The statement accurately describes the essence of false imprisonment, which is a tort (and also a criminal offense known as 'wrongful confinement' under Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code). The core principle is that any unlawful total restraint of a person's liberty, regardless of the nature or location of the confinement, constitutes imprisonment.

Elucidation of the Principle:

False imprisonment is the complete deprivation of a person's freedom of movement without lawful justification. The key elements are:

1. Total Restraint: The person must be completely deprived of their liberty to move in any direction. A partial obstruction, where the person can still move in some direction, is not false imprisonment.
2. Unlawful: The restraint must be without legal authority or justification. This means it's not sanctioned by law (e.g., an arrest without a warrant or reasonable suspicion, or detention beyond the scope of lawful authority).
3. Knowledge of the Plaintiff (Debatable but not essential for the tort): While traditionally, some cases suggested the plaintiff must be aware of the confinement, modern jurisprudence (and cases like Meering v. Grahame-White Aviation Co.) holds that actual knowledge is not strictly necessary for the tort to occur, though it might affect the quantum of damages. The focus is on the actual deprivation of liberty.

The statement emphasizes that the physical characteristics of the place of confinement are irrelevant. What matters is the total deprivation of liberty.

• "Common prison or in a private house": Whether it's a formal state-run prison or an informal detention in someone's home, if a person is unlawfully prevented from leaving, it's false imprisonment.
• "In the stocks": This refers to an archaic device for public punishment and restraint. It illustrates that any physical means of preventing movement, however crude, constitutes confinement.
• "Even by forcibly detaining one in the public streets": This is a crucial point. Walls are not necessary. If a person is surrounded or physically prevented from moving in any direction they wish, even in an open public space, it amounts to false imprisonment. The inability to leave is the defining factor, not the presence of physical barriers.

Case Law:

1. Bird v. Jones (1845): This is the foundational English case. The plaintiff wanted to cross a part of a public road that was enclosed for a boat race. He was prevented from going forward but was told he could go back or take another route. The court held that this was not false imprisonment because the restraint was not total. He was not prevented from moving in all directions. This case firmly established the 'total restraint' requirement.

2. Meering v. Grahame-White Aviation Co. (1919): The plaintiff was suspected of theft and asked to remain in a room for questioning. He was unaware that two guards were posted outside the door with instructions not to let him leave. The court held that false imprisonment could occur even if the plaintiff was unaware of the restraint, as long as their liberty was actually curtailed. This case reinforced that the physical fact of restraint, not the plaintiff's knowledge, is paramount.

3. Warner v. Riddiford (1858): A servant was prevented from leaving his master's house until he had changed his clothes. This was held to be false imprisonment, demonstrating that even a brief, conditional restraint can be unlawful.

Indian Context (Wrongful Confinement):

Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code defines 'wrongful confinement' as: "Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said wrongfully to confine that person." This definition perfectly aligns with the principle articulated in the statement, emphasizing total restraint within 'circumscribing limits', which can be physical or even conceptual (e.g., being told you cannot leave a room, even if the door is unlocked, if you believe you are physically prevented).

In conclusion, the law protects an individual's fundamental right to personal liberty. Any unlawful act that completely deprives a person of their freedom of movement, irrespective of the physical environment or the duration, constitutes false imprisonment or wrongful confinement. The essence lies in the total and unlawful curtailment of the ability to go where one pleases.