Section 343 IPC: Wrongful Confinement for Three Days or More
Section 343 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, penalises wrongfully confining a person for three days or more. The corresponding provision in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), is Section 127(3), which prescribes a higher maximum sentence and an express fine limit.
Original statutory text: Section 343 IPC
343. Wrongful confinement for three or more days. Whoever wrongfully confines any person for three days, or more, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
This provision addresses the duration of confinement. The basic meaning of wrongful confinement is supplied by Section 340 IPC, while Section 342 IPC prescribes punishment for wrongful confinement generally.
Corresponding current provision: BNS Section 127(3)
Section 127(1) BNS defines wrongful confinement as wrongfully restraining a person so as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond circumscribing limits. Section 127(3) specifically applies where the wrongful confinement lasts three days or more. It prescribes imprisonment of either description for a term up to three years, or a fine up to Rs. 10,000, or both.
Where confinement continues for ten days or more, Section 127(4) BNS provides a more serious punishment. Other sub-sections address confinement despite a liberation writ, secret confinement, and confinement for extortion or obtaining confessions.
Meaning of wrongful confinement
Section 340 IPC and Section 127(1) BNS describe confinement within defined boundaries. A person may be confined by physical barriers, guards, credible threats or other circumstances that effectively prevent departure. A locked door is not always necessary.
For example, a person locked inside a walled enclosure is wrongfully confined. The statutory illustrations also describe armed guards at a building's exits threatening to shoot if the person attempts to leave. These illustrations show why the ability to leave in practice matters.
Essential ingredients
- Wrongful confinement: The accused must have wrongfully restrained another person within identifiable limits.
- Absence of a lawful basis: The restraint must be wrongful, rather than a detention or restriction justified by law.
- Duration: The confinement must continue for at least three days.
- Proof of participation: The accused's involvement in the confinement and its relevant duration must be established.
The duration is an essential additional element beyond ordinary wrongful confinement. Documentary and testimonial evidence may be required to establish when the confinement began and ended.
Punishment: IPC Section 343 vs BNS Section 127(3)
| Issue | Section 343 IPC | Section 127(3) BNS |
|---|---|---|
| Conduct | Wrongful confinement for three days or more | Wrongful confinement for three days or more |
| Maximum imprisonment | Two years, either description | Three years, either description |
| Fine | Fine may be imposed; no express maximum in this section | Up to Rs. 10,000 |
| Sentencing alternatives | Imprisonment, fine, or both | Imprisonment, fine, or both |
| General application | Earlier conduct, subject to savings | Conduct on or after 1 July 2024, generally |
The court determines the appropriate sentence on the proved facts, within the governing statute.
Cognizability, bail and trial
Under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), an offence under BNS Section 127(3) is classified as cognizable and bailable and is triable by any Magistrate. Procedural treatment of an older IPC offence must be assessed under the legislation and transitional provisions applicable to that proceeding.
Related confinement provisions
| IPC provision | Subject | BNS equivalent |
|---|---|---|
| 341 | Punishment for wrongful restraint | 126(2) |
| 342 | Ordinary wrongful confinement | 127(2) |
| 343 | Wrongful confinement for three or more days | 127(3) |
| 344 | Wrongful confinement for ten or more days | 127(4) |
| 345 | Confinement despite liberation writ | 127(5) |
| 346 | Secret wrongful confinement | 127(6) |
| 347 | Confinement for extortion or illegal acts | 127(7) |
| 348 | Confinement for confession or restoration of property | 127(8) |
Illustrative situations
- Locked premises: A person is unlawfully kept inside a room for four days with no means of leaving.
- Threats at exits: Guards prevent someone from leaving a compound for more than three days by threatening violence.
- Lawful restriction: A restriction authorised by law is not automatically wrongful confinement; its legal basis and limits must be examined.
These examples explain the statutory concepts and do not establish liability without proof of the particular facts.
Evidence and practical considerations
Witness testimony, CCTV recordings, access-control records, call records, messages, medical records and evidence of when the person entered and left the premises may be material. Courts assess whether movement beyond the limits was actually prevented and whether the requisite duration is proved. Allegations of additional violence, threats or extortion may raise separate offences.
Frequently asked questions
What is Section 343 IPC?
It punishes wrongful confinement of a person for three days or more. Wrongful confinement is defined in Section 340 IPC.
What is the punishment under IPC Section 343?
Imprisonment of either description for up to two years, or a fine, or both. The section does not specify a fixed maximum fine.
Which BNS provision corresponds to IPC Section 343?
Section 127(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, addresses wrongful confinement for three days or more.
What is the punishment under BNS Section 127(3)?
Imprisonment of either description for up to three years, or a fine up to Rs. 10,000, or both.
Is the offence under BNS Section 127(3) bailable?
Under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the offence is cognizable and bailable, and triable by any Magistrate.
What is the difference between wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement?
Wrongful restraint prevents movement in a direction where a person has a right to proceed. Wrongful confinement prevents a person from leaving defined limits.
Does the person have to be locked in a room?
No. Threats or guards at exits may amount to confinement if they effectively prevent the person from crossing the relevant limits. The facts and evidence matter.
What if the confinement lasts ten days or more?
A more serious provision may apply: IPC Section 344 or BNS Section 127(4), depending on when the conduct occurred.
Which law applies to incidents before July 2024?
The IPC generally remains relevant for acts committed before 1 July 2024, subject to applicable savings and transitional provisions.
Official legal references
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - India Code official PDF (Section 127).
- National Crime Records Bureau - BNS statutory provisions (Section 127).
- India Code - Government of India (IPC Sections 340-348 and BNSS First Schedule).
Updated 30 October 2026. General legal information; the law applicable to a particular case depends on its facts, date and transitional provisions.