Wa0027

Q 2. Define the right of private defence. What restrictions are imposed on it?
When
does this start and end? Does the right of private defence extend to causing death of
a person?
Ans. Chapter IV (Sections 96 to 106) deal with the law relating to the right of private
defence very comprehensively. According to Sec-96, the acts otherwise criminal are
justifiable if they are done while exercising the right of private defence. Normally, it is the
accused who takes the plea of self-defence but the court is also bound to to take
cognizance of the fact that the accused aced in self defence if such evidence exists. This
right is not of reprisal or revenge but to ward of the threat and imminent danger of an attack.
According to Sec- 97 , a person has the right to defend his or anybody else‟s body or
property from being unlawfully harmed. However, the right exists only against an act that is
an offence, and there is no right to defend something that is not an offence. Similarly, an
aggressor does not have this right. So, if an aggressor himself is doing an offence, he
cannot claim the right of self defence even if the person being aggressed upon uses his
self-defence.
Case Law:- Mannu Vs. State of UP., 1979.
Ram Rattan Vs. State of UP, 1977
Section 98 provides the same right of private defence as is available to one against
another normal person, also available against such other persons who may not be liable for
their acts in view of the fact that certain specific defences have been provided to them by
the IPC. Thus, this law does not make a distinction between a normal and a non-normal
attacker on body or property of any person and in both cases same right is available to the
defender.
Section 99 imposes restrictions on the right of private defence . It lays down that the right
to private defence is not available in the following conditions :-
(i) When an act is done by a public servant or upon his direction and the act is either done
under colour of his office, or does not cause the apprehension of death or grievous hurt, or
is done under good faith or the act is not wholly unjustified. However, the right is curtailed
only if the person knows or has reasons to believe that the act is being done by a public
servant.
Case law – Kurrim Bux, 1965

(ii) When the force applied during the defence exceeds what is required to for the purpose
of defence.
Case law – Kurrim Bux, 1865 Queen Vs. Fukira Chamar

(iii) When it is possible to approach proper authorities, he does not have the right to private
defence
Case law – Ajodha Prasad Vs. State of UP, 1924.

Section 100 Specifies six situations in which the right of private defence of body extends
even to causing death – first – an assault reasonably cause the apprehension of death
Second – an assault reasonably cause the apprehension of grievous hurt
Third – an assault with the intention of committing rape
Fourth – as assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust.
Fifth – an assault with the intention of kidnapping or abducting
Sixth – an assault with the intention of wrongfully confine a person who apprehends loss of
recourse to the public authorities for his release. .
Case law :- Viswanath Vs. State of UP, AIR 1960 Sheo Persan Singh Vs. State of UP, 1979
Yogendra Morarji Vs. State of Gujarat, 1980
Section 101 is corollary to Sec-100. It states that if any of the circumstances U/S 100 does
not exist, the right of private defence does not extend to causing of death of the attacker.
Case law – Yogendra Morarji Vs. State, 1980
Section 102 specifies the duration of the right of private defence of the body as it
commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises and it
continues as long as such apprehension of danger to the body continues.
Section 103 specifies four situations in which the right of private defence of property
extends even to causing death –
first – Robbery
Second – House breaking by night
Third – Mischief by fire at a place used as dwelling place
Fourth – theft, mischief or house trespass which reasonably cause the apprehension of
death or grievous hurt.
A person may cause death in safeguarding the property of someone else also.
Case law – State of UP Vs. Shiv Murat, 1982. Jassa Singh Vs. state of Haryana, 2002,
Section 104 is a corollary of section 103 which states that any act which does not fall u/s –
103, the right of private defence does not extend to causing of death of the attacker.
Section 105 specifies the duration of the property as In case of theft – till the offender
retreats with property or public authorities are approached or property has been recovered.
In case of robbery – as long the fear of instant death or hurt continues or attempt continues
In case of criminal trespass – as long the criminal trespass or mischief continues. In case of
house-breaking by night – as long the house breaking continues.
Case Law – Amjad Khan Vs. State AIR 1952
Section 106 removes an impediment in the right of private defence A person can exercise his right
against a deadly assault and while doing so, he entitled to run the risk of harm to an innocent
person.

Wa0027

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wa0027

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wa0027

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Q 2. Define the right of private defence. What restrictions are imposed on it?

Ram Rattan Vs. State of UP, 1977

Case law – Kurrim Bux, 1965

Case law – Kurrim Bux, 1865 Queen Vs. Fukira Chamar

Case law – Ajodha Prasad Vs. State of UP, 1924.

You might also like