Right to Private Defense and Law in India

The Indian Penal Code's Sections 96 to 106 lay out the rules for the right to individual property and personal defense. When immediate assistance from the state apparatus is not readily available, these sections' provisions allow a man to use necessary force against an attacker or wrongdoer to protect his own body and property, as well as another person's body and property, while remaining legally unresponsible for his actions.

The first rule of criminal law is self-help. To safeguard one's life, liberty, and property, one must have the right to self-defense at all costs. It is a natural human right. But the law is very specific about the kind and amount of force. The term "right of private defense" refers to the use of force to defend one's person and property.

What is Right to Private Defense or Self Defence?

The Indian Penal Code, of 1860, does not define the term "private defense," despite its use there. As a result, the courts have the authority to develop a practical framework for the exercise of this right. Hence, in India, the right to private defense refers to the ability to protect one's own or another's person or property from an action that, absent the right to private defense, would have been considered criminal.

Thus, this privilege establishes a defense against criminal prosecution. According to the IPC, certain aspects of the right to private defense include the fact that no such right cannot exist against an unarmed and non-offending person, that the right is only available against the aggressor, that it only applies to those who are in immediate danger to their person or property, and that it only applies when no state assistance is available. The right to private defense is a fundamental freedom that does not take the form of a privilege but rather arises naturally from specific circumstances.

Scope of Private Defense

According to Section 97 of the Indian Penal Code, every citizen has the right, subject to certain restrictions (described in Section 99), to defend his own body or the body of any other person; any offense affecting the human body; and any property, immovable or movable, of himself or any other person, against any act that constitutes a felony, robbery, theft, larceny, or an attempt to commit a misdemeanor.

As a result, the first principle is self-help or the responsibility each individual has to take care of themselves. From there, a responsibility to take care of others in society develops. Human empathy motivates us to defend other people and their possessions. According to Section 97 of the Indian Penal Code, every citizen has the right, subject to certain restrictions (described in Section 99), to defend his own body or the body of any other person; any offence affecting the human body; and any property, immovable or movable, of himself or any other person, against any act that constitutes a felony, robbery, theft, larceny, or an attempt to commit a misdemeanor.

As a result, the first principle is self-help or the responsibility each individual has to take care of themselves. From there, a responsibility to take care of others in society develops. Human empathy motivates us to defend other people and their possessions.

Judicial View on Private Defense

Every civilised society recognises that protecting life and property is essential, and since the state is unable to always provide that protection because it is impossible for law enforcement to be everywhere at once, everyone has the right to self-defense. Individuals have the legal right to adopt whatever protective measures are deemed to be reasonably required in unique circumstances thanks to the concept of "private defense." In particular, the writers of the Penal Code stated that the private defense provisions were "still in a very imperfect state... we are inclined to think that it must always be one of the least exact parts of every system of criminal law."

Yogendra Moraji V. State

The Supreme Court went into great depth about the scope and restrictions of the right to individual bodily defense. One of the points stressed by the court was that the only safe or rational means of departure for a person facing an imminent threat to their life or serious bodily damage must result in the death of the assailant. This feature has caused quite a bit of confusion because it subtly implies that one should attempt to retreat before employing force to defend themselves, which goes against the idea that the law does not reward cowardice on the part of the attacked party. A different argument is made, however, that this retreat theory is actually an endorsement of the English common law principle of defense of body or property, which requires that courts first consider whether the accused could stop the offense against him by retiring.

Nand Kishore Lal V. Emperor

A married Muslim woman was kidnapped and converted to Sikhism by the accused, who were Sikhs. Nearly a year after the kidnapping, the woman's husband's family showed up and demanded her release. The accused refused to cooperate, and the accused woman herself made it clear that she did not want to reunite with her Muslim husband. The wife was then forcibly removed by the husband's family. The woman's attackers were killed after the accused fought the attack, and one of them did so by striking one of them in the skull. According to this clause, it was determined that the accused had the right to protect the woman against her attackers, up to and including causing death; hence, they had not broken any laws.

Mithu Pandey V. State

The accused people who objected to the act were supervising the collection of fruit by labourers from trees that they owned while two people, each armed with a "tangi" and a "danta," were watching the action. One of the accused had numerous injuries as a result of the assault during the subsequent altercation. Using force, the accused caused death. The Patna High Court ruled that the accused were allowed to use their own defense even if it resulted in death.

Jassa Singh V. State of Haryana

The Supreme Court ruled that if the act of trespassing involves open ground, the right to private property defense does not apply to killing the person who committed the trespass. Only a home invasion that occurred in circumstances that could possibly have resulted in death or serious injury is listed as one of the offences under Section 103.

Conclusion

The right to self-defense is a tool available to Indian citizens, yet it is frequently employed for immoral or illegal ends by a large number of people. It is the responsibility of the court to determine whether the right was exercised in good faith or not. The extent to which the right of private defense may be exercised is determined by genuine danger perception, not by actual danger itself. Only in rare circumstances can this right be partially extended. The amount of force to be applied should only be what is required to stop the attack.

Frequently Asked Question

Q1. What is rule 81 of the Defence of India rules?

Ans. This flaw was fixed during the war by giving the Central Government the authority to submit industrial disputes to adjudicators and to enforce their decisions under Rule 81A of the Defense of India Rules.

Q2. What is section 102 of private defense?

Ans. The right to privately defend one's body kicks in as soon as there is a plausible fear that it will be in danger as a result of an effort or threat to commit an offence, even though the offence may not have been committed. It remains in effect for as long as there is a reasonable fear that the body will be in danger.