Private Defence in IPC | Criminal Law for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Private Defence under Indian Penal Code

• The Indian Penal Code (IPC) Sections 96 to 106 deal with the legal provisions concerning the right of private defence of person and property.
• Individuals are authorized to use necessary force against an assailant or wrongdoer to protect their own body and property, as well as the body and property of others when immediate help from law enforcement is not available.

Categories of Private Defence

• Private defence is categorized into two types: the right of private defence of the body and the right of private defence of property.
• The right of private defence allows individuals to protect themselves or others from harm or injury.

Meaning of Private Defence

• Private defence refers to using necessary actions to protect oneself, another person, or property from harm or to prevent criminal activity.
• The right of private defence is available to every citizen of India under the IPC.
• It is not considered an offense if harm is caused while defending against external force or damage.

Legal Principles and Limitations

• The right of private defence can only be exercised in the face of imminent danger when state support is unavailable.
• The adequacy of the defensive action taken is a crucial principle in private defence.
• There are limitations and exceptions to the right of private defence, which have been shaped by court judgments in India.

Historical Context and Purpose

• The right of private defence has evolved over time in India, originating from the proposal made by Macaulay in his draft code.
• It aims to strengthen the spirit of self-reliance among the Indian population and protect life, freedom, and property.

Role of State and Citizens

• While the state has the primary duty to protect citizens and their property, individuals have the right to use force in situations of immediate danger when state assistance is unavailable.
• The Constitution of India emphasizes the duty of the State to protect public property and renounce violence.

Understanding Private Defence in Indian Penal Code (IPC)

• Apprehension of harm: Private defence allows individuals to protect themselves, others, or property when there is a genuine fear of harm or danger. This fear must be real and immediate, not based on speculation.
• Unlawful act: The right to private defence can be exercised only in response to an unlawful act. This includes situations such as assault, robbery, housebreaking, mischief, or criminal trespass as defined in the IPC.
• Proportionate force: When using private defence, individuals must employ a level of force that is reasonable and necessary to counter the threat. It is essential to avoid excessive force to prevent harm while defending oneself or others.
• No alternative remedy: Private defence is permissible when seeking help from public authorities is not feasible or when there is no time to involve legal authorities promptly.
• Continuity of the threat: The right to private defence remains valid as long as the threat persists. Once the danger has passed, the justification for using force also ceases.
• Absence of pre-emptive strikes: Individuals cannot initiate an attack and then claim the right to private defence. This right is limited to responding to an ongoing or imminent threat, not for preemptive actions.
• No excessive force: Using force beyond what is necessary to defend oneself is not justified. Individuals must ensure that the force employed is proportional to the danger posed.

Nature of Right of Private Defence

• Self-help is a fundamental principle emphasizing individuals' responsibility to protect themselves.
• Citizens in a free country are granted the right of private defence to defend themselves in immediate danger when state help is unavailable.
• This right is an extension of the State's duty to safeguard its citizens and their belongings.
• Even with considerable resources, it's impractical for the state to provide police protection to every citizen constantly.
• The State has delegated the authority to individuals to act in self-defence as part of fulfilling its core duty.
• The right of private defence can be exercised only in situations where there is no time to seek police help or when immediate state assistance is not accessible.
• If a person acts in self-defence unlawfully, it isn't considered a criminal offense and doesn't create a reciprocal right of private defence.
• The legality of the person being resisted doesn't determine the right of private defence; what matters is the perceived illegal nature of the act being resisted.
• Genuine and reasonable actions taken in self-defence remain valid even if the initial threat or accusation was unfounded.

Understanding Private Defence in the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

• The Indian Penal Code (IPC) under Section 97 guarantees every individual the right to defend themselves, others, and property against certain offenses like robbery and theft. However, this right is subject to limitations delineated in Section 99 of the IPC.
• Self-Help Principle: This principle emphasizes an individual's responsibility to protect themselves, followed by a social duty to safeguard others and their possessions out of human sympathy.
• Section 98 of the IPC specifies that if an act, which would typically be considered an offense, is committed due to factors like youth, lack of understanding, or unsound mind, individuals retain the right of private defence against that act.
• According to Section 106 of the IPC, if a defender anticipates a life-threatening attack and defending themselves might endanger an innocent person, they are allowed to take that risk.

Key Aspects of Private Defence in the IPC

• Applicability: The right of private defence is not valid against acts not deemed criminal under the IPC unless under exceptional circumstances.
• Immediacy of Danger: It can only be exercised when there is a genuine fear of imminent harm from a criminal act.
• Defensive Nature: Private defence is intended for protection, not retribution. It should only cause harm necessary for defense, with consideration for the defender's intentions.
• Permissible Actions: The right extends to killing the assailant if facing immediate danger of specific crimes listed in Section 100 of the IPC.
• No Obligation to Retreat: In cases of severe threat to life, there is no duty to retreat if no safe escape is possible except by neutralizing the assailant.
• Role of Public Authorities: If seeking protection from public authorities is a reasonable option, the right of private defence cannot be claimed.

Understanding Private Defence under IPC Section 96

• Private Defence Overview:
  • The right of private defence, outlined in Section 96 of the Indian Penal Code, allows individuals to protect themselves or their property.
  • This right is not absolute and is regulated by Section 99, which prohibits excessive harm beyond what is necessary for defence.
• Free Fight Scenario:
  • In situations of mutual conflict where both parties engage in a fight, neither can claim the right of private defence.
  • Individuals are accountable for their actions in such scenarios.
• Proving the Right of Private Defence:
  • The burden of proof lies with the individual invoking the right of private defence.
  • An accused may still be acquitted based on this right even without explicitly pleading it.
• Exceptions and Considerations:
  • Courts have the authority to apply exceptions in cases related to private defence.
  • Failure to explicitly raise a defence does not eliminate the right to rely on an exception.
• Assessment and Justification:
  • The right of private defence should be a defensive act, not an offensive one.
  • It must be justified within the context of the threat faced, avoiding disproportionate force.
• Conditions for Absolving Guilt:
  • The right of private defence can absolve a person, even in cases resulting in death, if specific criteria are met.
  • These criteria include the deceased being the assailant or the offence necessitating self-defence of body and property.

Key Legal Cases

• Thangavel Case:
  • In this case, it was highlighted that while self-preservation is crucial, it must not infringe upon the rights of others.
  • Society places limits to prevent unjust aggression against innocent individuals.
• Kamparsare vs Putappa Case:
  • The court ruled that certain actions, like chasing and defending oneself in a street altercation, can be considered instances of private defence.

Section 97: Right of Private Defence of The Body and Property

• Every individual, according to Section 97 of the Indian Penal Code, holds the right to protect their own body or that of another against any offense affecting the human body.
• Individuals are also entitled to safeguard their property, whether movable or immovable, from acts such as theft, robbery, mischief, or criminal trespass.
• The exercise of the right of private defence should be confined to absolute necessity and should not surpass what is essential for defense against an aggressor. The person invoking this right must reasonably anticipate danger from the aggressor.
• This right can be utilized when an offense is committed or attempted against the person exercising the right or any other person. It extends not only to the defense of one's body and property but also to that of any other individual.
• Unlike English law, even a stranger can protect the person or property of another individual under Section 97 of the IPC without the requirement of a pre-existing relationship.
• However, the true owner's right to dispossess a trespasser is valid only if the trespasser has not yet accomplished their mission. If the trespasser has gained possession and the true owner is aware of this, legal remedies must be sought to dispossess the trespasser.
• The accused bears the burden of proving the plea of the right of private defence. This right can be established based on the prosecution's evidence itself. The right of private defence is preventive in nature and not punitive or retributive.
• In the case of Chotelal vs State, it was determined that the right of private defence can be exercised if a person is responsible for a crime like waste.
• In the case of Parichhat vs the State of M.P., it was found that the accused had exceeded their right of private defence by using excessive force against the aggressor.

Understanding IPC Section 98: Right of Private Defence

• Overview of Section 98:
  • Section 98 of the Indian Penal Code deals with the right of private defence against acts committed by individuals who may not be held accountable for their actions due to factors like youth, lack of understanding, mental illness, intoxication, or misconception.
• Application of the Right of Private Defence:
  • Individuals have the right to defend themselves against acts that would otherwise be considered offenses, even if the person committing those acts is not legally responsible due to their mental state or other factors.
• Illustrations Explaining the Principle:
  • Illustration 1: If a person, due to unsoundness of mind, attempts to harm another individual, the latter still retains the right of private defence against the former's actions.
  • Illustration 2: In a scenario where someone mistakenly attacks another person based on a misconception, the defender still has the right of private defence, regardless of the attacker's legal status.
• Equality in Exercising the Right of Private Defence:
  • Section 98 ensures that the right of private defence can be exercised against all attackers, irrespective of their mental state or intention.
  • Even if there are legal exemptions protecting the attacker, the defender can still exercise the right of private defence if there is a genuine threat posed by the attacker.

IPC Section 99: Act Against Which There is No Right of Private Defence

• The right of private defence in IPC does not apply when there is no reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt caused by an act committed or attempted by a public servant acting in good faith under the pretext of their official duty, even if the act may not be strictly justifiable by law.
• Similarly, there is no right of private defence when the act is committed or attempted under the direction of a public servant acting in good faith under the color of their office, even if the direction may not be strictly justifiable by law. The right of private defence cannot be exercised when there is sufficient time to seek the protection of the public authorities.
• It is important to note that the right of private defence should not result in causing more harm than necessary for defence.

Explanation 1:

• A person is not deprived of the right of private defence against an act performed or attempted by a public servant unless they know or have reason to believe that the person is a public servant.

Explanation 2:

• A person is not deprived of the right of private defence against an act performed or attempted under the direction of a public servant unless they know or have reason to believe that the person is acting under such direction. This exception also applies if the person states the authority under which they act or if they have written authority unless such authority is demanded and produced.
• Section 99 of the Indian Penal Code establishes the conditions and limitations for exercising the right of private defence. It grants individuals a defensive right rather than an offensive one. It empowers individuals to protect themselves and others when there is a reasonable apprehension of danger to life and property. The section imposes restrictions on the exercise of this right.
• The first two clauses state that the right of private defence cannot be invoked against a public servant or a person acting in good faith in the lawful discharge of their duty, provided the act is not illegal. Similarly, the third clause restricts the right of private defence if there is sufficient time to seek help from public authorities. Additionally, the right must be proportionate to the harm to be inflicted. In other words, there is no right of private defence:
• Against the acts of a public servant.
• Against the acts of those acting under the authority or direction of a public servant.
• When there is adequate time to seek assistance from public authorities.
• If the harm caused exceeds what is necessary for defence.

Protection Afforded to Public Servants

• The act done or attempted by a public servant must be done in good faith.
• The act must be carried out under the authority of their office.
• There must be reasonable grounds to believe that the acts were done by a public servant or under their authority in the lawful discharge of their duty, and the act itself is not illegal. Good faith plays a crucial role in determining the applicability of this section, which does not require infallibility but rather due care and caution as defined under Section 52 of the Indian Penal Code.

Case 1: Emperor vs Mammun

• In this case, five accused individuals armed with clubs assaulted a man cutting rice in their field on a moonlit night. The victim suffered severe injuries, including six skull fractures, and died at the scene. The accused claimed the right of private defence of their property. However, it was held that there is no right of private defence when there is sufficient time to seek the protection of public authorities, as per Section 99.

Case 2: Public Prosecutor vs Suryanarayan

• In this case, customs officers searched and discovered smuggled goods from Yemen in Indian territory. During the search, the smugglers attacked and injured the officers. The accused argued that the officers had no authority to search as no notification declared Yemen a foreign territory under Section 5 of the Indian Tariff Act. However, it was held that the officers had acted in good faith, and the accused had no right of private defence in this situation.

Private Defence of the Body Extending to Causing Death

• Overview: The right of private defence permits causing harm or death to an assailant in specific circumstances.
• Circumstances:
  • An assault leading to the fear of death.
  • An assault causing the apprehension of grievous hurt.
  • An assault with intentions of rape or unnatural acts.
  • An assault aiming at kidnapping, abduction, or wrongful confinement.
• Conditions for invoking Section 100 of the Indian Penal Code:
  • The defender must not be at fault for initiating the encounter.
  • There should be an immediate threat to life or severe bodily harm.
  • No safe means of escape should be available.
  • A necessity for taking the assailant's life must exist.
• Additional Considerations:
  • Before resorting to lethal force, certain cardinal conditions need to be met.
  • The accused must not be at fault for starting the confrontation.
  • There must be a genuine belief in self-defence due to the threat posed.
  • No safe retreat options should be feasible.

Legal Cases

• In this case, the Supreme Court discussed the boundaries of the right of private defence.
• Emphasis was placed on the absence of safe retreat options when facing imminent danger.
• This aspect has led to some confusion in the legal realm regarding the necessity of considering retreat before using force in self-defence.

Case: Nand Kishore Lal

• The accused, in this instance, defended a woman against her assailants under Section 100.
• Despite causing the death of the assailants, the accused were deemed to have acted within their right of defending the woman.
• The case highlighted the application of the law in protecting individuals from harm or wrongful actions.

IPC Section 101: When Such Right Extends to Causing Any Harm Other Than Death

• If an offense does not fit the categories in the previous section, the right of private defense does not cover causing the assailant's death. However, it allows for causing harm to the assailant other than death within the boundaries outlined in Section 99 of the Indian Penal Code.
• In the case of Mohinder Pal Jolly v. State of Punjab, the court ruled against a factory owner who fatally shot a worker in response to brickbat throwing by workers. The court decided that the factory owner couldn't claim the protection of the right of private defense as there was no reasonable fear of death or serious injury in that scenario.

The right of private defense, as per Section 101 of the Indian Penal Code, does not extend to causing the death of an assailant if the offense does not fall into specific categories. Instead, it allows for causing harm other than death within certain boundaries. This was exemplified in the case of Mohinder Pal Jolly v. State of Punjab, where a factory owner's actions were deemed unjustifiable under the right of private defense due to the absence of a legitimate threat of death or grievous harm.

Commencement and Continuance of the Right of Private Defence of the Body

• The right of private defence of the body in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is activated when there is a reasonable fear of harm to the body due to an attempted or threatened offense, even if the offense has not yet occurred.
• This right remains valid as long as the fear of harm persists, but it must be a reasonable fear, not based on imagination.
• It's crucial to note that the danger must be immediate and real, and the right of private defence does not apply if there is no actual attack.

Kala Singh Case Example

• In the case of Kala Singh, the accused, who was physically weaker, was assaulted by the deceased, a formidable individual with a history of violence.
• The deceased attacked the accused, throwing him down, choking him, and biting him.
• After freeing himself, the accused used a light hatchet to strike the deceased's head thrice, resulting in the deceased's death three days later.
• The court determined that the deceased's actions were aggressive, instilling a strong fear in the accused that he would be killed if he didn't defend himself.
• However, it's essential to remember that this fear must be reasonable, and the response must be proportionate to the threat faced.
• Unfounded fears or baseless threats do not justify the exercise of the right of private defence.

Understanding Private Defence of Property under Section 103 of IPC

• The right of private defence of property permits individuals to use force, including causing harm or death to an intruder, under specific conditions outlined in Section 99 of the Indian Penal Code.
• Instances where this right can be invoked include scenarios like robbery, house-breaking by night, arson, and certain forms of theft or mischief that could potentially result in serious harm.
• Section 103 of the IPC focuses on justifying the use of force, including causing death, to protect one's property, while Section 100 addresses the right of private defence concerning the protection of one's body.
• It is crucial to note that the right of private defence is applicable only to the true owner of the property and cannot be utilized against a trespasser who has already established possession.

Legal Precedents and Clarifications

• Case of Mithu Pandey v. State: In this case, the accused were found to be acting within their right of private defence when they caused harm resulting in death during a dispute over fruit collection on their property.
• Case of Jassa Singh v. State of Haryana: The Supreme Court clarified that the right of private defence of property does not extend to causing death in cases of trespass on open land, limiting it to situations of house trespass that reasonably suggest the threat of serious harm.

Summary

• Section 104 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with situations where the right of private defence does not extend to causing death.
• If the offence prompting the exercise of the right of private defence is theft, mischief, or criminal trespass (not falling under Section 103 descriptions), the right does not include causing death.
• However, under Section 104 and subject to restrictions in Section 99, the right extends to causing harm other than death to the wrongdoer.
• It's crucial not to interpret this section as a license for the accused to go beyond their right of private defence. Exceeding this right and causing death can lead to guilt under Section 304, Part II of the IPC.
• Section 104 complements Section 103, similar to how Section 101 complements Section 100.

Case Example: V.C. Cheriyan v. State

• In this case, three deceased individuals and others had illegally built a road through private property owned by a church, with a pending criminal case against them.
• The accused, connected to the church, set up barricades to stop the road construction.
• When the three individuals tried to remove the barricades, they were fatally stabbed by the accused.
• The Kerala High Court recognized the church members' right of private defence but emphasized that they didn't have the right to cause death to unarmed individuals not falling under Section 103 of the IPC.

Section 105: Commencement and Continuance of the Right of Private Defence of Property

• The right of private defence of property, as outlined in the Indian Penal Code, is activated when there is a reasonable fear of harm to one's property.
• Duration of the right varies based on the type of offense:
  • In cases of theft, the right continues until the thief has escaped with the property, assistance from authorities is sought, or the property is recovered.
  • For robbery, the right persists as long as the offender is causing harm or there is a threat of immediate harm.
  • In instances of trespass or mischief, the right endures as long as the offense is ongoing.
  • Regarding house-breaking at night, the right endures as long as the trespass continues.
• The right is only applicable when there's no time to seek help from authorities.
• Once a trespasser gains possession of land, the rightful owner loses the right to defend the property.
• A trespasser cannot claim the right of defence for property not lawfully theirs.

Section 106: Right of Private Defence against Deadly Assault When There is Risk of Harm to an Innocent Person

• Key Concept: In situations where an individual faces a deadly assault and perceives a threat to their life, they are legally permitted to defend themselves, even if there is a possibility of causing harm to innocent bystanders.
• Explanation: This provision ensures that individuals have the right to protect themselves when confronted with a life-threatening situation, such as being attacked by a mob, even if there is a risk of collateral harm to innocent people.
• Clarification: The law explicitly states that individuals can use private defence to safeguard themselves without hesitation, even if it means that others not involved in the assault may be unintentionally harmed.
• Example: For instance, if someone is being attacked by a group of assailants and believes that their life is in danger, they can take necessary actions to defend themselves, even if it results in harm to innocent individuals nearby.

Limitations to Right to Private Defence under IPC

• Proportional force: The force employed in self-defence must be sensible and balanced in relation to the danger faced. It is essential to avoid using excessive force that goes beyond what is necessary to protect oneself.
• Time-bound: The right to private defence is applicable only for the duration that the threat persists. Once the danger has ceased, the justification for self-defence no longer holds.
• Reasonable belief: Individuals invoking the right to private defence must genuinely believe that using force is crucial for safeguarding themselves or others from harm. Mere suspicion or unfounded assumptions are insufficient to warrant such actions.
• Use of deadly force: The use of lethal force is permissible only when there is an imminent threat of death or severe bodily harm. In other circumstances, resorting to deadly force is not considered justifiable.
• Avoiding unnecessary harm: It is imperative for the defender to refrain from behaving in a cruel or excessive manner that causes harm or injury beyond what is required to repel the attack.
• No pre-emptive strikes: The right to private defence does not extend to justifying pre-emptive actions, seeking revenge, or engaging in retaliatory measures. It is specifically limited to immediate protection against an ongoing threat.

Exceptions to the Right of Private Defence

• Initiating Attack: The right of private defence cannot be claimed if the person invoking it is the one who started or provoked the attack. In such situations, the right to defend oneself does not apply.
• Excessive Force: If an individual goes beyond reasonable limits in self-defence, causing more harm than necessary to repel the attack, they can be held accountable for using excessive force. For example, if someone is attacked with fists and responds with a lethal weapon, it may be considered excessive.
• Harm to Third Parties: When exercising the right of self-defence, if harm is caused to a third party not involved in the original assault, the individual may be responsible for the harm inflicted on that third party. This underscores the importance of using proportional force in self-defence scenarios.
• Unnecessary Lethal Force: Using lethal force in a situation where it is not required to repel the assault can lead to legal consequences. Individuals must ensure that the level of force employed is justified and proportionate to the threat they are facing. For instance, shooting someone for a minor physical altercation may be considered unjustified.

Conclusion

• In conclusion, the concept of private defence within the Indian Penal Code plays a pivotal role in safeguarding individuals and their property, granting them the right to protect themselves and others from imminent harm or danger. However, it is imperative to recognize that this right is not absolute and comes with certain limitations.
• The IPC offers clear guidelines on the circumstances under which the right of private defence can be exercised, underscoring principles such as proportionality, reasonableness, and the absence of alternative remedies. The force employed must be deemed necessary and proportionate to the imminent threat, and it should cease once the danger has subsided.
• While private defence empowers individuals to secure themselves and their property, responsible exercise of this right within the confines of the law is crucial. Any excessive or unwarranted use of force may result in legal consequences.