Not Necessary To Immobilize Victim By Tying His Hands For Offence Of Wrongful Confinement: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that for the offence of wrongful confinement, it is not necessary that the victim must be immobilized by tying his hands.

The Court was considering a Revision Petition against an order of the Trial Court limited to the extent of discharging the accused persons of offence under Sections 323, 342 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia held, "Similarly as regards the alleged confinement of the prosecutrix, there is an explicit statement of the prosecutrix in the FIR: “mujhe apne ghar band rakha” (I was confined by him in his house). For wrongful confinement, it is not necessary that the victim must be immobilized by tying his hands. Confinement within a room, as alleged in the present case, also would suffice in order to make out a prima facie case for framing charge for offence under Section 342 IPC."

The Petitioner was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Amit Ahlawat.

Facts of the Case

The FIR in the case was lodged on the statement of prosecutrix who working as a Receptionist in a Company owned by the Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 was the wife of Respondent No. 1 who entrapped the prosecutrix with his sweet talk and convinced her that he would get married with her after getting his marriage with Respondent No. 2 dissolved by way of decree of divorce. On the pretext of getting married, Respondent No. 1 developed physical relations with prosecutrix repeatedly. One day, when the Prosecutrix went to the house of Respondents in order to discuss her marriage with Respondent No. 1, both Respondents started beating her up and confined her in their home.

After threatening to get her booked in some false case, Respondents called the PCR, which took all of them to the police station. At the Police Station on the basis of the narration by the prosecutrix, the FIR was registered for offence under Sections 376, 377 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, the Police filed chargesheet against the Respondents for offences under Sections 376, 377, 323, 342, 34 of the IPC and 6 of the POCSO Act.

By way of the impugned order, the Trial Court held that charge for offence under Section 376(2), 377 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act was made out against Respondent No.1 and accordingly, charge was framed against him. But, as regards Respondent No. 2, it was held that no offence at all was made out, so she was discharged.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset observed that it cannot minutely analyse the material placed on record by prosecution; only prima facie case is to be kept in mind, and in case of grave suspicion, charge must be framed.

"Merely because MLC of prosecutrix does not reflect injuries, the explicit statement of the prosecutrix that she was beaten up cannot be discarded. Whether or not leg blows in abdomen and striking of head against the wall would lead to noticeable injuries, not found in the MLC would be explainable in many ways, which can be done only during trial and not at the stage of charge by minute examination," the Court observed.

It also stressed on the statement of the prosecutrix in the FIR, by way of which she stated that the beating was done by both the Respondents with a common intention.

"In the statement, the expression common intention need not be explicitly stated and the same has to be inferred from the statement," it stated.

The Petition was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Mukesh & Anr.

Click here to read/ download Order