of the Right:
is the duty of man to help him-self first. The right of private-defence is
being provided to citizens of each and every democratic country. If the state
mechanism failed to provides adequate help and support on time, citizens must
have right to self-defend themselves, if necessary to do on certain
right of private defence is being recognized in by many state laws, but the
provisions and the ratio to the capacity of act is differed form county to
country. This depends on the capacity of the state to protect life and property
of the citizens. As it is the primary duty of the state to provide healthy
environment to the citizens and to protect life&property of the individual.
no matter how much large resources and police force steps of every rouge in the
Consequently this right has been given by every state citizens to take law into
their hands for their safety or for the safety of others (if the act is being
done in good faith).
are two conditions for the use of force in self-defence, namely:
the use of force for private defence will be justified only when there is an
imminent threat to a person or his property.
the use of force must be in proportion to what is necessary in the particular
circumstances of the case.
Non-Avalibility of Private defence
to person on certain Conditions:
When there is sufficient recourse of
time to public authorities.
When more harm than that is necessary
should not be caused.
When there must be a reasonqble
apprehension of death or grievious hurt or hurt to the person or damageto the
For example, if a person strikes me, I cannot
be justified to use a sword or a gun against him in self-defence. The force
should not be excessive. What force can be used in the particular circumstances,
to protect himself or his property, is a difficult question to decide. However
this depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.
Consider this dispute between two people.
When the defendant was passing in front of the plaintiff’s house he aimed to
shoot the plaintiff’s dog that attempted to bite him. The dog ran away. But
when the dog returned, the defendant shot the plaintiff’s dog dead. It was held
that the right of private defence could not be pleaded in this case. The act
was unlawful because he shot at the dog at the time what it was not attacking
and the force used was excessive and therefore he was liable to pay
mentioned in Section- 96 of IPC3
is an offence, which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.”
is being clear that the no right is private defence when there is time to have
recourse of the protection of Police Man. An act exercise as right is not an
commission of an offence, give rise to right of private defence. Right of
private defence is not said to be an offence in return4.
The right provided in Section-96 IPC, to citizens is absolute in nature, but
the right of private defence should not inflict the provisions or the
exceptions mentioned the Section- 99 of IPC. The specific says that the right
should not extend to inflicting of more harm than it is necessary for the
purpose of self defence. And it is settled that in free fight, no right of
private defence is being available to either of the parties.
of IPC says that the rigt of private defence is of two types, namely:
Right of private defence of body
Right of Private defence of property.
Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab5, The Supreme Court laid down Guidelines for Right
Of Private Defence for Citizens. It observed that a person cannot be expected
to act in a cowardly manner when confronted with an imminent threat to life and
has got every right to kill the aggressor in self defense. A bench comprising
Justices Dalveer Bhandari and Asok Kumar Ganguly, while acquitting a person of
murder, said that when enacting Section 96 to 106 of the IPC, the Legislature
clearly intended to arouse and encourage the spirit of self-defense amongst the
citizens, when faced with grave danger.” The law does not require a law-abiding
citizen to behave like a coward when confronted with an imminent unlawful
aggression. As repeatedly observed by this court, there is nothing more
degrading to the human spirit than to run away in face of danger. Right of
private defense is thus designed to serve a social purpose and deserves to be
fostered within the prescribed limit”
The court laid down ten
guidelines where right of self-defence is available to a citizen, but also
warned that in the disguise of self-defence, one cannot be allowed to endanger
or threaten the lives and properties of others or for the purpose of taking
personal revenge. The apex court concluded by saying that a person who is under
imminent threat is not expected to use force exactly required to repel the
attack and his behaviour cannot be weighed on “golden scales.”
declared their legal position under the following 10 guidelines6:
Self-preservation is a basic human instinct
and is duly recognized by the criminal jurisprudence of all civilized
countries. All free, democratic and civilized countries recognize the
right of private defense within certain reasonable limits.
The right of private defense is available
only to one who is suddenly confronted with the necessity of averting an
impending danger and not of self-creation.
A mere reasonable apprehension is enough to
put the right of self-defense into operation. In other words, it is not
necessary that there should be an actual commission of the offence in
order to give rise to the right of private defense. It is enough if the
accused apprehended that such an offence is contemplated and it is likely
to be committed if the right of private defense is not exercised.
The right of private defense commences as
soon as a reasonable apprehension arises and it is co-terminus with the
duration of such apprehension.
It is unrealistic to expect a person under
assault to modulate his defense step by step with any arithmetical
In private defense the force used by the
accused ought not to be wholly disproportionate or much greater than
necessary for protection of the person or property.
It is well settled that even if the accused
does not plead self-defense, it is open to consider such a plea if the
same arises from the material on record.
The accused need not prove the existence of
the right of private defense beyond reasonable doubt.
The Indian Penal Code confers the right of
private defense only when the unlawful or wrongful act is an offence.
A person who is in imminent and reasonable
danger of losing his life or limb may, in exercise of self defense,
inflict any harm (even extending to death) on his assailant either when
the assault is attempted or directly threatened.
Chapter-3 (Right to
private defence of property and it causing to death)
Section-100 of IPC7:
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:—
Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that death will
otherwise be the consequence of such assault;
an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will
otherwise be the consequence of such assault;
25/11/2017, 10:53 Am
Puran Singh, 1975 Cr LJ 44 (SC).
5 Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab ,Criminal Appeal
No.446- (Division Bench) of 1994 dated 6.8.2002, PUJHC.
6 http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l470-Private-Defence.html., 25/11/2017, 6:44 PM.
25/11/2017, 11:44 Am