What is the IPC self Defence?

IPC Section 96 to 106 of the penal code states the law relating to the right of private defence of person and property.

The provisions contained in these sections give authority to a man to use necessary force against an assailant or wrong-doer for the purpose of protecting one’s own body and property as also another’s body and property when immediate aid from the state machinery is not readily available and in so doing he is not answerable in law for his deeds. Section 97 says that the right of private defence is of 2 types:
(i) Right of private defence of body,
(ii) Right of private defence of property.

Body may be one’s own body or the body of another person and likewise property may be movable or immovable and may be of oneself or of any other person. Self-help is the first rule of criminal law. The right of private defence is absolutely necessary for the protection of one’s life, liberty and property. It is a right inherent in a man. But the kind and amount of force is minutely regulated by law. The use of force to protect one’s property and person is called the right of private defence.

Nature of The Right

It is the first duty of man to help himself. The right of self-defence must be fostered in the Citizens of every free country. The right is recognised in every system of law and its extent varies in the inverse ratio to the capacity of the state to protect life and property of the subject( citizens). It is the primary duty of the state to protect the life and property of the individuals, but no state, no matter how large its resources, can afford to depute a policeman to dog the steps of every rouge in the country. Consequently this right has been given by the state to every citizen of the country to take law into his own hand for their safety. One thing should be clear that, there is no right of private defence when there is time to have recourse to the protection of police authorities. The right is not dependent on the actual criminality of the person resisted. It depends solely on the wrongful or apparently wrongful character of the act attempted, if the apprehension is real and reasonable, it makes no difference that it is mistaken. An act done in exercise of this right is not an offence and does not, therefore, give rise to any right of private defence in return.

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. While it is true that law does not expect from the person, whose life is placed in danger, to weigh, with nice precision, the extent and the degrees of the force which he employs in his defence, it also does not countenance that the person claiming such a right should resort to force which is out of all proportion to the injuries received or threatened and far in excess of the requirement of the case. The onus of proving the right of private defence is upon the person who wants to plead it. But an accused may be acquitted on the plea of the right of private defence even though he has not specifically pleaded it.

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 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.

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.

Thangavel case:
The general proverb or adage that “necessity knows no law” does not find a place in modern jurisprudence. The right of self-preservation is inherent in every person but to achieve that end nothing could be done which militates against the right of another person. In the other words, “society places a check on the struggle for existence where the motive of self-preservation would dictate a definite aggression on an innocent person”.

Kamparsare vs Putappa:
Where a boy in a street was raising a cloud of dust and a passer-by therefore chased the boy and beat him, it was held that the passer-by committed no offence. His act was one in exercise of the right of private defence.

Section 97.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 criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief for criminal trespass.

This Section limits exercise of the right of private defence to the extent of absolute necessity. It must not be more than necessary for defending aggression. There must be reasonable apprehension of danger that comes from the aggressor in the form of aggression. This Section divides the right of private defence into two parts, i.e. the first part deals with the right of private defence of person, and the second part with the right of private defence of property. To invoke the plea of right of private defence there must be an offence committed or attempted to be committed against the person himself exercising such a right, or any other person. The question of the accrual of the right of the private defence, however, does not depend upon an injury being caused to the man in question. The right could be exercised if a reasonable apprehension of causing grievous injury can be established. If the threat to person or property of the person is real and immediate, he is not required to weigh in a golden scale the kind of instrument and the force which he exerts on the spur of the moment. The right of private defence extends not only to the defence of one’s own body and property, as under the English law, but also extends to defending the body and property of any other person.

Thus under section 97 even a stranger can defend the person or property of another person and vice versa, whereas under the English law there must be some kind of relationship existing such as father and son, husband and wife, etc., before this right may be successfully exercised. A true owner has every right to dispossess or throw out a trespasser, while the trespasser is in the act or process of trespassing but has not accomplished his mission; but this right is not available to the true owner if the trespasser has been successful in accomplishing possession and his success is known by the true owner. In such circumstances the law requires that the true owner should dispossess the trespasser by taking recourse to the remedies available under the law. The onus of establishing plea of right of private defence is on the accused though he is entitled to show that this right is established or can be sustained on the prosecution evidence itself. The right of private defence is purely preventive and not punitive or retributive. Once it is held that the party of the accused were the aggressors, then merely because a gun was used after some of the party persons had received several injuries at the hands of those who were protecting their paddy crop and resisting the aggression of the party of the accused, there can be no ground for taking the case out of Section 302, I.P.C., if otherwise the injuries caused bring the case within the definition of murder.

Chotelal vs State:
B was constructing a structure on a land subject to dispute between A and B. A was trying to demolish the same. B therefore assaulted A with a lathi. It was held that A was responsible for the crime of waste and B had therefore a right to defend his property.

Parichhat vs State of M.P:

A lathi blow on his father’s head, his son, the accused, gave a blow with a ballam on the chest of the deceased. The court decided that the accused has obviously exceeded his right of private defence.

IPC Section 98. Right of private defence against the act of a person of unsound mind, etc:

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.

Illustrations:-
# 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.
# 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.

This Section lay down that for the purpose of exercising the right of private defence, physical or mental capacity of the person against whom it is exercised is no bar. In other words, the right of private defence of body exists against all attackers, whether with or without mens rea. The above mentioned illustration are pointing a fact that even if an attacker is protected by some exception of law, that does not diminish the danger and risk created from his acts. That is why the right of private defence in such cases also can be exercised, or else it would have been futile and meaningless.

IPC Section 99. Act against which there is no right of private defence:

There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonable 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.

There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonable cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that direction may not be strictly justifiable by law. There is no right of private defence in cases in which there is time to have recourse to the protection of the public authorities.

Extent to which the right may be exercised:--The right to Private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm that it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence.

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, demanded.

Section 99 lays down that the conditions and limits within which the right of private defence can be exercised. The section gives a defensive right to a man and not an offensive right. That is to say, it does not arm a man with fire and ammunition, but encourage him to help himself and others, if there is a reasonable apprehension of danger to life and property. The first two clauses provide that the right of private defence cannot be invoked against a public servant or a person acting in good faith in the exercise of his legal duty provided that the act is not illegal. Similarly , clause three restricts the right of private defence, if there is time to seek help of public authorities. And the right must be exercised in proportion to harm to be inflicted. In other words , there is no right of private defence :
# Against the acts of a public servant; and
# Against the acts of those acting under their authority or direction;
# Where there is sufficient time for recourse to public authorities; and

# The quantam of harm that may be caused shall in no case be in excess of harm that may be necessary for the purpose of defence.

The protection to public servants is not absolute. It is subject to restrictions. The acts in either of these clauses must not be of serious consequences resulting in apprehension of causing death or of grievous hurt which would deprive one of his right of private defence.

To avail the benefit of those clauses ( 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. Good faith plays a vital role under this section. Good faith does not require logical infallibility but due care and caution as defined under Section 52 of the code.

Emperor vs Mammun:

The accused, five in number, went out on a moonlit night armed with clubs, and assaulted a man who was cutting rice in their field. The man received six distinct fractures of the skull-bones besides other wounds and died on the spot. The accused on being charged with murder pleaded right of private defence of their property. Held under Section 99 there is no right of private defence in cases where there is time to have recourse to the protection of the public authorities.

Public prosecute vs Suryanarayan:

On search by customs officers certain goods were found to have been smuggled from Yemen into Indian Territory. In course of search the smugglers attacked the officers and injured them. They argued that the officers had no power to search as there was no notification declaring Yemen a foreign territory under Section 5 of the Indian Tariff Act. It was held, that the officers had acted in good faith and that the accused had no right of private defence.