be infringed even during
emergency
l
The person who is arrested has also life to liberty
and freedom, jail authorities cannot take his/her right away.
l
Term tort of imprisonment is a vital term while taking
damages and if the matter of false
imprisonment concerns mental and physical damage should be taken into consideration before awarding damages.
l
If person is wrongfully imprisoned by police officer
or any govt authority. Then, he or any other person on his behalf can file a writ of habeas corpus.
l
If person is falsely arrested, he/she can use
reasonable force in order to save him from false arrest. It can be
self-help.
Analysing
false imprisonment with foreign countries. Basically, false imprisonment is an intentionally restraining someone from going anywhere. In India, restriction someone into an enclosed
area or prison the basic fundamental right of person that is right to liberty, freedom is violated which is
Art.19,20,21.
False imprisonment to happen in India elements
are:
1. there must be restrain
a. actual b. constructive-on person’s
liberty
2. the
restrain must be total as distinguished from partial 3.the restraint must be against
the plaintiff’s will 4.it must be unreasonable86
Comparing it to U.S
the elements are:
Under United States law, police have right to detain person based on justified cause,
that the person has been
involved in the criminal activity.
False imprisonment to happen in U.S.A
elements are: 1.Willfull detention in bounded area
1.
Without
consent
2.
Without authority of lawful arrest.87
Without authority of lawful arrest.87
86 Supra Note 10
87 Supra Note 10
CHAPTER-5:
SUGGESTION AND CONCLUSION
SUGGESTION:
As the topic of this research paper was “Analysing false imprisonment” and after analysing various case laws
and having a gist of false imprisonment.
According to my point of view, a person either
he/she is sound or unsound
minded either he/she is all
well or handicapped, either he/she is male or female, young or old. According
to constitution that provide us fundamental right there comes a right to personal liberty and freedom as per Art.19,20 and 2188.A
person who is detained must not be tortured in the sense that his/her personal rights are infringed. Govt. Or police
authorities don’t have right
to torture an accused across the limit. Some limitations are being imposed but by keeping rights in mind. A state must thrive to act on such issues of false
imprisonment and should formulate
more stringent laws for these issues.
Wrong
fully detained person should have reasonable right to save himself from false arrest. As in a case of govt. And police
authorities arrest, detained can file a writ and a he/she can use reasonable force of self-help.
The future preference for reducing false imprisonment can be before
arresting or detaining someone,
there must be true evidence
on which person
is detained and person who is being arrested must have knowledge
for on which grounds he/she going to be arrested,
police authorities should treat prisoners by keeping in mind that their basic rights
must not get infringed.
CONCLUSION:
The
whole research paper dealt with false imprisonment and its remedies and element and some law cases.
·
False imprisonment may also be defined as an action on
the side of the defendant that leads
to the plaintiff's imprisonment. No person can imprison another without legal reason accepted universally and
especially in all democracies. Article 2189 of the constitution
deals with personal liberty of a person.
88 Supra note 1
89 SUPRA NOTE 24
The basic essentials/elements of false imprisonment are:
1. there must be restrain
a. actual b. constructive-on person’s
liberty
2. the
restrain must be total as distinguished from partial 3.the restraint must be against
the plaintiff’s will it must be unreasonable.90
·
The remedies
for the false imprisonment
are self-help, damages, habeas corpus.91
·
It's generally knowledge that no one can arbitrarily
restrict another person's liberty if they don't have a valid legal defence. If no such defence exists,
the person whose
independence has been violated might file a false imprisonment lawsuit against the person
responsible. The most prevalent situation in which the defence of lawful authority applies in relation to inmates
who are sentenced to serve time in prison for
offences for which they have been duly convicted is in lawsuits for false incarceration.
·
The future preference for reducing false imprisonment
can be before arresting or detaining
someone, there must be true evidence on which person is detained and person who is being arrested must have
knowledge for on which grounds he/she going
to be arrested, police authorities should treat prisoners by keeping in mind that their basic rights must not get infringed.
BIBLOGRAPHY
BOOKS:
1.
Ratanlal & Dhirajlal
,2019, The law of torts,
Published by Lexis Nexis, 28th Edition ISBN:978938548410.
2.
B.M Gandhi, Law of Torts, 4th edition,
pg no.158 published
by: Eastern Book Company,2016
ISBN:9789388206402
3.
A K Jain, 2016, Law of Torts,
Published by - Delhi. Ascent Publication,8th edition, ISBN-9788193555606
4.
Jowitt’s Dictionary of English Law, Vol. 2 (1977) ISBN:9781847036261
5.
Funk & Wagnall’s
Standard Handbook (1973)
ISBN:9780308400245
90 Supra note 10
91 Supra note 34
ARTICLE:
1.John A. Hellstrom, Torts: False Imprisonment: Detention of Insane
Person, Michigan Law Review,
Apr., 1951, Vol. 49, No. 6 (Apr.,
1951), pp. 917-919,
The Michigan Law Review Association.ISSN-0026-2234
2. Statute of
Limitations. False Imprisonment, Columbia Law Review, Apr., 1925, Vol. 25, No. 4 (Apr.,
1925), pp. 505-506, Published by: Columbia
Law Review Association, Inc., ISSN-0010-1098
3.
False Imprisonment: Elements
of Liability: Termination of Original Proceeding, Michigan Law Review, Vol. 21, No. 6 (Apr., 1923), pp. 704-705,
Published by: The Michigan Law Review Association, False Imprisonment: Elements of Liability: Termination
of Original Proceeding on JSTOR
4.Surendra Kumar Pachauri, “Prisoners
and Human Rights”, S.B. Nangia and A.P.H. Publishing Corporation, Ed. 1999
WEBLIOGRAPHY:
Article Information
CRITICAL ANALSYIS OF FALSE IMPRISONMENT LAW OF TORTS
Authors: Soumya Pandey
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2023/02/14
- Volume 2
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.