Section 102 of The Indian Penal Code Submitted by

Section 102 of the Indian Penal Code
Submitted by
Anindita Deb
Batch 2020-25, DIVISION-C, BBA.LL.B.
PRN NO. - 20010224161
Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA

Symbiosis International (Deemed) University, PUNE
In
September 2021
Under the Guidance Of

Dr Meera Mathew & Mr Vikram Singh
(Assistant Professor)
Introduction
The Indian Penal Code (IPC) had been drafted in 1860 and is considered as the official
criminal code of the Indian territory. Its purpose is to create a comprehensive penal law for
the country. It has been divided into 511 sections and 23 chapters, and it consists of a list of
crimes, as well as their definitions and penalties. Other Acts now supplement the IPC, which
has been modified multiple times.
When a person's life, limb, or property faces danger, the right of private defence originates
from the belief that he or she has been born with the right to defend oneself by reasonable
means of self-resistance against an unlawful aggressor, and that no one is expected to escape
but to fight back. It is based on the basic idea that if a crime is being forcefully committed,
resisting that force in self-defence does not become illegal.1
Section 102 governs the commencement and continuance of the right of private defence with
respect to the body only. The individual exercising the right must determine whether or not
the threat to his life is real and immediate.
Section 102
Under this Section, the threat to body must be perceived as reasonable, and by reasonable, we
mean what can be understood by a large group of people; the threat must not be fanciful. The
section further states that the apprehension need not necessarily originate from an attempted
act, but it can also arise from the threat of the act being committed against us, so we don't
have to use private defence only when the crime is committed against us; we can use it even
before the crime is committed. But this right lasts only till the time that the threat of harm to
the person’s body is continuing. The applicability of this section ends the moment the
apprehension of danger comes to an end.
Purpose of incorporating this Section in the IPC
A State owes its citizens the duty to protect their life, limb, and property. However, it will
never be able to help everyone at all times in all situations where a person is in danger. In
such a case, an individual will be obligated to use all available measures to protect himself in
order to satisfy the natural instinct of human self-preservation.
Most modern civilised countries, including India, sanction every person's right to resist or
repel any harm perpetrated towards them by means of violence, in situations where help from
the State is not obtainable, subject to certain acceptable boundaries and conditions.2
Features of Section 102
Section 102 is included in Chapter IV of the Indian Penal Code, under the heading "General
Exceptions," and The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 recognises defences in Chapter IV
under the heading "General Exceptions." These defences, which are based on the
presumption that a person is not liable for the offence committed under these exceptions, are
covered by Sections 76 to 106.
1
Deo narain v. The State of U.P. AIR 1973 SC 473, (1973) Cr LJ 677 (SC)
2
DR. KI VIBHUTE, PSA PILLAI’S CRIMINAL LAW 156-157 (14th ed)
The offences under Section 102 of the Indian Penal Code are non-compoundable, which
means they cannot be compromised. They can only be quashed. The Accused cannot be
released free with some settlements due to the nature of the offence, which is more serious,
grave, and criminal.
A landmark case under this Section is Deo Narain v. The State of U.P.3
IRAC Analysis
Brief facts
The appellant and complainant parties were at odds over the control of particular land.
During the fight, the deceased party was inflicted by a fatal spear wound to the chest from the
appellant.
The case was taken to the Trial Court, where the Sessions Judge ruled that the accused
persons had undisputedly possessed the disputed plots of land and acquitted all of the accused
on the grounds that they were acting in private defence based on a reasonable assumption that
Deo Narain and Chanderdeo might compulsorily have suffered head injuries before they
decided to inflict the injuries.
The State took the order to the High Court, which upheld all of the trial court's findings. The
High Court was of the finding that appellant Deo Narain went beyond his legal authority
when he used the spear to injure Chandrama's chest.
The High Court's reasoning in convicting the appellant is that his private defence right could
only exist if party of the complainant had genuinely caused substantial injury on the accused,
justifying the causing of death.
The appellant went on to file a Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court of India,
expressing his disagreement with the High Court's ruling.
Issue
The issue that arose in the case was whether the petitioner exceeded the right of private
defence given to him and also whether it had been justifiable on his part to exercise this right
by spear for injury caused by lathi.
Rule
Section 100 and 102 of the IPC, which include provisions related to the scope of private
defence, were applicable in this landmark case.
Section 100 talks about instances in which a person's right to private defence of body can
extend to cause death, and Section 102 states the commencing and continuation of the right to
private defence of one’s body.
Analysis
As soon as the appellant rationally perceived a threat to his body, even if it was a genuine
threat by the complainant's party to assault him in order to take possession of the plots in
3
Supra note 1
dispute by force, he was granted the right to defend himself in private defence and the right of
using reasonable force against the wrongful aggressor in the course of exercising that right.
The complainant's party had arrived with the intent of preventing or obstructing the accused
persons' possession, and this was an illegal act of violent obstruction and prevention. The
appellant had reason to believe that he and his companions were in imminent and present
danger. As a result, he was perfectly justified in employing force with the objective of
protecting himself and his companions from the evidently imminent threat.
The Apex Court also reasoned that in such a state of disturbed mental equilibrium, persons
confronted with significant violence cannot be expected to calmly analyse and determine with
a clear mind what specific sort and severity of the blow that would qualify as sufficient in the
eyes of the law in order to properly counter the unlawful aggression.
Conclusion
The appeal was granted and the Supreme Court ordered the acquittal of the appellant. The
High Court erred in convicting the appellant for violating his right of defending his body. To
imply that the appellant may obtain the right to use force for his intention of private defence
only after suffering a major injury as a result of an aggressive wrongful assault is to
misunderstand the law enshrined in Section 102 of IPC.
Reference materials
PSA Pillai’s Criminal law (14th edition)

Section 102 of The Indian Penal Code Submitted by

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Section 102 of The Indian Penal Code Submitted by

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Section 102 of The Indian Penal Code Submitted by

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Section 102 of the Indian Penal Code

Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA

Under the Guidance Of

You might also like