Abstract:
Private defence is a fundamental right afforded to every citizen of India, allowing them to protect themselves from external threats that may cause harm or injury. In simple terms, it entails the use of otherwise illegal actions to safeguard oneself, others, or property, and to prevent crimes. Sections 96 to 106 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 delineate the provisions regarding private defence in India. In any free society, citizens should possess the right to private defence to shield themselves when state assistance is unavailable or unfeasible. This right must be balanced with the state’s duty to safeguard its citizens and their assets.
Although initially granted as a means of self-protection, private defence is sometimes abused by individuals who misuse it as a pretext for committing crimes. Consequently, this right is subject to certain restrictions and limitations. While private defence serves as a tool for self-protection, its misuse for unlawful purposes underscores the need for judicial scrutiny to ascertain whether it was exercised in good faith. The degree to which this right is exercised hinges not on the actual threat but on the reasonable apprehension of danger. Although an accused may extend this right under certain circumstances, it must be within limits that do not undermine the essence of private defence.
Identification of Issues:
- Limited Availability of Right to Private Defense: The right to private defence is constrained by the condition that it is only accessible when recourse to public authorities is not available to the individual. This raises concerns about the circumstances under which public authorities may be deemed inaccessible and the criteria for such determination. The issue prompts questions about the effectiveness and accessibility of public authorities in ensuring citizen safety, and the implications of relying solely on private defence in situations where public assistance is unavailable or inadequate.
- Reasonableness of Apprehension: The extent of exercising the right to private defence is not solely dependent on the actual level of danger but rather on the reasonableness of the individual’s apprehension of the danger. This raises issues regarding the subjective nature of assessing perceived threats and the potential for discrepancies in determining the reasonableness of the individual’s response. It highlights the need for legal standards to evaluate the reasonableness of apprehension in various circumstances.
- Misuse of the Right of Private Defense: There is a concern regarding the misuse of the right to private defence, where individuals may exploit it as a pretext for committing unlawful actions. This issue underscores the importance of distinguishing between legitimate self-defense and wrongful acts disguised under the pretext of private defence. It calls for mechanisms to prevent abuse and ensure accountability in the exercise of this right.
- Burden of Proof: In cases involving private defence, there is a question regarding the allocation of the burden of proof. Determining the burden of proof involves clarifying whether the burden lies with the individual invoking private defence to justify their actions or with the prosecution to disprove the claim of private defence. This issue highlights the need for clear legal guidelines to establish the burden of proof and ensure fairness in judicial proceedings.
- Reasonableness of Defense Used: Another issue pertains to the reasonableness of the defence employed by individuals exercising their right to private defence. This involves assessing whether the actions taken were proportionate to the perceived threat and whether less harmful alternatives were available. It underscores the importance of considering the context and circumstances surrounding the use of force in self-defence.
In summary, these issues reflect the complexities and challenges inherent in the application of the right to private defence. Addressing these concerns requires clear legal frameworks, standards, and procedures to ensure that the right to private defence is exercised judiciously and in accordance with principles of fairness, reasonableness, and accountability.
Sections 96 to 106 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 :
- Section 96 :
Explanation: Section 96 establishes the foundational principle that every person has the inherent right to defend themselves or others against any offence affecting the human body. nothing is a crime which is done in the exercise of private defence
Illustration: M is attacked by N with a knife. In self-defence, M picks up a stick and strikes N. M has exercised his right of private defence.
- Section 97 :
Section 97 extends the right of private defence to the extent of causing harm or death if necessary to protect oneself, others, or property from imminent danger.
Illustration: C, confronted by D attempting robbery at gunpoint, disarms D in self-defense. C’s actions of causing harm to D to protect himself are justified under the right of private defence.
- Section 98 :
when an act which would otherwise be a certain crime is not that offence because of the unsoundness of mind or intoxication of that particular person doing that act,then also one has the right to exercise his private defence that means each and every person has the same right of private defence against the act which he would have if the act were that crime
illustration :M because of his unsoundness of mind attempts to kill N .M is guilty of no offence but N has the same right of private defence which he would have if M were sane
- Section 99 :
of the Indian Penal Code delineates the limitations of the right of private defence. The section establishes three significant restrictions:
No Defence Against Acts of Local Authorities: Individuals do not have the right of private defence against the actions of a public servant or any person acting under their authority if such actions are carried out in good faith and within the scope of their legal duties. However, these actions must not be inherently unlawful and must not pose a reasonable threat of death or grievous harm.
No Defence Against Public Authority: There is no right of private defence against actions undertaken by public authorities in the exercise of their official duties.
Proportionality of Force: The accused must not use more force than is necessary to exercise the right of private defence. This means that the force employed must be proportionate to the threat faced and should not exceed what is reasonably required to repel the danger.
- Section 100:
It talks about the right of private defence of the body extends to causing death or harm to the assailant under specific circumstances, as described below:
If the assault reasonably leads to the fear that death will be the consequence.
If the assault reasonably leads to the fear that grievous hurt will be the consequence.
If the assault is with the intention of accomplishing rape.
If the assault is with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust.
If the assault is with the intention of kidnapping or abducting.
If the assault is with the intention of wrongfully confining a person, under circumstances where they might reasonably fear they will be unable to seek help from public authorities for their release.
If there’s an act of throwing or administering acid, or an attempt to do so, which reasonably causes apprehension that grievous hurt will result from the act.
Under these circumstances, individuals are legally permitted to use force, including causing death if necessary, to defend themselves or others from imminent harm. The law acknowledges the severity of these situations, where the threat posed by the assailant justifies the use of lethal or harmful force in self-defence. These provisions ensure that individuals have the legal means to protect themselves from severe harm or death in situations of imminent danger.
- Section 101:
Section 101 of the Indian Penal Code deals with situations where the right of private defence of the body extends to causing harm other than death. It stipulates that such action may be justified when there is a reasonable apprehension of grievous harm, and the individual invoking the right of private defence has no reasonable means of escape.
- Section 102:
Section 102 of the Indian Penal Code addresses the commencement and continuance of the right of private defence regarding the body.
Commencement: Individuals can exercise the right of private defence as soon as they reasonably perceive a threat to their body, even if the threat is imminent or someone threatens to commit an offence.
Extent of Exercise: The right of private defence is based on the reasonable apprehension of danger rather than the actual danger. Individuals are entitled to defend themselves against any reasonable perception of danger.
Continuance: The right of private defence can be exercised as long as the fear of danger persists, allowing individuals to respond to ongoing threats to their bodily integrity.
- Section 103:
This section of the law asserts that under specific circumstances involving a threat to property, whether it belongs to oneself or another individual, and whether it’s movable or immovable, the right of private defence can extend to causing the death of a person.
In essence, it implies that individuals are legally permitted to use lethal force in defense of property when faced with certain grave threats. However, the conditions under which such actions are justifiable are subject to legal scrutiny and must meet the criteria outlined within the legal framework governing the right of private defence.
- Section 104:
If a threat to property falls outside the specific circumstances mentioned earlier, individuals are not entitled to exercise their right of private defence to cause death to any person. However, they retain the right to inflict harm other than death on individuals who pose a threat to their property.
- Section 105:
Under this section, it’s crucial to ascertain whether there was a reasonable apprehension of danger to the property. Once such apprehension exists, the right is available to the accused regardless of whether the offense or attempt for the offense has actually occurred.Commencement: The right of private defence can be invoked as soon as an individual reasonably senses danger to the property. The commencement of the right of private defence hinges on reasonable apprehension rather than the actual commission of a crime.
Continuance:
Theft: The right of private defence can be exercised until the offender has not withdrawn from the property, police assistance is obtained, or the property is recovered. Once the thief has withdrawn or the property has been recovered, the right of private defence ceases.
Robbery: The right of private defence can be exercised as long as the offender causes or attempts to cause death, hurt, or wrongful restraint to any person, or as long as the fear of death, hurt, or wrongful restraint persists.
Criminal Trespass and Mischief: The right of private defence can be exercised until the aggressors leave the field. If trespassers use violence against those resisting the criminal trespass, any harm inflicted as an exercise of private defence against the trespassers is justified.
House Breaking by Night: The right of private defence can be exercised until the offense of housebreaking ceases.
The right of private defence ends as soon as the conditions mentioned above cease to operate, and individuals can no longer exercise the right of private defence.
- Section 106:
In situations where a person reasonably anticipates a threat to their life, yet exercising the right of private defence might inadvertently cause harm to an innocent person, they still retain the right to exercise such defence. However, if in the course of exercising their right of private defence, they inadvertently injure an innocent person, they will not be held liable for this act.
Conclusion:
the right of private defence is widely recognized in the legal systems of almost all countries today. It grants individuals the authority to protect themselves, as well as the bodies and properties of others, from harm or unlawful aggression. When individuals act in self-defence or in defence of others, they are not considered to have committed an offense. However, this right is subject to certain limitations and conditions, ensuring that its exercise remains within the bounds of reason and legality.
Reference:
Author: Sristy Dey, A student at JIS University
