PRIVATE DEFENCE

Private defence refers to using illegal actions to protect oneself,

another person, or property or to prevent criminal activity. Sections 96
to 106 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, contain provisions that establish the
right of private defence available to every citizen of India.

According to the Indian Penal Code, “Nothing is an offence which is

committed to exercising the right of private defence.” This means that any
harm or injury caused to a person while defending against external force or
damage is not considered an offence under the code.

Elements of Private Defence in IPC

Apprehension of harm: The right of private defence arises when there is a

reasonable apprehension of harm or danger to oneself, another person, or
property. The threat must be imminent and not merely speculative or
imaginary.

Unlawful act: Private defence can only be invoked in response to an

unlawful act. The person claiming the right must be facing an
assault, robbery, housebreaking, mischief, or criminal trespass, among other
enumerated offences, as defined in the IPC.

Proportionate force: The force used in private defence must be

proportionate to the threat faced. It should not exceed what is reasonably
necessary to repel the attack or prevent harm. Defender should strive to
minimize harm while protecting themselves or others.

No alternative remedy: Private defence is recognized when there is no

reasonable opportunity to seek protection from public authorities or when
the situation does not allow for recourse to legal authorities in a timely
manner.
Continuity of the threat: The right of private defence exists as long as the
threat or danger persists. Once the threat has ceased, the right of private
defence ends, and the use of force beyond that point may no longer be
justified.

Absence of pre-emptive strikes: Private defence does not permit pre-

emptive strikes or proactive aggression. It can only be exercised in response
to an ongoing or imminent attack. The defender cannot initiate the
confrontation and then claim the right of private defence.
No excessive force: The use of force in private defence should not exceed
what is necessary to repel the attack. Causing more harm than reasonably
required may lead to liability for the defender.

IPC Section100: When the Right of Private Defence of the Body

Extends to Causing Death

The right of private defence of the body allows for the voluntary causing of
death or harm to the assailant under certain circumstances. These
circumstances include:

 An assault that reasonably causes the apprehension of death.

 An assault that reasonably causes the apprehension of grievous hurt.
 An assault to commit rape.
 An assault to gratifying unnatural lust.
 An assault with the intention of kidnapping or abducting.
 An assault to wrongfully confine a person, where the circumstances
reasonably cause the person to believe they will be unable to seek
help from public authorities for their release.
To invoke Section 100 of the Indian Penal Code, four conditions must be
met:

 The person exercising the right of private defence must be free from
fault in initiating the encounter.
 There must be an imminent threat to life or great bodily harm.
  There must be no safe or reasonable means of escape or retreat.
 There must be a necessity for taking the assailant’s life.
Rattan Lal v. State of Punjab (1965 AIR 444, 1964 SCR (8) 33): In this
case, the Supreme Court emphasized that the right of private defense does
not extend to inflicting more harm than is necessary for self-preservation.
Excessive force used in self-defense can lead to criminal liability.

Pappu v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2006 Cri LJ 2719 MP): In this case,
the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the right of private defense is
available not only to the person directly attacked but also to third parties if
they reasonably believe that the person they are defending is under
imminent threat of harm.

IPC Section 103: When the Right of Private Defence of Property

Extends to Causing Death

section 103 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) specifically deals with the right
of private defence of property, while Section 100 pertains to the right of
private defence of the body. Section 103 justifies using force, including
causing death, in cases of robbery, house-breaking by night, arson, and
certain types of theft, mischief, or house trespass that reasonably raise the
apprehension of serious harm. It is important to note that the right of
private defence can only be claimed by the property’s true owner, and it
cannot be exercised against a trespasser who has already established
possession.

Illustration: John, the owner of a jewelry store, notices a group of armed burglars
attempting to break into his shop late at night. Realizing the imminent danger to his
property and potentially his life, John takes up a licensed firearm he possesses for
self-defense. He warns the burglars to stop and leave the premises. However, the
burglars continue their attempt to break in, posing a direct threat to John's life and
his valuable jewelry.
In an attempt to protect his property and himself, John, in a moment of desperation
and fear for his life, opens fire at the burglars, resulting in the death of one of them.
The other burglars manage to escape.

Explanation: In this scenario, John's actions can be justified under Section 103 of
the IPC. He used reasonable force to defend his property and himself from a group
of armed burglars. Given the gravity of the situation and the immediate threat
posed by the burglars, John's act of causing death is considered a valid exercise of
the right to private defense of property. However, the use of force must be
proportionate to the threat faced and should be a last resort after exhausting all
other means of defense or escape. In this case, John's action of using lethal force
was justifiable, considering the circumstances.
**Right of Private Defence under IPC:**

The right of private defence is a vital principle under the Indian Penal Code (IPC)
that allows individuals to protect themselves, their property, and others from
immediate and unlawful aggression. Sections 96 to 106 of the IPC define the right
of private defence.

**Conditions for Exercising the Right of Private Defence:**

1. **Imminent Threat:** The threat to person or property must be immediate and

imminent.

2. **Necessity:** The use of force must be necessary to repel the aggression.

3. **Proportionality:** The force used should be proportionate to the threat faced.

Excessive force is not justified.

4. **No Earlier Provocation:** The right of private defence is not available to a

person who has provoked the attack.

**Extent of Right of Private Defence by Causing Death:**

Under Section 100 of the IPC, a person can cause the death of another in the
following circumstances:

1. **Reasonable Belief:** The person must have a reasonable apprehension that

death or grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of the attack.

2. **Imminent Danger:** The danger must be imminent, meaning there is no time

to seek the protection of authorities.

3. **No Alternative Course:** There should be no other option available that

could prevent the attack.

**Leading Case Law:**

**Case:** **R vs. Hurree (1873) 2 N.W.P. 53 (PC):**

In this case, the Privy Council held that the right of private defence is a natural
right, and a person attacked has the right to defend themselves with proportionate
force. However, the force used should not exceed the limits of self-defence.

**Illustration:**

**Scenario:** An individual, Ram, is walking home late at night when he is

attacked by a group of armed assailants who intend to rob him. Ram, carrying a
licensed firearm, manages to use the weapon, resulting in the death of one of the
attackers while the others flee.

**Explanation:**
In this scenario, Ram's action may be considered an exercise of the right of private
defence leading to death under Section 100 of the IPC. He faced an imminent
threat to his life, had a reasonable belief that he might suffer grievous hurt or death,
and used proportionate force to repel the attackers. However, the exact
determination of the justifiability of his action would depend on the specific facts
presented during legal proceedings.