Right of Private Defence

By: Hifajatali Sayyed

 Introduction
• A state is under obligation to protect the life and property of its
subject.
• But it is not possible for a state, howsoever resourceful and
organised it may be, to depute a policeman to every individual
for protecting his body and property.
• A state can never extend its help to all at all times and in all cases.

• In such a situation, based on the principle of self-

preservation, an individual is given the right to defend his body
and property.
• Obviously, the individual is expected to use force that is just
required to counter the danger.
 Right of Private Defence
• Sec 96 of IPC states that

Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of

private defence.
• This general rule is available against an act which is an
offence under this Code.
• This section states that any act done in the exercise of right of
private defence is not an offence.
• The words in the above section denotes that the right of private
defence is a defensive right and not of retribution.
 Private Defence of Body and Property
• Sec 97 of IPC states that

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.
 Private Defence of Body and Property
• Section 97 provides that right of private defence is of two types i.e. of
body and of property.
• It makes it clear that subject to the restrictions u/s 99, every
person has a right to defend his own body and body of any
other person against any offence affecting the human body.
• It also states that every person has the right to defend his
property and the property of other person, whether movable
or immovable against the offences against property.
 Private Defence of Body and Property
 Reg. vs Rose [(1884) 15 Cox CC 540]

• In this case, the accused was a boy of 21 years. He was charged for
committing the murder of his father.
• The facts of the case are that the accused used to live with his
parents, who shared very strained relations and were
constantly quarrelling.
• On the night of the incident, the parents of the accused were in
the middle of a quarrel, when the father of the accused
threatened to kill the mother with a knife. In that frenzy, the
accused shot his father thus killing him.
 Private Defence of Body and Property
 Reg. vs Rose Cont….

• Here the accused had adequate grounds to believe that his

mother’s life was in imminent danger and the fatal shot was
absolutely necessary to prevent her death.
• Hence the accused was not guilty and was entitled to the right of
private defence.
 Restrictions on Private Defence
• Sec 99 lays down the condition and limits within which the right
of private defence can be exercised.
• It states that 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.
• It also states that there is no right of private defence against the act
done by the direction of public servant acting in good faith
under colour of his office.
• Public servant is defined u/s 21 of IPC.
 Restrictions on Private Defence
• There is no right of private defence : Against the acts of a public
servant; and Against the acts of those acting under the authority or
direction of public servant.
• To avail the benefit

(i) the act done or attempted to be done by a public servant must be

done in good faith;

(ii) the act must be done under the colour of his office; and

(iii) there must be reasonable grounds for believing that the acts were
done by a public servant as such or under his authority in the
exercise of his legal duty and that the act is not illegal.
 Restrictions on Private Defence
 Kesho Ram vs. Delhi Administration [1974 SCR (3) 827]

• In this case, the appellant obstructed inspectors and a peon

of the Delhi Municipal Corporation, when they went to seize
the appellants' buffalo in the discharge of their duty to realise the
milk tax from him and struck one of the officers on the nose with the
result that it started bleeding and was found fractured.
• The main contention of the appellant was that the attempt to
realize the arrears of milk tax and recovery charge was
illegal because no demand noticed under Sec. 154 of the Act was
served on the appellant, and therefore, he had the right of private
defence.
 Restrictions on Private Defence
 Kesho Ram vs. Delhi Administration Cont…..

• Here the prosecution relied on Sec. 99 of Indian Penal Code

which provides that there is no right of private defence against an
act of a public servant, done in good faith under colour of his office,
though that act may not be strictly justifiable by law.
• Further according to the prosecution, Sec. 161 of the Act
empowered the Inspector of the Corporation to seize and
remove the appellant's buffalo for non-payment of tax and
the section gave them an over-riding power to resort to seize and
detention of the animal.
 Restrictions on Private Defence
 Kesho Ram vs. Delhi Administration Cont…..

• Here the Court held that the officers were acting honestly in
exercise of the powers delegated' to them.
• Sec. 99, confer a protection upon the employees of the
Corporation who acted in good faith under the colour of their office.
• So the Court rejected the contention of the appellant and held
that there is no right of private defence available to the
appellant.
 Restrictions on Private Defence
 State of UP vs. Niyamat [AIR 1987 SC 1652]

• In this case, the police officers arrested the suspect without

any material regarding his involvement in cognizable offence or
without reasonable suspicion.
• So the accused persons armed with lathis were alleged to have
obstructed the police party to secure the release of the suspect.
It was night time.
• Here the police constable fired three shots in the air and so
the accused persons attacked the police party, resulting in the death
of informer and grievous injuries to the constables.
• So the accused were charged u/s 302, 147, 149 and 395 of IPC.
 Restrictions on Private Defence
 State of UP vs. Niyamat Cont…..

• Here the accused claimed the exemption of right of private defence.

• On the other hand the prosecution stated that even if the arrest of
the suspect was not legal, in view of sec 99 of IPC right of private
defence was not available to the accused and they could have
taken recourse to use lawful method for rescuing the suspect.
• Also the prosecution stated that there was no cause for
reasonable apprehension of serious injuries to the
accused, for the constable had fired the shots in the air just to
frighten the accused persons.
 Restrictions on Private Defence
 State of UP vs. Niyamat Cont…..

• Here the Court accepted the plea of the accused and held that
the sole object of the accused persons in going to the place of
occurrence was only to rescue the suspect.
• Also the arrest of the suspect was absolutely unjustified.

• Here the accused persons did not use force till one of the
constables fired three shots, which was sufficient to cause
reasonable apprehension of either death or grievous hurt.
• Also the Court stated that as it was night time, the moonlight was
not sufficient to notice the direction of the barrel of the gun.
 Restrictions on Private Defence
 State of UP vs. Niyamat Cont…..

• So the Court stated that the respondent were acting in the right of
private defence and acquitted the accused persons.
 Restrictions on Private Defence
• There are two explanations given u/s 99 of IPC.
• 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.
 Restrictions on Private Defence
 No right of private defence where there is time to have
recourse to protection of the public authorities.
• Sec 99 further stipulates that there is no right of private defence
in cases in which there is time to have recourse to protection
of the public authorities.
• The restriction is based on the fact that the right of private
defence is given to the person to repel an imminent danger to
his body and property when the state help is not available to
him.
• Obviously, the necessity of self help disappears when the person has
ample opportunity to have recourse to state authorities.
 Restrictions on Private Defence
 Queen vs. Narsang Pathabhai [(1890) I.L.R. 14 Bom. 441]

• In this case, the accused got information that complainant is

going to enter his land to destroy the crops.
• Subsequently the complainant entered the land in the night
time and the accused was ready with lathi.
• So there was a dispute and the accused killed one of them.

• Here the Court held that the accused was having enough time to
take help from public authorities.
• So the Court rejected the plea of accused relating to private
defence.
 Restrictions on Private Defence
 Right does not extend to causing more harm than
necessary.
• Sec 99 places further limitation on right of private defence.

• It states that 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.
• It provides that the injury to be inflicted should be
proportionate to the harm caused or attempted to be caused.
 Restrictions on Private Defence
 Biran Singh vs. State of Bihar (AIR 1975 SC 87)

• In this case, two of the accused, having received simple injuries, ran
back to their house, fetched a sword and inflicted fatal blows on the
head of the deceased with that sword. The court held that even
assuming that the deceased had inflicted simple injuries on the
accused, there could be no justification for any of the accused to hit
the deceased with a sword on a vital part of the head. The severity of
the injuries could not be said either to have been a matter of chance.
The way the accused murdered the deceased was by no means a matter
of chance. Their acts bore a stamp of design. The right of private
defence therefore, could not be availed by the accused.
 Restrictions on Private Defence
 Munney Khan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1971 SC 1491)

• In this case, people gathered to celebrate "Durga Utsav.”

• Herein the deceased was one of the volunteers who was posted on duty
in connection with the arrangements close to the sitting place reserved
for the ladies in order to check men from entering that area.
• The appellant and his brother Zulfiquar came and wanted to pass
through the ladies corner, but were prevented by the deceased who
asked them to go via a lane, though that was a longer route.
• There was a short scuffle which subsided when other persons
intervened.
 Restrictions on Private Defence
 Munney Khan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Cont…..

• Subsequently when deceased was returning after taking his meals,

he met the appellant and his brother Zulfiquar and he started the
quarrel .
• Herein, the deceased overpowered Zulfiquar and threw him on
the ground and sat on his chest giving fist blows.
• Herein the appellant Munney Khan, seeing his brother being
overpowered and beaten, came to his rescue and tried to save him by
giving fist blows to deceased. When this did not succeed, he took out
a knife and stabbed deceased on the vital parts because of which he
died.
 Restrictions on Private Defence
 Munney Khan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Cont…..

• Here the accused was charged for the offence of murder.

• The accused argued that he committed the act in private defence.

• Here the Court held that the appellant had exceeded his right of
private defence and is guilty.
• Further the Court stated that the force used should not exceed
the minimum required to save the person in whose defence it
is used. In the present case, the use of the knife itself was in
excess of the right and it became much more excessive when the
blow was given in a vital part of the victim's body and was, in the
ordinary, course of nature, likely to cause his death.
 Restrictions on Private Defence
 Right of Private Defence not available to aggressors:

• State of UP vs Ram Swarup (AIR 1974 SC 1570)

• In this case, G and deceased M were trade rivals. At about 7 a.m. G

went to purchase a basket of melons from the deceased. The
deceased declined to sell it. Hot words followed. G left in a huff. An
hour later G went to the market with his son R and two other sons. G
had a knife, R a gun and the others carried lathis. They advanced
aggressively towards the deceased who attempted to retreat. R
shot him dead.
• Here the accused pleaded private defence for claiming immunity
from criminal liability.
 Restrictions on Private Defence
 Right of Private Defence not available to aggressors:

• State of UP vs Ram Swarup Cont…

• Here the Court rejected the plea of the accused and stated that
the right of private defence is a right of defence and not of
retribution.
• The Court further added that evidently the accused went to the
market with a preconceived design to pick up a quarrel.
• There was no justification for killing the deceased
selectively. The right of defence ends with the necessity for it.
 Restrictions on Private Defence
 Gajanand vs. State of UP (AIR 1954 SC 695)
• In this case, there are two rival groups, one led by Anjaninandan and the other
by Gajanand.
• Here there were two reports which were filed with the Police Station.
• One version was that when the Puja was being performed and the persons
attending it were having their heads shaved. Suddenly fifteen to sixteen
persons, including Gajanand, came up and started attacking the party of
Anjaninandan.
• The contrary version was that Gajanand with his servants was busy performing
the Puja when Anjaninandan came up with his men armed with weapon.
Anjaninandan demanded his 1/4th share of the offering which Gajanand
refused. This infuriated him and Anjaninandan abused Gajanand and ordered
his men to attack.
 Restrictions on Private Defence
 Gajanand vs. State Cont….
• Here both the parties claimed the right of private defence.
• Herein the Court stated that as both the parties had armed
themselves with deadly weapons and fought.
• None could be said to have acted in self-defence.
 Right of Private Defence

• A enters by night a house which he is legally entitled to enter. Z the

owner of the house, in good faith, taking A for a house-breaker,
attacks A. Whether A has the right of private defence?
 Right of Private Defence

• Z, under the influence of madness, attempts to kill A with a knife.

Here A exercising his right of private defence kills Z. What is the
liability of A?
 Right of Private Defence
• Sec 98 deals with right of private defence against the act of a person
of unsound mind etc.

It states that 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.
 Right of Private Defence
• Eg: 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.
• Eg: 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.
 Right of Private Defence
 Sec 98 provides that a person does not lose his right of private
defence merely because the opposite party is legally
incompetent to commit an offence.
 It states that right of private defence is available even if the act
is not an 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.

 Right of Private Defence
 When Right of Private Defence of Body Extends to cause
Death:
• The right of private defence of the body extends in certain situations
to the extent of even causing death of the aggressor. This right is
subject to the restrictions imposed u/s 99. This is recognized
u/s 100 of IPC.
• Sec 100 states that 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:—
 Right of Private Defence
 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;
 Right of Private Defence
 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.
 Right of Private Defence
 Reasonable apprehension of Death or Grievous Hurt:

• The first and the second clause of sec 100 stipulates that right of
private defence of body extends to causing death, when such assault
reasonably causes the apprehension that death or grievous hurt will
otherwise be the consequences of such assault.
• Such an apprehension of death or grievous hurt must be real or
reasonable and not imaginary.
• It must be present and imminent and not remote or distant
one.
 Right of Private Defence
 Amjad Khan vs. State (AIR 1952 SC 165)

• In this case, a communal riot broke out between two communities.

Several shops had been broken and looted and many killed.
• The mob had broken into another part of the house where the
accused lived and looted it.
• The mob started beating the door of the accused with lathis.

• Here the accused had fired two shots which resulted into death of
one person.
• Here the accused pleaded that he exercised his right of private
defence.
 Right of Private Defence
 Amjad Khan vs. State Cont…

• Here the Court accepted the plea of the accused and held that it was
not necessary for the accused to wait and see if the mob
actually would or not destroy his shop and kill his family.
• The threat was implicit in the conduct of the mob and the
accused had a right of private defence and was justified in firing two
shots.
 Right of Private Defence
 Assault with the intention of Committing Rape or
Gratifying Unnatural Lust:
• Yashwant Rao vs State of MP (AIR 1992 SC 1683)

• In this case, the minor daughter of the accused had gone to the toilet
on the rear side of the house. Here the deceased caught her and had
sexual intercourse with her.
• The accused seeing his minor girl being raped by the deceased, hit
the deceased with spade and he died.
• Here the Court held that the father in defence of the body of his
daughter, was justified in exercising his right of private defence.
 Right of Private Defence
 Assault with intention of Wrongful Confinement:

• In order to apply the sixth clause of sec 100 there must be proof of
following facts:

1. There must be an assault.

2. That assault must be with the intention of wrongful confinement.

3. Such an assault must be made under the circumstance which may

reasonably cause a person to apprehend that he will be unable
to have recourse to public authorities for his release.

4. All the above three must co-exist.

5. Even if all these four exist, the act must fall under the
restrictions mentioned in sec 99.
 Right of Private Defence
 When such right extends to causing any harm other than
death:
• Sec 101 states that if the offence be not of any of the descriptions
enumerated in section 100, 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.
 Right of Private Defence
 Yogendra Morarji vs State of Gujarat (AIR 1980 SC 660)

• In this case, there was a dispute between the accused and the
deceased over some payment. So the vehicle of the accused was
stopped in the middle by the deceased and others.
• Here the deceased party pelted stones on the accused.

• Here the accused fired three shots in quick succession, one of

which hit the deceased.
• Here the accused pleaded that he exercised the right of
private defence.
 Right of Private Defence
 Yogendra Morarji vs State of Gujarat Cont….

• Here the Court held that as the accused was travelling in the
closed jeep and so even if the deceased were pelting stones, he
could not have reasonably apprehended death or grievous
hurt as a result of such act.
• Furthermore, the accused fired three rounds in quick
succession. He should have fired one round and waited to
see its effect on the group attempting to surround him before
firing the next round.
• So the accused has exceeded the right of private defence.
 Right of Private Defence
 Commencement and Continuation of Right of Private
Defence:
• Sec 102 states that 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.
• It means the Right of Private Defence of the Body of commences
only when the reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises
and it continues till such apprehension continues.
 Right of Private Defence
 Onkarnath Singh and ors. vs. State of U.P. (AIR 1974 SC
1550)
• In this case, two boys were slapped by the accused ‘O’. One of these
boys complained about the incident to his cousins ‘J’ and ‘D’. The
cousins assured that ‘O’ would be corrected.
• On being asked as to why he has beaten the boys, the accused rudely
replied that he had done so and he would repeat it.
• So a scuffle ensued and accused was pinned down by ‘J’ and ‘D’.

• Meanwhile people gathered there and they disengaged them.

• So, both the parties then proceeded to their respective houses.

 Right of Private Defence
 Onkarnath Singh and ors. vs. State of U.P. Cont…

• After around five minutes the accused person along with five other
people stopped ‘J’ and ‘D’ and started assulting them.
• Here the accused plunged his spear into the abdomen of ‘D’, who
died as a result.
• Here the accused took the plea of private defence as there were
certain injuries on his body which was the result of the scuffle which
took place between the accused and the deceased.
 Right of Private Defence
 Onkarnath Singh and ors. vs. State of U.P. Cont…

• Here the Court stated that a right of private defence is

essentially one of defence or self protection and not a right
of retaliation or punishment.
• As the deceased has already left the place there was no right
of private defence to the accused.
• The right of private defence is co-terminus with the
commencement and existence of a reasonable
apprehension of danger to body.
• It avails only against a danger, real, present and imminent.
 Right of Private Defence
 When Right of Private Defence of Property Extends to cause
Death:
• The right of private defence of the property extends in certain
situations to the extent of even causing death of the aggressor. This
right is subject to the restrictions imposed u/s 99. This is
recognized u/s 103 of IPC.
• Sec 103 states that 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:—
 Right of Private Defence
 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.
 Right of Private Defence
 House-breaking by night can be explained by going
through the following definitions.
 Sec 441 defines Criminal trespass as

Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of

another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult
or annoy any person in possession of such property, or having
lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully
remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy
any such person, or with intent to commit an offence, is said to
commit “criminal trespass”.
 Right of Private Defence
 Sec 442 defines House-trespass as

Whoever commits criminal trespass by entering into or remaining

in an building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or any
building used as a place for worship, or as place for the
custody of property, is said to commit “house-trespass”
 Right of Private Defence
 Sec 445 defines House-breaking as

• A person is said to commit “house-breaking” who commits house-

trespass if he effects his entrance into the house or any
part of it in any of the six ways hereinafter described; or if
being in the house or any part of it for the purpose of committing
an offence, or having committed a offence therein, he quits the
house or any part of it in any of such six ways, that is to say:—
• First.—If he enters or quits through a passage made by himself, or
by any abettor of the house-trespass in order to the committing of
the house-trespass.
 Right of Private Defence
 Sec 445 defines House-breaking as

• Secondly.—If he enters or quits through any passage not intended by

any person, other than himself or an abettor of the offence, for human
entrance; or through any passage to which he has obtained access by
scaling or climbing over any wall or building.
• Thirdly.—If he enters or quits through any passage which he or any
abettor of the house-trespass has opened, in order to the committing of
the house-trespass by any means by which that passage was not
intended by the occupier of the house to be opened.
• Fourthly.—If he enters or quits by opening any lock in order to the
committing of the house-trespass, or in order to the quitting of the house
after a house-trespass.
 Right of Private Defence
 Sec 445 defines House-breaking as

• Fifthly.—If he effects his entrance or departure by using criminal

force or committing an assault, or by threatening any person with
assault.
• Sixthly.—If he enters or quits by any passage which he knows to
have been fastened against such entrance or departure, and to
have been unfastened by himself or by an abettor of the house-
trespass.
• Sec 446 defines House-breaking by night as whoever commits
house-breaking after sunset and before sunrise, is said to
commit “house-breaking by night”.
 Right of Private Defence
 Right of Private Defence of Property :
• James Martin vs State of Kerala [(2004) 2 SCC 203]
• In this case, the accused did not close his Mill on the day of
the ‘Bharat Bandh’ organized by some political parties.
• Five members of the political parties armed with deadly
weapon entered the mill and demanded to close the mill.
• When the accused refused to do so, his property was set on fire
and so he fired in which two members died.
• Here the accused pleaded that he exercised his right to defend his
property.
 Right of Private Defence
 Right of Private Defence of Property :
• James Martin vs State of Kerala Cont……
• Here the Court accepted the plea of the accused and held that the
accused is protected u/s 103 of Indian Penal Code.
 Right of Private Defence
 Right of Private Defence of Property against Criminal Trespass :

• Cherubin Gregory vs State of Bihar (AIR 1964 SC 205)

• In this case, the deceased was residing near the house of the accused. The
wall of the latrine of the house of the deceased had fallen down about a
week prior to the day of occurrence and so the deceased along with others
started using the latrine of the accused. The accused protested against
their coming there. The oral warnings however, proved ineffective and so
he fixed up a naked copper wire across the passage leading up to his
latrine and that wire carried current from the electrical wiring of his
home to which it was connected. On the day of the occurrence, the
deceased went to the latrine of the appellant and there she touched the
aforesaid fixed wire as a result of which she died soon after.
 Right of Private Defence
 Right of Private Defence of Property against Criminal
Trespass:
• Cherubin Gregory vs State of Bihar Cont….

• Here the accused stated that he has the right of private defence of
property.
• Here the Court held that the plea of the right of private
defence of property was not sustainable for the reason that
the type of injury caused by the trap laid by the accused could not
be brought within the purview of sec 103 of the Indian Penal
Code.
 Right of Private Defence
 Right of Private Defence of Property extends to causing
any harm other than death:

• Sec 104 states that

If the offence, the committing of which, or the attempting to

commit which occasions the exercise of the right of private
defence, be theft, mischief, or criminal trespass, not of any of the
descriptions enumerated in the last preceding section, that right
does not extend to the voluntary causing of death, but does
extend, subject to the restrictions mentioned in section 99, to the
voluntary causing to the wrong-doer of any harm other than
death.
 Right of Private Defence
 Right of Private Defence of Property extends to causing
any harm other than death:

• As per sec 104, if theft, mischief or house-trespass does not

create any reasonable apprehension of death or
grievous hurt, then the right of private defence of property
extends to voluntary causing to the wrong-doer of any harm
other than death.
 Right of Private Defence
 Commencement and continuance of the right of private
defence of property:

• Sec 105 states that

• The right of private defence of property commences when a
reasonable apprehension of danger to the property
commences.
• The right of private defence of property against theft continues
till the offender has effected his retreat with the property
or either the assistance of the public authorities is obtained, or
the property has been recovered.
 Right of Private Defence
 Commencement and continuance of the right of private
defence of property:

• The right of private defence of property against robbery

continues as long as the offender causes or attempts to cause to
any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint or as long as the
fear of instant death or of instant hurt or of instant
personal restraint continues.
• The right of private defence of property against criminal
trespass or mischief continues as long as the offender
continues in the commission of criminal trespass or
mischief.
 Right of Private Defence
 Commencement and continuance of the right of private
defence of property:

• The right of private defence of property against house-breaking

by night continues as long as the house-trespass which has been
begun by such house-breaking continues.
 Right of Private Defence
 Right of private defence against deadly assault:

• Sec 106 deals with Right of private defence against deadly assault
when there is risk of harm to innocent person.
• It states that if in the exercise of the right of private defence
against an assault which reasonably causes the apprehension of
death, the defender be so situated that he cannot effectually
exercise that right without risk of harm to an innocent person,
his right of private defence extends to the running of that risk.
 Right of Private Defence
 Right of private defence against deadly assault:

• Sec 106 deals with Right of private defence against deadly assault
when there is risk of harm to innocent person.
• Eg: A is attacked by a mob who attempt to murder him. He
cannot effectually exercise his right of private defence without
firing on the mob, and he cannot fire without risk of
harming young children who are mingled with the mob. A
commits no offence if by so firing he harms any of the
children.