Defences

Private Defences under Indian Penal Code

{Sections 96 to 106}
Subject Matter of Private Defence

Person Property
Sec. 96, IPC, 1860:
Things done in private
defence.
Nothing is an offence
which is done in the
exercise of the right of
private defence.
Person/individual
Property
First duty of person to help
himself.
 Private Defences

Person Property
Hurt
Theft
Grievous hurt
Robbery
Criminal
assault Mischief
Rape Criminal
tresspass
Murder
If there is a danger to a
person or property and the
immediate aid from the Sate
machinery is not readily
available, one is entitled to
protect his person or
property. (Dharam v. State of Haryana, AIR
2007, SC 397).
Sec. 97, IPC, 1860: Right of private defence
of the body and of property.—Every person
has a right, subject to the restrictions contained
in section 99, to defend—
First.—His own body, and the body of any other
person, against any offence affecting the human
body;
Secondly.—The property, whether movable or
immovable, of himself or of any other person,
against any act which is an offence falling under
the definition of theft, robbery, mischief or
criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to
commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal
trespass.
 Social Nature of Private Defence

Defence is not restricted to an individual who is under

attack/danger himself, but also extends to society at
large. However, it is wholly a social obligation without any
legal overtones. (Kashi Ram v. St. of Rajasthan, AIR
20008 SC 1172).

One is not under legal obligation to essentially defend

others.

But one can do for other what one can do for

himself/herself under the similar circumstances.
 Principles of Private Defence held in
Darshan Singh v. Sate of Punjab, AIR 2010
SChuman
i. Self-preservation is the basic 1212instinct and is duly recognized
by the criminal jurisprudence of all civilized countries. All free,
democratic and civilized countries recognize the right of private
defence within certain reasonable limits.
ii. The right of private defence is available only to one who is
suddenly confronted with the necessity of averting an
impending danger and not of self-creation.
iii. A mere reasonable apprehension is enough to put the right of self
defence into operation. In other words, it is not necessary that there
should be an actual commission of the offence in order to give rise
to the right of private defence. It is enough if the accused
apprehended that such an offence is contemplated and it is likely to
be committed if the right of private defence is not exercised.
iv. The right of private defence commences as soon as a reasonable
apprehension arises and it is co-terminus with the duration
of such apprehension.
v. It is unrealistic to expect a person under assault to modulate his
defence step by step with any arithmetical exactitude.
vi. In private defence the force used by the accused ought not to be
wholly disproportionate or much greater than necessary for
protection of the person or property.
vii. It is well settled that even if the accused does not plead self-
defence, it is open to consider such a plea if the same arises from the
material on record.
viii. The accused need not prove the existence of the right
of private defence beyond reasonable doubt.

ix. The Indian Penal Code confers the right of private

defence only when that unlawful or wrongful act is an
offence.

x. A person who is in imminent and reasonable danger of

losing his life or limb may in exercise of self defence inflict
any harm even extending to death on his assailant either
when the assault is attempted or directly threatened.
Sec. 98, IPC, 1860: Right of private defence against the
act of a person of unsound mind, etc.—
When an act, which would otherwise be a
certain offence, is not that offence, by reason
of the youth, the want of maturity of
understanding, the unsoundness of mind or
the intoxication of the person doing that act,
or by reason of any misconception on the
part of that person, every person has the
same right of private defence against that
act which he would have if the act were that
offence.
 Illustrations

(a) Z, under the influence of madness, attempts to kill A; Z

is guilty of no offence. But A has the same right of private
defence which he would have if Z were sane.

(b) A enters by night a house which he is legally entitled

to enter. Z, in good faith, taking A for a house-breaker,
attacks A. Here Z, by attacking A under this
misconception, commits no offence. But A has the same
right of private defence against Z, which he would have if Z
were not acting under that misconception
Sec. 99, IPC, 1860: Acts against which there is no
right of private defence.—
There is no right of private defence against an act which
does not reasonably cause the apprehension of
death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be
done, by a public servant acting in good faith under
colour of his office, though that act, may not be
strictly justifiable by law.
There is no right of private defence against an act which
does not reasonably cause the apprehension of
death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be
done, by the direction of a public servant acting in
good faith under colour of his office, though that
direction may not be strictly justifiable by law.
There is no right of private defence in cases
in which there is time to have recourse to
protection of the public authorities.
However, one need not run away for having
the recourse of public authorities.
Extent to which the right may be exercised.
—The right of private defence in no case
extends to the inflicting of more harm than it
is necessary to inflict for the purpose of
defence.
Explanation 1.—A person is not deprived of the
right of private defence against an act done, or
attempted to be done, by a public servant, as
such, unless he knows or has reason to believe,
that the person doing the act is such public
servant.
Explanation 2.—A person is not deprived of the
right of private defence against an act done, or
attempted to be done, by the direction of a
public servant, unless he knows, or has reason
to believe, that the person doing the act is
acting by such direction, or unless such person
states the authority under which he acts, or if
he has authority in writing, unless he produces
such authority, if demanded.
When the right of private defence can be
exercised against public servant?
Reasonable apprehension of causing the death
or of grievous hurt.

When the public servant doesn’t act in good

faith under the colour of his office.

When the person exercising the right of defence

doesn’t know or has any reason to believe, that
attacker is a public servant or one is acting
under the direction of a public servant.
Sec. 100, IPC, 1860: When the right of private
defence of the body extends to causing death.—
The right of private defence of the body extends,
under the restrictions mentioned in the last
preceding section, to the voluntary causing of death
or of any other harm to the assailant, if the offence
which occasions the exercise of the right be of any of
the descriptions hereinafter enumerated, namely:—
First.—Such an assault as may reasonably cause the
apprehension that death will otherwise be the
consequence of such assault;
Secondly.—Such an assault as may reasonably cause
the apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise be
the consequence of such assault;
Thirdly.—An assault with the intention of
committing rape;
Fourthly.—An assault with the intention of
gratifying unnatural lust;
Fifthly.—An assault with the intention of
kidnapping or abducting;
Sixthly.—An assault with the intention of
wrongfully confining a person, under
circumstances which may reasonably cause him to
apprehend that he will be unable to have recourse
to the public authorities for his release.
Seventhly.—An act of throwing or administering
acid or an attempt to throw or administer acid
which may reasonably cause the apprehension that
grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of
such act.
The accused heard the cries for seeking
help of his widowed sister-in-law. He
rushed towards her house with a gandasa
in his hand. He found that the attacker
was attacker was grappling with her and
was trying to outrage her modesty. The
accused inflicted a blow of gandasa for
saving his sister-in-law from the clutches
of attacker. The act of accused was held
to have been done in the exercise of the
right of private defence and was
acquitted. {Bahadar Ram v. State of
Rajasthan, 2000 Cr. LJ 1174 (Raj.)}.
Sec.101, IPC, 1860: When such
right extends to causing any harm
other than death.—
If the offence be not of any of the
descriptions enumerated in Section
100, IPC, the right of private defence
of the body does not extend to the
voluntary causing of death to the
assailant, but does extend, under the
restrictions mentioned in section 99, to
the voluntary causing to the assailant
of any harm other than death.
Sec. 102, IPC, 1860: Commencement
and continuance of the right of
private defence of the body.—
The right of private defence of the body
commences as soon as a reasonable
apprehension of danger to the body
arises from an attempt or threat to
commit the offence though the offence
may not have been committed; and it
continues as long as such apprehension
of danger to the body continues.
Sec.103, IPC, 1860: When the right of
private defence of property extends to
causing death.—
The right of private defence of property
extends, under the restrictions
mentioned in section 99, to the
voluntary causing of death or of any
other harm to the wrong-doer, if the
offence, the committing of which, or the
attempting to commit which, occasions
the exercise of the right, be an offence
of any of the descriptions hereinafter
enumerated, namely:—
First.—Robbery;
Secondly.—House-breaking by night;
Thirdly.—Mischief by fire committed on any building, tent
or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human
dwelling, or as a place for the custody of property;
Fourthly.—Theft, mischief, or house-trespass, under such
circumstances as may reasonably cause apprehension that
death or grievous hurt will be the consequence, if such right
of private defence is not exercised.