Define false impriosment and discuss its essential element with the help of case
Answers
Answered by
0
False imprisonment is restraining a person in a bounded area without justification or consent. False imprisonment is a common law misdemeanor and a tort. It applies to private as well as governmental detention. It is dealt with in the form of wrongful confinement in the Indian Penal Code under
340.[i] The Indian Penal Code deals with other matters related in this regard from339to S. 348. When it comes to public police, the proving of false imprisonment is sufficient to obtain a writ of Habeus Corpus.
For imprisonment, it is not necessary that the person should be put behind bars, but he should be confined in such an area from where there are no possible ways of escape except the will of the person who is confining the person within that area. It is not the degree of the imprisonment that matters but it is the absence of lawful authority to justify unlawful confinement which is of relevance. The internment and non-movement of any chattel, i.e., goods is also considered to be a part of the concept of false imprisonment.
False arrest is the arrest of the individual by the police officer or private person without lawful authority. False arrest and false imprisonment are virtually indistinguishable except in their terminology and have been held by the courts as a single tort. False imprisonment is an intentional tort, like those of assault, battery, unlawful harassment and invasion of privacy. These are termed as torts of trespass to a person.
The defence to false imprisonment includes consent of the plaintiff or voluntary assumption of the risk, probable cause and contributory negligence. The defence of consent of the plaintiff and probable cause are complete defences while the defence of contributory negligence is used only for mitigation of damages. Reasonable care and acting in good faith are no defences for this tort.
There are three remedies for false imprisonment, which include damages, habeas corpus and self -help. Being a tort, the basic remedy for false imprisonment is an action for damages which can be due to physical or mental suffering, loss of reputation or even malicious intent on behalf of the defendant. If a person is unlawfully confined, then he can be released from such confinement by the Writ of Habeas Corpus. A person can also use reasonable force in order to escape the confinement. Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right of personal liberty and thereby prohibits any inhuman, cruel or degrading treatments to any person whether he is a national or foreigner. Any violation of this right attracts the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution which enshrines right to equality and equal protection of law. In addition to this, the question of cruelty to prisoners is also dealt with specifically by the Prison Act, 1894. If any excesses are committed on a prisoner, the prison administration is responsible for that.
However judicial and executive authorities have some amount of immunity for liability in false imprisonment cases. For example a judge exercising his judicial powers for the arrest the imprisonment of a person cannot be sued for damages for false imprisonment on the ground that his order was illegal or without jurisdiction, provided he believed in good faith that he had jurisdiction. There is protection conferred by the Judicial Officer‟s Protection Act.[ii] Nevertheless, if the act is done in a mala fide or in a recklessly manner, the magistrate or judge shall be liable for false imprisonment.
340.[i] The Indian Penal Code deals with other matters related in this regard from339to S. 348. When it comes to public police, the proving of false imprisonment is sufficient to obtain a writ of Habeus Corpus.
For imprisonment, it is not necessary that the person should be put behind bars, but he should be confined in such an area from where there are no possible ways of escape except the will of the person who is confining the person within that area. It is not the degree of the imprisonment that matters but it is the absence of lawful authority to justify unlawful confinement which is of relevance. The internment and non-movement of any chattel, i.e., goods is also considered to be a part of the concept of false imprisonment.
False arrest is the arrest of the individual by the police officer or private person without lawful authority. False arrest and false imprisonment are virtually indistinguishable except in their terminology and have been held by the courts as a single tort. False imprisonment is an intentional tort, like those of assault, battery, unlawful harassment and invasion of privacy. These are termed as torts of trespass to a person.
The defence to false imprisonment includes consent of the plaintiff or voluntary assumption of the risk, probable cause and contributory negligence. The defence of consent of the plaintiff and probable cause are complete defences while the defence of contributory negligence is used only for mitigation of damages. Reasonable care and acting in good faith are no defences for this tort.
There are three remedies for false imprisonment, which include damages, habeas corpus and self -help. Being a tort, the basic remedy for false imprisonment is an action for damages which can be due to physical or mental suffering, loss of reputation or even malicious intent on behalf of the defendant. If a person is unlawfully confined, then he can be released from such confinement by the Writ of Habeas Corpus. A person can also use reasonable force in order to escape the confinement. Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right of personal liberty and thereby prohibits any inhuman, cruel or degrading treatments to any person whether he is a national or foreigner. Any violation of this right attracts the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution which enshrines right to equality and equal protection of law. In addition to this, the question of cruelty to prisoners is also dealt with specifically by the Prison Act, 1894. If any excesses are committed on a prisoner, the prison administration is responsible for that.
However judicial and executive authorities have some amount of immunity for liability in false imprisonment cases. For example a judge exercising his judicial powers for the arrest the imprisonment of a person cannot be sued for damages for false imprisonment on the ground that his order was illegal or without jurisdiction, provided he believed in good faith that he had jurisdiction. There is protection conferred by the Judicial Officer‟s Protection Act.[ii] Nevertheless, if the act is done in a mala fide or in a recklessly manner, the magistrate or judge shall be liable for false imprisonment.
Similar questions