DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, SABBAVARAM,

VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA

RESEARCH PAPER TITLE

The stranger can defend the person or property: An analysis with

reference to Section 97 of Indian Penal Code, 1860

NAME OF THE SUBJECT

CRIMINAL LAW – I

NAME OF THE FACULTY

PROF. (DR.) BHAVANI PRASAD PANDA

NAME- JAYANT KASHYAP

ROLL NO. – 2019LLB111

Page 1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to thank PROF. (DR.) BHAVANI PRASAD PANDA sir for giving me an
opportunity for deeply studying about criminal law. This project is a result of dedicated effort. It
gives me immense pleasure to prepare this project report on “The stranger can defend the person
or property: An analysis with reference to Section 97 of Indian Penal Code, 1860”

My deepest thanks to our Lecturer PROF. (DR.) BHAVANI PRASAD PANDA sir, the guide of
the project for guiding and correcting various documents with attention and care. I thank him for
consultative help and constructive suggestion in this project. I would also like to thank my parents
and colleagues who have helped me for making the project a successful one.

Page 2
CONTENTS

1. COVER PAGE

2. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

3.PROJECT SUMMARY

4.OBJECTIVE OF STUDY

5.SIGNIFICANCE AND BENEFIT OF STUDY

6.HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

7. SCOPE OF THE STUDY

8. LITERATURE REVIEW

9. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

1o. HYPOTHESIS

11. BODY OF THE PROJECT

12. OUTCOME OF THE PROJECT

13. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

Page 3
OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

Herein the researcher through this project is trying to highlight and explain the right of stranger to
defend a person or property: An analysis with reference to Section 97 of Indian Penal Code, 1860

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

The chapter IV, of the Indian Penal Code, dealing with the right to private defence; According to
the creator of the code Lord Macaulay, “It is an attempt to define, the limits of the right to private
defence”. The right to private defence as exist from sections 96 to 106 of I.P.C is based on the
theory of protection of oneself from the harm inflicted by the other person. When there do exist a
danger to body and, or property, a citizen of prudence has a right to revert back in protection of the
same by holding the ground, from harm that may be caused. The section would have to be read
together to ascertain whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the accused were entitled
to the defence or they exceeded it. Section 97 in The Indian Penal Code- Right of private defence
of the body and of property — 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
SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The researcher is limiting the scope only up to right of stranger to defend a person or property. It
is in analysis with reference to Section 97 of Indian Penal Code, 1860

LITERATURE REVIEW

The basic principles that have been dealt with in this project are majorly from textual data from
various textbooks and such statements are being supported by well-established precedents from
the judiciary. Also while embarking this project various ideas of different philosophers have been
seen which has most respectfully be inducted in the creation of this project. Following textbooks
were the primary sources of this project work:

Page 4
• Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, thirty second edition(2016), Lexis Nexis

• K.D. Gaur, The Indian Penal Code, Sixth Edition(2018), Universal Law Publishing

• SCC Online, https://www.scconline.in/default.aspx

• R.K Saxena, Indian Penal Code, twentieth edition, (2017), Central Law Publishing

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This is a doctrinal research.

INTRODUCTION

In athe acivilized asociety athe adefence aof aa aperson aand aproperty aof aevery amember athereof ais
athe aresponsibility aof athe astate. aGiving aa ageneral aview aof aall athe aprovisions aon athis aright ain

1
aMunney aKhan av. aState , athe aSupreme aCourt aobserved: aThe aright aof aprivate adefence ais
acodified ain aSections a96 ato a106, aI.P.C, awhich ahave aall ato abe aread atogether ain aorder ato ahave

aa aproper agrasp aof athe ascope aand alimitations aof athis aright. aBy aenacting athe asections aauthors

aof athe acode awanted ato aexcept afrom athe aoperation aof aits apenal aclauses aacts adone ain agood

afaith afor athe apurpose aof arepealing aunlawful aaggression. a

The abasic aprinciple aunderlying athe adoctrine aof athe aright aof aprivate adefence ais athat awhen aan
aindividual aor ahis aproperty ais afaced awith aa adanger aand aapprehension athat aany aharm awill

acause, aunder asuch aa ascenario athe aaccused ais anot aunder aany aobligation ato await afor athe ahelp

afrom athe agovernment aand astate aauthorities abut ais avery amuch apermitted ato aretaliate abut ain

aprudent aproportion. aIn athis acode athe aterm aself-preservation afinds aoutmost aimportance aand ais

aheld ain ahighest apedestal. aAccording ato athe awords aof athe arevered aParke, aJ. a“The anature ahas

abestowed awith athe aaction aof areflex, aprompting aa aperson ato arevert aback, aand aone ais

ajustified aby athe alaw ato ado aso. aThe aforce aso ato abe aapplied afor areflex amust aand ashould abe

ain aproportion ato athe aforce aso afaced.”

1
a1971 aAIR a1491

Page 5
Hence awhat ais ato abe aconstrued aby athe awords aof ajustice ais athat, aone amust arevert ato aprotect
aones’ alife aand aother’s alife aand aproperty, awith athe aforce aequivalent ato aso aapplied aupon; aand

athe athis aright ashould abe ainstilled ain aevery acitizen ato aprotection aof aself awhen aimmediate ahelp

aor asafety afrom astate aand athe apublic aservant ais anot apresent aor apossible ato aaccess.

The aman arecognises ahis/her afirst aright aas athe a“right ato alife aand apersonal aliberty”, aand athis
ais awhat athe aarticle a21 aof athe aconstitution aof aIndia, aspeaks aof. aIn aany acivilized asociety athe

apersonal alife aand aliberty ais agiven athe ahighest apedestal, abut asuch adeprivation aof alife aand

aliberty ais ato abe adone aunder athe aprocedure aestablished aby alaw; athe aseven-judge abench aof athe

aapex acourt astated athe aprinciples aof areasonableness, awhich alegally aand aphilosophically aan

aessential aelement aof aequality, aand aalso anon-arbitrary ain anature.

The aso aprovided aexception, aunder aRight ato aprivate adefence ashould anot abe aused ain aany
aretributive anature aor apurpose abecause athe astatute ais aavailable aonly awhen ait ais ajustified ato

ause, awhich ais aunder athe aapprehension aof adanger aand aimminent adanger ato alife, alimb aproperty

aor aproperty. aAnd, aas ait avests astrangers ato aprotect athe asame aif aan aapprehension ato athe aperson

aor aproperty aoccurs. aTherefore, acourts amust abe acareful awhile adeciding acases aof athe aprivate

adefences, athey ahave ato abe aaware aof athe asituation aso ataken aplace, abecause amany atimes ait

amay ahappen athat, ain athe aname aof aprivate adefence apeople ashould anot atake apart ain aanti-social

aactivity, awhere aany aindividual ato atake apart ain athe astreet-fights aand aof asuch asort awhere athere

ais ano aimmediate adanger aor aapprehension ato abody aor alife aand aproperty.

SCOPE aAND aAPPLICABILITY aOF aRIGHT aOF aPRIVATE aDEFENCE

In aorder ato afind awhether athe aright aof aprivate ais aavailable ato aan aaccused, athe aentire aincident
amust abe aexamined awith acare aand ato abe aviewed ain aits atotality aand aproper asetting. aThe

ainjuries areceived aby athe aaccused, athe aimminence aof athreat ato ahis asafety, athe ainjuries acaused

aby athe aaccused aand athe acircumstances awhether athe aaccused ahad atime ato arecourse ato apublic

aauthorities aall athis afactors ato abe aaware aof awhile amaking aa aplea afor aprivate adefence. a

It ais ato abe aspecifically anoted athat athe aright aof aprivate adefence ais aavailable aonly ato aone awho
ais asuddenly aconfronted aof aaverting adanger anot aof ahis aown acreation, aSupreme aCourt afurther

Page 6
aopined ain aLaxman av. aState aof aOrissa2, athat anecessity amust abe apresent, areal aand aapparent.

aBasis aof aRight aof aPrivate aDefence arests aon athe afollowing apropositions: a

• aState ahas athe aduty ato aprotect aindividuals aagainst athe aunlawful aattacks aon atheir aperson aand
aproperty; a

• aIf ain acase aaid acannot abe aobtained, ait amust aalways abe aresorted ato, athat aone awho ais
athreatened aand acan ado aeverything athat ais anecessary ato aprotect aoneself. a

• aViolence ashould abe astrictly ain aproportion ato athe ainjury ato abe aaverted aand amust anot abe aused
ato agratify arevenge aand amalice aagainst athe aaggressor. a

The acounter aattack acould ain ano asense abe aan aattack ain aexercise aof athe aright aof aprivate
adefensive. aThe aright aof aprivate adefence ais apreventive aand anot apunitive, aan ainjury acan abe

aaverted anot aand anot aavenged. aA afree afight ais aone awhen aboth asides amean ato afight afrom athe

astart ahence ait ais aalso aexempted afrom athe aprovision aof asections a96-106. a

The achapter aIV, aof athe aIndian aPenal aCode, adealing awith athe aright ato aprivate adefence;
aAccording ato athe acreator aof athe acode aLord aMacaulay, a“It ais aan aattempt ato adefine, athe

alimits aof athe aright ato aprivate adefence”. aThe aright ato aprivate adefence aas aexist afrom asections

a96 ato a106 aof aI.P.C ais abased aon athe atheory aof aprotection aof aoneself afrom athe aharm ainflicted

aby athe aother aperson. aWhen athere ado aexist aa adanger ato abody aand, aor aproperty, aa acitizen aof

aprudence ahas aa aright ato arevert aback ain aprotection aof athe asame aby aholding athe aground, afrom

aharm athat amay abe acaused. aThe asection awould ahave ato abe aread atogether ato aascertain awhether

ain athe afacts aand acircumstances aof athe acase athe aaccused awere aentitled ato athe adefence aor athey

aexceeded ait. aOnly athen aone acan aget aa aComprehensive aview aof athe ascope aand alimitations aof

athe aright. aThe acrux aof athese asections awhen ais abeing aread atogether, agives aus areal aessence

athat ait astores; awhich ais aif athere ais aan aapprehension aof adanger ato alife abody aor aproperty a(real

aand awell afounded) athe aharm aso ainflicted ashould anot abe amore aand amajor athan anecessary afor

aa aparticular adanger. aIt ais ato abe aalways anoted awhile aapplying athe aexception aand arather athe

2
aAIR a1988 aSC a83

Page 7
aact aof aself-defence aitself- athe aurgency aof athe asituation awhich amatters athe amost awhile ait ais

aapplied ain athe areal-world asituations.

In athe acase aof aJagdish aChandra av. aState aof aRajasthan 3 , athe ascope afor aunderstanding aany
acase aof aprivate adefence ahas abeen avery awell adescribed aand aexplained aby athe ahon’ble ajustices

ain atheir ajudgement: a“When athe acircumstances aare aevaluated aand abackground ais aanalysed,

ait’s arecommended awhile adeciding athe afate aof aa asituation aone ashould aplace ahimself ain athe

aseat aof athe aaccused aand ato aassess, ahow aone awould ahave areacted ain athat agiven asituation

ain athat avery aparticular amoment awhen athe aindividual ais afacing athe adanger. aTherefore, ait

ais aadvised ato aobserve athe asituation awith athe astandpoint aof athe aaccused aand anot awith athe

aviewpoint aof aa acalm aby-stander.” aAccording ato acommon alaw, athere ahas abeen amany

acircumstances, awhere aone aperson amay ainflict aviolence aupon aanother ain agood afaith aand amind

aunder aa apre-determined awhere ahe abelieves ato abe aexercising athe aright ato aprivate adefence.

EVOLUTION aOF aTHE aRIGHT aOF aPRIVATE aDEFENCE

In aRoman alaw, ahomicide awas aconsidered ato abe aan aact aby awhich athe alife aof aa ahuman-being
awas ataken aaway. aThere awere atwo adegrees aof acriminal ahomicide, anamely, amurder aand

amanslaughter, aand atwo adegrees aof ahomicide athat adid anot aexpose aa aperson ato apunishment,

anamely, ajustifiable aand aexcusable. aSelf-defence awas aplaced ain athe acategory aof ajustifiable

ahomicide. aIn aself-defence aviolence awas alawful: a‘Vim aenim avi adefendere aomnes aleges

aemniaque ajure apermittunt’ a(A aman, atherefore, aincurs ano aliability, aif ahe akills aanother’s aslave

awho aattacks ahim.). aThe aJustinian acode aand athe aTwelve aTables areiterated athis aright aof

aprivate adefence- athe aCode aholding athat ano agreater aforce athan awhat awas asufficient ato award

aoff athe athreatened adanger awas apermitted aand athe aTables aon athe aother ahand, aallowing akilling

ain asuch aa acase awithout arestrictions aregarding ait ato abe apermissible aself-redress arather athan

aself-defence. a

Under aEnglish alaw athe astatus aof athe aright aof aself-defence aunderwent aa aseries aof achanges
athrough athe aages. aIn athe aancient aperiod, athere awas aabsolute aliability aeven afor ahomicide

acommitted ase adefendendo. aIn athe aMedieval aperiod, athe atheory aof apardon adeveloped aand ait

3
a1996 a(2) aWLN a542

Page 8
abecame aexcusable, awhereas ain athe aModern aAge, ahomicide acommitted ain aself-defence ais

atreated aas ajustifiable, abecause ait ais apresumed athat asuch aan aact ais anot abacked awith aevil

aintent. a

In athe aearly adays, athe alaw aregarded athe aword aand athe aact aof athe aindividual abut ait adid anot
asearch athe aheart aof athe aman. aIt awas athe aage aof astrict aliability. aMan awas aheld aresponsible

afor ahis aacts airrespective aof ahis aintentions. aHis amental astate awas anot ataken ainto aaccount

awhen adetermining aliability afor athe acommission aof athe acrime. aIt awas athe aexternal aconduct

aand athe ainjury aupon awhich aliability awas aimposed. aThe aaccidental ainjuries aand athe ainjuries

ainflicted aduring aself-defence, aalso aattracted aliability. aThus, acriminal aliability awas anot arelated

ato athe aevil aintention aof athe aactor. a

However, ain athe a13th acentury athere awas aa ashift afrom astrict aliability aand aemphasis awas alaid
aon athe amental aelement. aDuring athis aperiod, akilling awas ajustified ain aa afew aexceptional acases.

aOne awho akilled ain amisadventure, aor ain aself-defence awas astill aguilty aof aa acrime, aalthough ahe

adeserved aa apardon afrom athe aKing. aDuring athe aMedieval aperiod, athough athe aaccused

aobtained apardon ayet ahe aforfeited ahis agoods afor athe acrime acommitted ain aself-defence. a

The amoral asense aof athe acommunity acould anot atolerate aindefinitely athe aidea athat aa ablameless
aself-defender awas aa acriminal. aUltimately, athe ajury awas aallowed ato agive aa averdict aof anot

aguilty ain asuch acases. aPardon aof athe aKing asoon abecame aa aformality ain asuch acases aand athus

agrew athe aconcept aof aexcusable ahomicide. aThe aact aof apardon awas aa akind aof aexcuse. aThe

aword aexcuse aitself adenoted athe acondonation aof awrong acommitted aby athe aoffender.

aBlackstone aperceived athe aessence aof aexcuses ato abe a‘the awant aor adefect aof awill’. aThis aall

achanged ain athe amodern aperiod. aIn amodern atimes, athere ais aa apresumption athat athere ais ano

amens area ain athe ahomicides acommitted ain aself-defence aand aas asuch ait ahas abecome aa

ajustifiable ageneral adefence ain alaw. aThus, anow ano acriminal aliability ais aattached ato athe

aaccused ain asuch acases. aThis ais ain aconformity awith athe aprovisions aof aArticle a2 aof athe

aEuropean aConvention aon aHuman aRights. a

Thus, ain amodern atimes aevery aevolved alegal asystem ahas aaccepted athe aright aof aself-defence
aas aa auniversal aone.

Page 9
DIFFERENT aASPECTS aOF aPRIVATE aDEFENCE a

Such aa aphenomenon acan abe aexplained ain athe aland amark acase aof aEngland a“The aowner aof aa
aproperty awho ais ahaving aa atenant aas arent apayer, awithout agiving aproper anotice atried ato aexpel

a(forcefully) aa atenant afrom aher ahouse aalong awith athe aassistance awith aher acompanions. aThe

atenant ain aan aattempt ato aprotect athe aproperty aso aoccupied aby ahim aand ain ahis apossession,

afired aat athe afriend aof athe aland alady. aIn athis acase ait awas aopined athat, atenant ahas athe aright ato

aprivate adefence ato aprotect afrom athe aforceful aeviction aby athe alandlady” a[PROTECTION aOF

aPROPERTY] a

The acourts ain acommon alaw acountries ahad afurther aopinions athat, athe aperson awho ais aabout ato
abe aattacked, ashould anot await afor athe afull acommission aby athe aassailant ato astrike afirst aor agive

athe ablow afirst, athe acircumstances aso ataking aplace amust ajustify aa apre-emptive astrike. aIn athe

asimilar alines aas aabove adiscussed aregarding athe aevent aof apre-emptive astrike aby athe avictim aof

athe aforce; awhere aa ayoung alady awho awas alynched aby aa ayoung aman aand aas areactionary aforce

alynched aat ahim awith aa abroken apiece aof aglass, awhile athe aact abeing aunder aself-defence, abut

athe acritical apart ais ashe adid anot arealised athat ashe ahad aglass apiece ain aher ahand, abecause

aaccording ato athe aprinciples apreviously amentioned ashe areverted aback awith aher areflex. aShe

awas aconvicted ain athe atrial acourt abut alater aon agoing ato athe aappellate acourt; aIt awas astated

athat, a“she awas aentitled ato athe aright aof aself-defence.” a[PROTECTION aOF aPERSON, aBODY

aOR aLIMB]

The ainstances aof aright ato aprivate adefence acan abe afurther aadded afor aclarification, athe acharges
awhich aattracted aunder athe aArms aAct aof athe aIndian aLegal aSystem, awould anot abe aapplied

aunder athis achapter aIV aof aI.P.C., asame awas aclarified aby athe ajudiciary ain athe ayear a1935, aby

4
apronouncing athe ajudgement aVerayya aVandayar av. aEmperor a. aIt ais ato abe afurther astated athat

ano asuch aspecific aform aof arestriction ahas abeen aput ain aon athe aweapons aor amode aof ausing ait,

abecause aunder aa aprudence amind awhen aunder asuch aa aheated aup asituation ait ais anot apossible

ato abe acalm ahence, aany aaction ain aprotection aof asaving aperson aor aproperty acan abe aexercised

4
a(1946) a48 aBOMLR a284

Page 10
aat athe atime aof adanger awhere asuch athreat ahas aoccurred, abut athe aforce amust amatch ato athe

aforce aso aapplied aunto athe aaccused. a

ILLUSTRATION: aSuppose ain aa asituation awhere aa acongregation aof a5 apersons aare agathered,
aand afew aanti asocials apelt astones aat athem, aand atwo aare astoned ato adeath. aUnder asuch aa

ascenario athe aother athree acan autilise athe arights aand abe aexempted, aas ait asays aprotection aof

aone’s aown abody aor athe abody aof aother aperson. aHere athe aother apersons acan aexercise athe aright

aof aprivate adefence. a

WHAT aIS aSECTION a97 aOF aINDIAN aPENAL aCODE, a1860?

Section a97 ain aThe aIndian aPenal aCode- a

Right aof aprivate adefence aof athe abody aand aof aproperty a— aEvery aperson ahas aa aright,
asubject ato athe arestrictions acontained ain asection a99, ato adefend—

(First) a— aHis aown abody, aand athe abody aof aany aother aperson, aagainst aany aoffence
aaffecting athe ahuman abody;

(Secondly) a—The aproperty, awhether amovable aor aimmovable, aof ahimself aor aof aany aother
aperson, aagainst aany aact awhich ais aan aoffence afalling aunder athe adefinition aof atheft,

arobbery, amischief aor acriminal atrespass, aor awhich ais aan aattempt ato acommit atheft, arobbery,

amischief aor acriminal atrespass.

SECTION a97 a- aDEFENCE aOF aAN aINDIVITUAL aBODY aAND aPROPERTY: aAN
aANALYSIS

In acase ayou aare abeing aattacked aby asomeone ayou acannot await afor athe alaw ato aprotect ayou, ait
ais ayour afirst aduty ato ahelp ayourself. aAlthough athe aprimary aduty aof athe aState ais ato aprotect alife

aand aproperty aof athe apeople, ahowever, ait ais aimpossible afor athe astate aat athe asame atime ato

akeep aa atrack aof aeach aand aevery aperson awithin aits aboundaries. aThere amay abe asituations ain

awhich athe aState acannot ahelp aa aperson aimmediately awhen ahis alife aor aproperty ais ain adanger,

Page 11
atherefore, athis asection ahas abeen aincorporated aunder athe aIndian aPenal aCode aby athe

alawmakers ato aprovide athe aright ato aprivate adefence aof abody aand aproperty. a

The asection abroadly aspecifies athe acrimes aagainst awhich athe aright ato aprivate adefence acan abe
aexercised. aIt adivides athe aright ato aprivate adefence ain atwo aparts aout aof awhich athe afirst apart

adeals awith athe aright ato aprivate adefence aof aa aperson aagainst ahimself aor aanother aperson aand

athe asecond apart adeals awith athe aright ato aprivate adefence aof aa aperson aagainst ahis aown aor

aanother aperson’s aproperty. aIt agives aany aperson athe aright ato adefend ahimself aor aany aother

aperson afrom aan aattack aagainst ahis abody aor aproperty.

The aright ato adefend athe abody aexists afor aany aoffence aagainst athe ahuman abody asuch aas
aassault, ahurt, agrievous ahurt, akidnapping, awrongful aconfinement, aetc., awhereas, athe aright ato

adefend aone’s aproperty aexists aagainst aan aact athat ais aeither atheft, arobbery, amischief, aor

acriminal atrespass aor aan aattempt ato acommit aany aof athese aoffences. aHowever, ait ais aimportant

ato anote athat athe aright aexists aonly aagainst aan aact athat ais aconsidered ato abe aan aoffence aand anot

aagainst aan aact awhich ais anot aan aoffence aunder athe aIndian aPenal aCode. a

This ais awhy aa aperson awho ais acommitting aan aoffence aagainst athe abody aor aproperty aof
aanother aperson acannot aclaim athe aright ato aprivate adefence aif athe avictim agets athe abetter aof

ahim awhile adefending ahimself. aFor aexample, aa apoliceman ahandcuffing aa aperson aon aa abelief

athat athe aperson ais aa athief, ahas aa aright ato ado aso aand athe aact aof ahandcuffing awill anot aamount

ato aan aoffence aas athe aperson ais aan aoffender aand adoes anot ahave athe aright ato aclaim aany

aprotection aunder aSection a97 aof aIPC. a

This asection aalso alimits athe aexercise aof athe aright ato aprivate adefence ato athe aextent aof
aabsolute anecessity. aIn aother awords, athe aact aof adefending aoneself ashall anot abe amore athan

anecessary afor adefending aaggression. aThe avictim amust ahave aa areasonable aapprehension aof

adanger afrom athe aoffender ain aorder ato aclaim aprotection aunder athis asection.

This asection acan abe aseparated ainto atwo adifferent aclauses, afirstly adefence ato abody aand athe
asecondly, athe adefence atoward athe aproperty. aThe aapex acourt ahas apointed aout afew aguidelines

ato aunderstand athe anature aand ascope aof athe aapplications aof athe astatute aunder athis asection: a

Page 12
a. aThe aright ato aprivate adefence acannot abe aprovided aunless auntil, athe aoffence afor awhich aone,
ais ataking aup athe adefence ais ain aitself aan aoffence aunder athis acode. a

b. aThe adefence aunder athis asection awill acontinue aas asoon aas athere ais aan aapprehension ato
adanger ato abody aor aproperty, ait awill aremain auntil athe adanger acontinues; asuch ahas abeen

adiscussed aunder athe asections a102 aand a105, aof athe aI.P.C. aThis aretributive ain anature aas athe

adanger amust abe areal aand aimminent.

c. aThis ais aa adefence apurpose aonly aright aand anot ainflict asomeone awith ainjury aor aharm, aas
ajoining aa astreet afight, abecause ait ais acontinuous ain anature awhen asome ahas acaused asome

ainjury aor ais agoing ato acause athen aon acontinuation athe aretaliation ashould abe acarried aout. a

d. aThe aacts aunder athis achapter ashould abe abona-fide ain anature. a

e. aIt amay aalso apermit ato akill asomeone aas aprovided ain athe asection a100 aof athe acode, awhere
athe aapprehension ais aof asuch anature athat aif anot aaverted amight acause adeath aand aresults aof

asuch agrave anature. a

“The aincidents aso ahappening amust abe abased aon asurmises aand aspeculation. aUnderstanding
athe astatement aand aentire aset aof aevents ashould abe aexamined aby aconsequence aof aeach aact

aand anecessarily ain acontinuance.”

In aKatta aSurendra av. aState aof aU.P.,2008 ait awas aheld athat awhether athe aapprehension ado
aexist ain areal aor anot ais aimmaterial, abecause aif ain afurious aand aunstable amind aa ashot ais afired

aby aone aperson atowards aanother athen athe alater acan atake athe adefence aof aprivate adefence/ aself-

defence.

The asupreme acourt ain aDwarka aPrasad av. aState aof aU.P., astated athat aunder athe ainstance aof
afree afight- aIf ait ais anoticed athat athe aapplication aof aright ato aprivate adefence, aunder athis

achapter awill anot abe aapplicable awhere, aboth athe aparties aunder amutual aconsent aagrees ato atake

aup athe afight awith aeach aother. a

Page 13
Parichhat avs aState aof aM.P, aA alathi ablow aon ahis afather’s ahead, ahis ason, athe aaccused, agave
aa ablow awith aa aballam aon athe achest aof athe adeceased. aThe acourt adecided athat athe aaccused ahas

aobviously aexceeded ahis aright aof aprivate adefence.

It acan abe astated athat athe asections afrom a96 ato a100 ashould abe aread atogether, abecause athe
aessence aof athe acases asays athat athat ait ais aenforced ain athe areal aworld awhen athere ais aan

aunlawful aaggression, abut athe ajustification aand adefence aunder asection a97, ahas aa amuch athin

aline ato adifferentiate afrom acommitting aan aoffence aand aexercising aactions aunder athis achapter,

athe amoment aone aexceeds ahis alimit aof adefensive aforce ait abecomes aan aoffence aunder athis

acode, aI.P.C.

JUDICIAL aVIEW aON aPRIVATE aDEFENCE a

aThe aprotection aof alife aand aproperty ais aaxiomatic ain aevery acivilized asociety aand abecause ait

ais aimpossible afor athe aState ato ado aso aon aevery aoccasion a– aas alaw aenforcement aofficers

acannot abe aomnipresent, athe aindividual ais agiven athe aright aof aprivate adefence. aThe aright aof

aprivate adefence alegally aaccords ato athe aindividuals athe aright ato atake areasonably anecessary

ameasures ato aprotect athemselves aunder aspecial acircumstances. aNotably, aon athe aexecution aof

athe aprivate adefence aprovisions ain athe aPenal aCode, athe aframers asaid a“we aleave ait astill ain aa

avery aimperfect astate…we aare ainclined ato athink athat ait amust aalways abe aone aof athe aleast

aexact aparts aof aevery asystem aof acriminal alaw.” aThis asuggests athat athey arecognized athe

anecessity afor alatent aambiguity ato aallow ajudges athe aflexibility ato aread aand aapply athe

aprovisions aso aas ato aachieve afairness. a

However, athe alocal acourts ahave aoverlooked athis adiscretion aconferred aupon athem aand ainstead
aopted afor aa afar atoo arestrictive a(and aeven aunreasonable) ainterpretation aof athe aprovisions ato

athe aextent awhere aprivate adefence ais ahardly aadequate aas aa adefence, adefeating athe aintention aof

athe aprovision. aThe ainconsistency abetween athe ajudicial ainterpretation aand athe aintention aof athe

aCode aframers ais aexemplified ain athe ainterpretation aof a“reasonable aapprehension” aunder

aSections a100 aand a102. aEvidently, athe alocal acourts ahave aadopted aa astrict aobjective aapproach

ain adetermining a“reasonable aapprehension”, aignoring aits ainherent aambiguity. aThis ais ain

Page 14
acontrast ato athe acurrent aEnglish alaw athat ajudges athe anature aof athe adanger awholly aaccording

ato athat aof athe aaccused’s aperception a(purely asubjective atest).

PRIVATE aDEFENCE aUNDER aVARIOUS aLEGAL aSYSTEMS

English aLaw

As athe acommon alaw asystem adoes anot aprovide aa astatutory adefinition aof aself-defence, ait ais
aoften athe aopinions aof alegal aauthorities athat aare arelied aupon. aBlack’s aLaw aDictionary

aenumerates atwo aelements athat aare anecessary ato aconstitute aself-defence, anamely: a

• Accused adoes anot aprovoke adifficulty, aand

• There amust abe aimpending aperil awithout aconvenient aor areasonable amode aof aescape.

On athe aother ahand aGlanville aWilliams’ aanalysis aof athe aelements ais amore acomprehensive: a– a

• The aforce ais athreatened aagainst athe aperson,

• The aperson athreatened ais anot athe aaggressor,

• The adanger aof aharm ais aimminent,

• The aforce ais aunlawful,

The aperson athreatened amust aactually abelieve athat aa adanger aexists, athat athe ause aof aforce ais
anecessary aand athat athe akind aand aamount aof aforce abeing aused ais arequired ain athe

acircumstances, aand athat athe aabove abeliefs aare areasonable.

American aLaw

The aposition aunder aAmerican alaw ais aalso avery asimilar. aGreat aimportance ais agiven ato athe
afollowing aconcepts awhen adealing awith athe aconcept aof aself-defence. a

• Requirement aof areasonableness a(a areasonable aand ahonest abelief ais aessential),

• Only athat aamount aof aforce ashould abe aused awhich areasonably aappears anecessary ato
aprevent athe athreatened aharm.

Page 15
Thus, ait acan abe aseen athat ain athe avarious alegal asystems aof athe aworld, athere aare acertain
acommon aestablished aprinciples apertaining ato aself-defence.

SOME aLANDMARK aCASES aON aPRIVATE aDEFENCE

• Darshan aSingh aV. aState aOf aPunjab5

The aSupreme aCourt alaid adown aGuidelines afor aRight aOf aPrivate aDefence afor aCitizens. aIt
aobserved athat aa aperson acannot abe aexpected ato aact ain aa acowardly amanner awhen aconfronted

awith aan aimminent athreat ato alife aand ahas agot aevery aright ato akill athe aaggressor ain aself

adefense. aA abench acomprising aJustices aDalveer aBhandari aand aAsok aKumar aGanguly, awhile

aacquitting aa aperson aof amurder, asaid athat awhen aenacting aSection a96 ato a106 aof athe aIPC, athe

aLegislature aclearly aintended ato aarouse aand aencourage athe aspirit aof aself-defense aamongst athe

acitizens, awhen afaced awith agrave adanger. a

“The alaw adoes anot arequire aa alaw-abiding acitizen ato abehave alike aa acoward awhen aconfronted
awith aan aimminent aunlawful aaggression. aAs arepeatedly aobserved aby athis acourt, athere ais

anothing amore adegrading ato athe ahuman aspirit athan ato arun aaway ain aface aof adanger. aRight aof

aprivate adefense ais athus adesigned ato aserve aa asocial apurpose aand adeserves ato abe afostered

awithin athe aprescribed alimit.” a

The acourt alaid adown aten aguidelines awhere aright aof aself-defence ais aavailable ato aa acitizen, abut
aalso awarned athat ain athe adisguise aof aself-defence, aone acannot abe aallowed ato aendanger aor

athreaten athe alives aand aproperties aof aothers aor afor athe apurpose aof ataking apersonal arevenge.

aThe aapex acourt aconcluded aby asaying athat aa aperson awho ais aunder aimminent athreat ais anot

aexpected ato ause aforce aexactly arequired ato arepel athe aattack aand ahis abehaviour acannot abe

aweighed aon a“golden ascales.” a

The aCourt adeclared atheir alegal aposition aunder athe afollowing a10 aguidelines: a

5
a1953 aAIR a83

Page 16
1. Self-preservation ais aa abasic ahuman ainstinct aand ais aduly arecognized aby athe acriminal
ajurisprudence aof aall acivilized acountries. aAll afree, ademocratic aand acivilized acountries

arecognize athe aright aof aprivate adefense awithin acertain areasonable alimits. a

2. The aright aof aprivate adefense ais aavailable aonly ato aone awho ais asuddenly aconfronted
awith athe anecessity aof aaverting aan aimpending adanger aand anot aof aself-creation.

3. A amere areasonable aapprehension ais aenough ato aput athe aright aof aself-defense ainto
aoperation. aIn aother awords, ait ais anot anecessary athat athere ashould abe aan aactual

acommission aof athe aoffence ain aorder ato agive arise ato athe aright aof aprivate adefense. aIt ais

aenough aif athe aaccused aapprehended athat asuch aan aoffence ais acontemplated aand ait ais

alikely ato abe acommitted aif athe aright aof aprivate adefense ais anot aexercised.

4. The aright aof aprivate adefense acommences aas asoon aas aa areasonable aapprehension aarises
aand ait ais aco-terminus awith athe aduration aof asuch aapprehension.

5. It ais aunrealistic ato aexpect aa aperson aunder aassault ato amodulate ahis adefense astep aby
astep awith aany aarithmetical aexactitude.

6. In aprivate adefense athe aforce aused aby athe aaccused aought anot ato abe awholly
adisproportionate aor amuch agreater athan anecessary afor aprotection aof athe aperson aor

aproperty.

7. It ais awell asettled athat aeven aif athe aaccused adoes anot aplead aself-defense, ait ais aopen ato
aconsider asuch aa aplea aif athe asame aarises afrom athe amaterial aon arecord.

8. The aaccused aneed anot aprove athe aexistence aof athe aright aof aprivate adefense abeyond
areasonable adoubt.

9. The aIndian aPenal aCode aconfers athe aright aof aprivate adefense aonly awhen athe aunlawful
aor awrongful aact ais aan aoffence.

10. A aperson awho ais ain aimminent aand areasonable adanger aof alosing ahis alife aor alimb amay,
ain aexercise aof aself adefense, ainflict aany aharm a(even aextending ato adeath) aon ahis

aassailant aeither awhen athe aassault ais aattempted aor adirectly athreatened.

Page 17
 • Yogendra aMoraji aV. aState6

The aSupreme aCourt adiscussed ain adetail athe aextent aand athe alimitations aof athe aright aof aprivate
adefence aof abody. aOne aof athe aaspects aemphasized aby athe acourt awas athat athere amust abe ano

asafe aor areasonable amode aof aescape aby aretreat afor athe aperson aconfronted awith aan aimpending

aperil ato alife aor aof agrave abodily aharm aexcept aby ainflicting adeath aon athe aassailant. aThis

aaspect ahas acreate aquite aa aconfusion aas ait aindirectly asuggests athat aonce ashould afirst atry ato

asee athe apossibility aof aa aretreat athan ato adefend aby ausing aforce, awhich ais acontrary ato athe

aprinciple athat athe alaw adoes anot aencourage acowardice aon athe apart aof aone awho ais aattacked.

aBut aanother aviewpoint ais athat athis aretreat atheory ain afact ais aan aacceptance aof athe aEnglish

acommon alaw aprinciple aof adefence aof abody aor aproperty aunder awhich athe acommon alaw acourts

aalways ainsisted ato alook afirst aas ato awhether athe aaccused acould aprevent athe acommission aof

acrime aagainst ahim aby aretreating. a

• Nand aKishore aLal aV. aEmperor7

Accused awho awere aSikhs, aabducted aa aMuslim amarried awoman aand aconverted aher ato
aSikhism. aNearly aa ayear aafter athe aabduction, athe arelatives aof athe awoman’s ahusband acame aand

ademanded athat ashe areturn. aThe aaccused arefused ato acomply aand athe awoman aherself aexpressly

astated aher aunwillingness ato arejoin aher aMuslim ahusband. aThereupon athe ahusband’s arelatives

aattempted ato atake aher aaway aby aforce. aThe aaccused aresisted athe aattempt aand ain aso adoing aone

aof athem ainflicted aa ablow aon athe ahead aof athe awoman’s aassailants, awhich aresulted ain athe

alatter’s adeath. aIt awas aheld athat athe aright aof athe aaccused ato adefend athe awoman aagainst aher

aassailants aextended aunder athis asection ato athe acausing aof adeath aand athey ahad, atherefore,

acommitted ano aoffence. a

• Mohinder Pal Jolly V. State Of Punjab8

6
aAIR a1980 aSC a660
7
a81 aInd aCas a158
8
1979 AIR 577

Page 18
 • Workers of a factory threw brickbats from outside the gates, and the factory owner by a
shot from his revolver caused the death of a worker, it was held that this section did not
protect him, as there was no apprehension of death or grievous hurt.

• Mithu Pandey V. State9

Two persons armed with ‘tangi’ and ‘danta’ respectively were supervising collection of fruit by
labourers from the trees that were in the possession of the accused persons who protested against
the act. In the altercation that followed one of the accused suffered multiple injuries because of the
assault. The accused used force resulting in death. The Patna High Court held that the accused
were entitled to the right of private defence even to the extent of causing death.

• Jassa Singh V. State Of Haryana10

The Supreme Court held that the right of private defence of property would not extend to the
causing of the death of the person who committed such acts if the act of trespass is in respect of an
open land. Only a house trespass committed under such circumstances as may reasonably caused
death or grievous hurt is enumerated as one of the offences under Section 103.

CONCLUSION

The topic on right to private defence basically provides the application and of different remedies
from, offences which are in itself punishable under the Indian Penal Code, of India. As we conclude
the project we come to know about various aspects of the application and evolution of this code in
the Chapter IV. The origins has been started dating back to the evolution by the very creator of the
code Lord Macaulay, who on understanding that if such a remedy to different offences are not
provided under this code, then it would be unjust to the people residing in this country. The
majority of the project is a doctrinal detailed for of research where we elucidated various factors
of the right to private defence ranging from sections 96 -106; with detailed breakthrough
accompanying with definite number of case laws and case studies for a candid outlook.

9
1982 AIR 71
10
1991 AIR 546

Page 19
In general, private defence is an excuse for any crime against the person or property. It also applies
to the defence of a stranger, and may be used not only against culpable but against innocent
aggressors. The defence is allowed only when it is immediately necessary-against threatened
violence. A person who acts under a mistaken belief in the need for defence is protected, except
that the mistake must be reasonable. In principle, it should be enough that the force used was in
fact necessary for defence, even though the actor did not know this; but the law is not clear. There
is no duty to retreat, as such, but even a defender must wherever possible make plain his desire to
withdraw from the combat. The right of private defence is not lost by reason of the defender’s
having refused to comply with unlawful commands.

The force used in defence must be not only necessary for the purpose of avoiding the attack but
also reasonable, i.e. proportionate to the harm threatened; the rule is best stated in the negative
form that the force must not be such that a reasonable man would have regarded it as being out of
all proportion to the danger.

The carrying of firearms and other offensive weapons is generally forbidden, but (1) a thing is not
an “offensive weapon” if it is not offensive per se and is carried only to frighten; (2) a person does
not “have it with him” if he merely snatches it up in the emergency of defence.

The right of defence avails against the police if they act illegally, but the defender cannot take
benefit from a mistake as to the law of arrest or self-defence. The traditional rule is that even death
may be inflicted in defence of the possession of a dwelling.

The occupier of premises may use necessary and reasonable force to defend them against a
trespasser, or one reasonably thought to be a trespasser; and it seems that even a licensee (such as
a lodger) can eject trespassing strangers. It is a statutory offence to set spring guns or mantraps,
except in a dwelling house between sunset and sunrise. It has not been decided whether the
exception operates to confer an exemption from the ordinary law of offences against the person.
Such defences as spikes and dogs are lawful if reasonable. Guard dogs must, by statute, be kept
under full control, except in private houses or on agricultural land.

Page 20
Thus, we can see the right of private defence is very helpful in giving citizens a weapon which in
a case that it’s not misused is subject to certain restrictions, helps them protect their and others’
lives and property.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, thirty second edition(2016), Lexis Nexis

• K.D. Gaur, The Indian Penal Code, Sixth Edition(2018), Universal Law Publishing

• SCC Online, https://www.scconline.in/default.aspx

• R.K Saxena, Indian Penal Code, twentieth edition, (2017), Central Law Publishing

Page 21