A PROJECT

ON
SUPREME COURT ON SECTION 100 : A STUDY
SUBJECT: I.P.C.

SESSION: 2023-24

SUBMITTED ON: 28 OCTOBER 2023

SUBMITTEDBY: SUBMITTED TO:

Mr. Rahul Bansiwal Ms. Rakhi Sharma

Roll No. 53 [Faculty Of I.P.C.]
Class - VII Semester
Section - A

UNIVERSITY FIVE YEAR LAW COLLEGE

UNIVERSITY OF RAJASTHAN

JAIPUR
 SUPREME COURT ON SECTION 100 : A STUDY

DECLARATION

I,Rahul Bansiwal, hereby declare that thr project titled “ Supreme Court On Section

100 : A Study ” is based on the original research carried out by me under the guidance and
supervision of Ms. Rakhi Sharma. The interpretations put forth are based on my reading and
understanding of the original text. The book, article and website etc. which have been relied
upon by me have been duly acknowledged at the respective place in the text.

For the present project which I am submitting to the university, no degree or diploma has been
conferred on me before, either in this or in any university.

DATE: SIGNATURE
28 October 2023 [Rahul Bansiwal]

Roll No. 10

Semester VII-A

Page 2 I.P.C.
 SUPREME COURT ON SECTION 100 : A STUDY

CERTIFICATE

Ms. Rakhi Sharma Date: 28 October 2023

Faculty of I.P.C.

University Five Year Law College,

University of Rajasthan, Jaipur

This is to certify that Mr. Rahul Bansiwal student of VII Semester, SEC-A of University

Five Year Law College, University of Rajasthan has carried out the project entitled “ Supreme

Court On Section 100 : A Study ” under my supervision and guidance. It is an

investigation report of a minor project. The student has completed research work in my
stipulated time and according to the norms prescribed for the purpose.

SIGNATURE

[Ms. Rakhi Sharma]

Page 3 I.P.C.
 SUPREME COURT ON SECTION 100 : A STUDY

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The present study relates to a comprehensive analysis of “ Supreme Court On Section

100 : A Study ” to give clear underrating of the subject in broader perspective.

I am heartily grateful to, Ms. Rakhi Sharma, Faculty of I.P.C. , University Five Year Law
College, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur, for having guided me through this long & difficult
journey that culminated in the present Project without whose co-operation, stimulating
inspiration, constant help, able guidance, innovative deliberations & continuous supervision
this work could not have seen the light of the day. Hence, I sincerely want to express my deep
sense of honor & gratitude towards him.

I shall be failing in my duty if I do not express my debt of gratitude to Dr. Akhil Kumar,
Director, University five-year law college, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur, for extending his
co-operation in the completion of this work.

I would also like to thank to all library staff & the remaining staff members of the Department
of Law, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur who have always extended an h& of co-operation
throughout the course of the research work.

SIGNATURE

[Rahul Bansiwal]

Page 4 I.P.C.
 SUPREME COURT ON SECTION 100 : A STUDY

Table of Contents

Declaration ....................................................................................................................
Certificate ......................................................................................................................
Acknowledgement.......................................................................................................

Chapter I : Private Defence as an Exception………………..…………….………..6

Chapter II : Statutory Provisions Under Code……….….……………………..….8
Chapter III : Landmark Case Laws on Section 100.……………….…..…………10
Chapter IV: Conclusion……………...……………………………………..……..14
Bibliography………………………………………………………………….…...15

Page 5 I.P.C.
 SUPREME COURT ON SECTION 100 : A STUDY

CHAPTER - I
PRIVATE DEFENCE AS AS EXCEPTION
There are circumstances when the state mechanism may not be accessible to the citizens to
defend themselves in case of impending danger, and in those situations, a person is allowed to
employ force to avert the impending threat. People have the right to protect themselves when
state aid cannot be obtained and this right is called the right of private defence of body. This
right is provided under Sections 96-106 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

 Section 96 : Things done in Private Defence

‘’Nothing is an offence, which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.’’

Right of private defence cannot be said to be an offence in return. The right of self-defence under
Section 96 is not absolute but is clearly qualified by Section 99 which says that the right in no
case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary for the purpose of defence. It is
well settled that in a free fight, no right of private defence is available to either party and each
individual is responsible for his own acts.

Courts are empowered to exempt in such cases. It must be borne in mind that the burden of
proving an exception is on the accused. It is not the law that failure to setup such a defence
would foreclose this right to rely on the exception once and for all. It is axiomatic that burden on
the accused to prove any fact can be discharged either through defence evidence or even through
prosecution evidence by showing a preponderance of probability. It is true that no case of right
of private defence of person has been pleaded by the accused not put forth in the cross-
examination to the eye-witnesses but it is well settled that if there is a reasonable probability of
the accused having acted in exercise of right of private defence, the benefit of such a plea can
still be given to them.

The right of private defence, as the name suggests, is an act of defence and not of an offence.
Consequently, it cannot be allowed to be used as a shield to justify an aggression. This requires a
very careful weighing of the facts and circumstances of each case to decide as to whether the
accused had in fact acted under this right. Assumptions without any reasonable basis on the part
of the accused about the possibility of an attack do not entitle him to exercise this right. It was
held in a case that the distance between the aggressor and the target may have a bearing on the

Page 6 I.P.C.
 SUPREME COURT ON SECTION 100 : A STUDY

question whether the gesture amounted to assault. No precise yardstick can be provided to fix
such a distance, since it depends upon the situation, the weapon used, the background and the
degree of the thirst to attack etc.

In certain circumstances, the right of private defence also extends to causing death of the person
who poses such a danger. This right is provided under Section 100 of the IPC. In order to avail
this, there must be reasonable apprehension that death or grievous hurt might be caused, or in
case of assault with intention of committing rape, abducting, wrongfully confining a person or
when there is apprehension of throwing or attempting to throw acid.

The right of private defence will completely absolve a persons from all guilt even when he
causes the death of another person in the following situations, i.e.

If the deceased was the actual assailant, and

If the offence committed by the deceased which occasioned the cause of the exercise of the
right of private defence of body and property falls within anyone of the six or four
categories enumerated in Sections 100 and 103 of the penal code.

Page 7 I.P.C.
 SUPREME COURT ON SECTION 100 : A STUDY

CHAPTER - II
STATUTORY PROVISIONS UNDER CODE

Section 100 of IPC recognises that there are circumstances where resorting to force, including
causing death, becomes justifiable as a private defence. However, it is important to note that this
right is not absolute, and the extent of force used must be reasonable and proportionate to the
threat faced.

 Section 100 : 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.]1

*The seventh clause dealing with acid attack has been added by the Justice Verma Committee
through the Criminal Law Amendment Act 2013

1
Ins. by Act 13 of 2013, s. 2 (w.e.f. 3-2-2013).

Page 8 I.P.C.
 SUPREME COURT ON SECTION 100 : A STUDY

 To invoke the provisions of Section 100, I.P.C., four conditions must exist:

1) That the person exercising the right of private defense must be free from fault in
bringing about the encounter.

2) There must be present an impending peril to life or of great bodily harm

3) There must be no safe or reasonable mode of escape by retreat;

4) There must have been a necessity for taking the life.

 Moreover before taking the life of a person four cardinal conditions must be present:

a) the accused must be free from fault in bringing the encounter;

b) presence of impending peril to life or of great bodily harm, either real or apparent as
to create an honest belief of existing necessity;

c) no safe or reasonable mode of escape by retreat; and

d) a necessity for taking assailant’s life.

Page 9 I.P.C.
 SUPREME COURT ON SECTION 100 : A STUDY

CHAPTER - III
LANDMARK CASE LAWS ON SECTION 100
 REASONABLE APPREHENSION OF DEATH OR GRIEVOUS HURT

The first and the second clause of S.100 lays down and stipulates that the right of Private
Defence to the extent of causing death is available when the assault employed by the assailant
reasonably cause the apprehension that death or grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence
of such assault. Such an apprehension must be real and not illusory and the danger must be
imminent.

James Martin v. State of Kerala lay down that there are a number of factors that need to be
considered to find whether the right of private defence is available or not. Factors such as
injuries received by the accused, imminence of danger to his safety, injuries that are caused by
the accused and also the circumstances in which the injuries were caused are taken into
consideration.2It also noted that the person who is apprehending danger cannot weigh in golden
scales on the spur of the moment as to what amount of force is required to ward off the threat of
the assailant. It is difficult to expect a person to be composed and measure the force required.
Such situations are pragmatically viewed keeping in mind normal human reaction and conduct.

The accused just has to show that he was faced with a reasonable apprehension and whether the
apprehension was reasonable or not, is to be determined from the facts and circumstances of each
case. Also, there could be no laid down test to measure whether the force used is appropriate. It
has to be judged subjectively and no „reasonable man‟ concept is there. These principles were
laid down in a celebrated of Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab.3

The accused is not given the benefit of this Section if he does the act with the intention of taking
revenge or in a sudden altercation as in that case there would be no reasonable apprehension of
any kind as held in case of Vishvas Aba Kurane v. State of Maharashtra.4

2
(2004) 2 SCC 203 Para 16.
3
AIR 2010 SC 1212.
4
AIR 1978 SC 414.

Page 10 I.P.C.
 SUPREME COURT ON SECTION 100 : A STUDY

the amount of force to be used to prevent the injury can‟t be judged on a golden scale and it has
to be judged according to the facts and circumstances of each case. This was also stated in Puran
Singh v. State of Punjab5 , that an individual while exercising the right of private defence must
employ proportionate amount of force. However, there is no set of scales that determines
whether the accused has exceeded the right or not. It has to be judged according to the facts and
circumstances of the case.

 ASSAULT WITH INTENTION OF COMMITTING RAPE OR GRATIFYING

UNNATURAL LUST

The third and the fourth clause of Section 100 stipulate that the right of Private Defence to the
extent of causing death is available in cases of assault with the intention of committing rape of
gratifying unnatural lust. This right, being a preventive right must be utilized with utmost care
and caution. Since, the burden is on the accused to prove that he has exercised his right of private
defence, he need not prove it beyond reasonable doubt but only on preponderance of probability
that creates doubt in the mind of the judge.6

The leading Supreme Court case of Yeshwant Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh7 clarifies the
position of law as regard to the third and the fourth clause of Section 100. In this case, the
deceased tried to have sexual intercourse with the daughter of the accused while she went to the
toilet on the rear side of her house. The accused, on seeing the daughter being raped hit the
deceased with the spade and the deceased died as a consequence. The Supreme Court held that
the accused was justified in exercising the right of Private Defence of body against the deceased
and hence was given the acquittal. Here it can be seen that the assault that took place on the
daughter was sufficient to create reasonable apprehension in the mind of the accused and thereby
his act was justified under Section 100. The right of private defence was exercised by the
accused to protect the body of another.

In Bhadar Ram v. State of Rajasthan8, where the appellant saved her widow sister–in-law from
the clutches of one Nand Ram and assaulted him with gandasa while he was running was given

5
MANU/SC/0184/1975 Para. 26.
6
Ibid
7
AIR 1992 SC 1683.
8
(2000) Cr L.J. 1174 (Raj).

Page 11 I.P.C.
 SUPREME COURT ON SECTION 100 : A STUDY

the exception under clause third of Section 100 IPC. In this case, the appellant‟s sister-in –law
was a widow lady who was grappled by Nand Ram in the dead hour of the night in order to
outrage her modesty for committing rape. Hearing her hue and cry, the appellant came prepared
with a gandasa and assaulted Nand Ram while he was trying to commit rape of the widow lady.
It can be seen here that there was reasonable apprehension of danger to the body of appellant‟s
sister and thus the right of Private Defence in this case was rightly availed against the danger that
was real, present and imminent.

 ASSAULT WITH INTENTION OF KIDNAPPING OR ABDUCTING

The fifth clause of S.100 IPC provides that the right of private defence is available when the
assault is made with the intention of kidnapping or abducting. Abduction is an offence against
the human body and takes place when a person is compelled to go from any place. Whoever, by
force compels, or by any deceitful means induces, any person to go from any place, is said to
abduct that person.

Abduction given under fifthly of Section 100 IPC has to be taken in its plain meaning as
enumerated in Vishwanath v. state of Uttar Pradesh9. In this case, the accused‟s sister left her
husband‟s house and was residing with her father and brother. One day, the deceased husband
came to the house and tried to take her wife away with her to which she rebelled and caught hold
of the door. In the meanwhile, in order to protect her sister from the deceased, the accused took
out a knife and stabbed the deceased husband. As a consequence, he died. The Supreme Court
said that at the time the accused intervened, his sister was forcibly compelled to go from the
place of the accused and thereby, there was an assault with the intention of abduction under
S.100 clause fifthly. The accused therefore had the right of private defence that could even
extend to causing the death of the assailant.

As soon as the accused is faced with the assault that is carried out with the intention of
kidnapping or abduction, the right of private defence can be availed of. In Nand Kishore Lal v.
Emperor10, a married Muslim woman was abducted by the accused and converted to Sikhism.
Nearly after a year, the husband of the woman and demanded her to return back to which the
accused and the woman herself objected. The woman herself did not want to go back. Therefore,

9
MANU/SC/0027/1959.
10
AIR 1924 Pat. 789.

Page 12 I.P.C.
 SUPREME COURT ON SECTION 100 : A STUDY

the husband and his relatives tried to drag her away with them to which she and the accused
resisted and while resisting the attempt, the accused inflicted a fatal blow over one of the female
assailants which resulted in her death. The court held that the accused would be given the plea
under fifth clause of Section 100 as he was trying to protect the woman against the assailants. It
can be seen that the motive and intention of the accused does not matter at all and as soon as a
reasonable apprehension is caused, the right of private defence can be availed of.

 ASSAULT WITH INTENTION OF WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT

The sixthly clause of Section 100 provides that the right of Private Defence extending to causing
death is available when an assault is carried out with the intention of wrongfully confining a
person. However, in order to avail this right there must be a proof that there was an assault and
that was with the intention of wrongful confinement. Also, it has to be proved that the
circumstances were such that caused reasonable apprehension in the mind of the accused that he
will not be able to take recourse to the public authorities for his release.

As stated in Abdul Habib v. State11 , when a person is wrongfully arrested and taken to the
police station for being handed over to the police cannot be said to have reasonable apprehension
that he will not have recourse to the public authorities for his release. In this case, the appellant
tried to steal away the bicycle of one Swaran Singh. Swaran Singh made an effort to stop him
and caught hold of his bicycle and the appellant in order to save himself gave a stab blow in the
right elbow with a knife and ran away. Swaran Singh raised a hue and cry and many people
joined in the pursuit of the fleeing appellant. One Naresh Kumar is said to have heard the slogans
that the appellant must be arrested and therefore ran towards him but the appellant, in order to
evade his arrest, struck a blow by his knife and stabbed him. Naresh Kumar attempted to commit
an assault but the intention was to apprehend the appellant and take him to the police station.

The court held that the intention was more of wrongful confinement to let him move only within
the limits of the place of arrest. It was also held that that the circumstances were not such that
any reasonable person would have apprehended that he would not be able to secure the help of
the public authorities in obtaining his release. Also, the court observed that in no case can a
person inflict more harm than is necessary to ward off the danger.

11
1974 Cr. L.J. 248.

Page 13 I.P.C.
 SUPREME COURT ON SECTION 100 : A STUDY

CHAPTER - IV
CONCLUSION
Self preservation is a principle of Criminal law and therefore the state provides individuals the
right to protect themselves. The right of Private Defence of body comes under the justifiable
defence where the focus is more on the act of the individual. The benefit out of the conduct
outweighs the evil of the offence. However, the Courts while providing the defence under S.100
have been very careful. The burden is on the accused to prove that he had exercised his right of
private defence. He need not prove it beyond reasonable doubt but on the preponderance of
probability.

The circumstances that force the individuals to commit the offence are seen. State has given us
some rights to protect ourselves and our property from impending danger when the state is not
available to do the same. This right is also available to protect the body or property of any other
person. It extends to causing of death of the assailant in certain circumstances. However, there
has to be reasonable apprehension of real or imminent threat to avail this right.

Section 100 of the Indian Penal Code is a crucial provision extending the private defence right.
In these encompassing situations, individuals may need to protect themselves or others from
imminent harm. This section, along with Sections 96 to 106 of the IPC, establishes the
framework for the general exceptions of private defence in the Indian legal system.

Right of private defence is a good weapon in the hand of every citizen to defend himself. This
right is not of revenge but toward the threat and imminent danger of an attack. But people can
also like misuse this right. Its very difficult for court to find out whether this right had been
exercised in good faith or not.

Page 14 I.P.C.
 SUPREME COURT ON SECTION 100 : A STUDY

BIBLIOGRAPHY
 BOOK REFERENCES

1. Indian Penal Code, K. D. Gaur, Universal LexisNexis, 8th Edition , 2023

2. The Indian Penal Code, Prof. T. Bhattacharyya, Central Law Agency, 11th Edition, 2021

3. The Indian Penal Code, Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, Universal LexisNexis, 36th Edition, 2020

 WEB SOURCES
1. https://ijlljs.in/wp-
content/uploads/2016/11/Right_of_Private_Defence_of_Boy_under_Section_100.pdf

2. https://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l470-Private-Defence.html

3. https://lawbhoomi.com/section-100-of-ipc/#

4. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?actid

5. https://www.casemine.com/search/in/section%2B100%2Bipc

6. https://www.myadvo.in/bare-acts/indian-penal-code-1860/ipc-section-100/

Page 15 I.P.C.