Section 96 of the IPC provides that nothing is an offence,which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.Section 97 of the IPC further provides that every person has aright of private defence to defend his own body and the property,subject to the restrictions contained in Section 99. Section 99 of10the IPC provides that there is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by a public servant, or by the direction of a public servant, acting in good under colour of his office, though that act may not be strictly justifiable by law. This provision further provides 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.Sections 100, 101, 102, 103, 104 and 105 respectively of the IPC further provide as under :
"100. 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 :-
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;
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.
-
When such right extends to causing any harm other than death - If the offence be not of any of the descriptions enumerated in the last preceding section, 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.
-
Commencement and continuance of the right of private defence of the body - 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.
-
When the right of private defence of property extends to causing death - 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 :-
First. - Robbery;
Secondly. - House-breaking by night;
Thirdly. - Mischief by fire committed on anybuilding, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or as a place forthe 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.
-
When such right extends to causing any harm other than death - If the offence, the committing of which, or the attempting to commit which, occasions the exercise of the right of private defence, betheft, 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.
-
Commencement and continuance of the right of private defence of property - 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.
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.
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."
In Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab and another reported in (2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases 333, the Supreme Court while considering its various previous judgments on the subject, has summarised the following principles regarding the right of private defence :
“(i) Self-preservation is the basic human instinct andis duly recognised by the criminal jurisprudence of all civilised countries. All free, democratic and civilised countries recognise the right of private defence within certain reasonable limits.
(ii) The right of private defence is available only to one who is suddenly confronted with the necessity of averting an impending danger and not of self-creation.
(iii) A mere reasonable apprehension is enough to put the right of self defence 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 defence. 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 defence is not exercised.
(iv) The right of private defence commences as soon asa reasonable apprehension arises and it is co-terminuswith the duration of such apprehension.
(v) It is unrealistic to expect a person under assault to modulate his defence step by step with any arithmetical exactitude.
(vi) In private defence the force used by the accused ought not to be wholly disproportionate or much greater than necessary for protection of the person or property.
(vii) It is well settled that even if the accused does not plead self-defence, it is open to consider such a plea if the same arises from the material on record.
(viii) The accused need not prove the existence of the right of private defence beyond reasonable doubt.
(ix) The Indian Penal Code confers the right of private defence only when that unlawful or wrongful act is an14offence.
(x) A person who is in imminent and reasonable danger of losing his life or limb may in exercise of self defence inflict any harm even extending to death on his assailant either when the assault is attempted or directly threatened.”
In RATHEESHKUMAR @ BABU VERSUS THE STATE OF KERALA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1049 OF 2018 the Supreme Court held that the Court should take an overall view of the case and if a right of self-defence is made out from the evidence on record, that right should not be construed narrowly because the right of self- defence is a very valuable right and it has a social purpose.