Correct option is C
The scenario described in the question clearly illustrates wrongful confinement under Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Wrongful confinement occurs when a person is kept within certain boundaries against their will, with no reasonable means of escape. In this case, 'A' has confined 'Z' within a building by placing men with firearms at all exits and threatening to shoot if 'Z' tries to leave. This action restricts 'Z's freedom to move beyond the limits of the building, fulfilling the criteria for wrongful confinement.
Information Booster:
Wrongful Confinement (Section 340, IPC): Wrongful confinement is defined as the illegal confinement of a person within certain fixed limits. It is a more serious offense compared to wrongful restraint, which merely restricts a person's movement in a particular direction. For confinement to be considered wrongful, the person must be kept in a space against their will, and there should be an implicit or explicit threat preventing them from leaving. The punishments for wrongful confinement vary depending on the duration and severity of the confinement.
In this scenario, by placing armed guards at the exits and threatening 'Z' with violence if he attempts to leave, 'A' has created a situation where 'Z' is confined within the building, with no safe means of exit. This action clearly falls under wrongful confinement.
Additional Knowledge:
·
(a) 'A' wrongfully restrains 'Z': Wrongful restraint, as defined under Section 339 of the IPC, involves preventing someone from moving in a direction in which they have a right to proceed. For example, blocking a road and preventing a person from using it would be wrongful restraint. However, it is less severe than wrongful confinement, as it does not involve restricting a person within a boundary.
·
(b) 'A' wrongfully obstructs 'Z': While not a defined offense under the IPC, wrongful obstruction could imply preventing someone from performing a specific action or moving in a certain direction. This term could be used informally to describe acts similar to wrongful restraint but lacks legal specificity under Indian law.
·
(d) 'A' wrongfully orders 'Z': Issuing an order, even if unjust or illegal, does not constitute a criminal offense like wrongful restraint or confinement unless it is accompanied by actions that limit a person's freedom. Mere verbal orders without physical acts of restriction do not amount to wrongful confinement.
