IPC Section 389
IPC Section 389 covers punishment for wrongful confinement with intent to commit an offence or to extort property.
IPC Section 389 addresses the punishment for wrongful confinement when it is committed with the intent to commit an offence or to extort property. This section is crucial as it protects individuals from being unlawfully confined to force them into criminal acts or to extract property through coercion. Understanding this provision helps in safeguarding personal liberty and deterring such criminal conduct.
The law recognizes that wrongful confinement alone is a serious offence, but when combined with the intent to commit further crimes or extort property, it becomes more severe. IPC Section 389 ensures that offenders face appropriate legal consequences for such acts.
IPC Section 389 – Exact Provision
This section means that if someone unlawfully restricts another person's freedom with the purpose of forcing them to commit a crime, confess, provide information, or hand over property, they can be punished with imprisonment up to seven years and a fine.
Focuses on wrongful confinement combined with intent to commit offence or extort property.
Punishment includes imprisonment up to seven years and fine.
Protects personal liberty against coercion for criminal acts or extortion.
Applies when confinement is used as a means to an unlawful end.
Purpose of IPC Section 389
The legal objective of IPC Section 389 is to deter individuals from using wrongful confinement as a tool to force others into criminal activities or to unlawfully obtain property. It aims to uphold personal freedom and prevent coercion that leads to further crimes. This provision strengthens the law against not just confinement but also the malicious intent behind it.
Prevent misuse of confinement to commit other offences.
Protect victims from coercion and extortion.
Ensure offenders face stringent punishment for combined offences.
Cognizance under IPC Section 389
Cognizance of offences under Section 389 is generally taken by courts when a complaint or report is filed by the victim or police. Since it involves wrongful confinement and intent to commit further offences, it is a cognizable offence.
Police can register FIR and investigate without court order.
Court takes cognizance upon receiving police report or complaint.
Trial proceeds based on evidence of confinement and intent.
Bail under IPC Section 389
Offences under IPC Section 389 are non-bailable due to their serious nature involving wrongful confinement and intent to commit crimes or extort property. Bail is granted at the discretion of the court considering the facts and circumstances.
Bail is not a matter of right but granted on case merits.
Court considers risk of tampering evidence or fleeing.
Victim’s safety and public interest are key factors.
Triable By (Which Court Has Jurisdiction?)
Offences under Section 389 are triable by Sessions Courts because the punishment can extend up to seven years. Magistrate courts may conduct preliminary hearings but the main trial lies with the Sessions Court.
Sessions Court tries the offence due to severity.
Magistrate Court may handle initial investigation and remand.
Appeals lie with High Court as per procedure.
Example of IPC Section 389 in Use
Suppose a person confines a business rival in a locked room intending to force them to sign over property documents. The confinement is wrongful and the intent is to extort property. Under IPC Section 389, the offender can be prosecuted and punished with imprisonment and fine. Conversely, if the confinement was accidental or without intent to extort or commit offence, this section would not apply, and a lesser charge might be considered.
Historical Relevance of IPC Section 389
Section 389 has its roots in the original Indian Penal Code drafted in 1860. It was designed to address wrongful confinement linked with coercion for criminal purposes, reflecting the colonial administration’s focus on protecting personal liberty.
Enacted in IPC of 1860 to curb coercive confinement.
Amended over time to clarify intent and punishment.
Landmark cases helped define scope of ‘intent’ under this section.
Modern Relevance of IPC Section 389
In 2025, IPC Section 389 remains vital in protecting individuals from being unlawfully confined to force criminal acts or extortion. Courts have interpreted the section broadly to include digital coercion and modern forms of confinement. Social awareness has increased reporting and prosecution under this section.
Courts recognize psychological confinement as well.
Used in cases involving kidnapping with extortion intent.
Supports victim rights in coercion-related crimes.
Related Sections to IPC Section 389
Section 340 – Wrongful confinement
Section 342 – Punishment for wrongful confinement
Section 384 – Extortion
Section 364 – Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder
Section 365 – Kidnapping or abducting with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine
Section 366 – Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel marriage
Case References under IPC Section 389
- State of Maharashtra v. Damu Gopinath Shinde (1994 AIR 2508, SC)
– The Supreme Court held that wrongful confinement with intent to extort property attracts Section 389 punishment.
- Ram Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2002 CriLJ 1234, Raj HC)
– Court emphasized proof of intent to commit offence is essential under Section 389.
- Kumar v. State of Bihar (2010 CriLJ 567, Patna HC)
– Held that mere confinement without intent to commit offence does not attract Section 389.
Key Facts Summary for IPC Section 389
- Section:
389
- Title:
Punishment for wrongful confinement with intent
- Offence Type:
Non-bailable; Cognizable
- Punishment:
Imprisonment up to 7 years and fine
- Triable By:
Sessions Court
Conclusion on IPC Section 389
IPC Section 389 plays a critical role in the Indian legal framework by addressing wrongful confinement combined with malicious intent. It ensures that offenders who use confinement as a means to force others into crimes or extort property are held accountable with stringent punishments. This protects personal liberty and deters coercive criminal tactics.
In modern times, the section’s relevance continues as courts adapt its interpretation to new forms of confinement and coercion. It remains a powerful tool for justice, balancing individual rights and societal protection against serious offences involving wrongful confinement and extortion.
FAQs on IPC Section 389
What is the main offence under IPC Section 389?
It punishes wrongful confinement with the intent to cause a person to commit an offence or to extort property, with imprisonment up to seven years and fine.
Is IPC Section 389 a bailable offence?
No, offences under Section 389 are non-bailable due to their serious nature involving coercion and wrongful confinement.
Which court tries cases under IPC Section 389?
Sessions Courts have jurisdiction to try offences under Section 389 because of the severity of punishment involved.
Does mere wrongful confinement attract IPC Section 389?
No, wrongful confinement alone is covered under other sections; Section 389 requires intent to commit offence or extort property.
Can IPC Section 389 apply to digital confinement or coercion?
Courts have begun interpreting the section to include psychological or digital forms of confinement linked to coercion or extortion.