This article has been written by Ms Arundhathi G, a 3rd year BA LLB Student from Bharati Vidyapeeth Deemed to be University, New Law College, Pune.

Introduction 

 The Indian Penal Code has given every citizen of India the right to private protection of the body. The main responsibility of the state is to secure the life and property of the citizen, but the fact is that the state cannot look at every effort of the citizens. A situation may arise where the state cannot help a person uncontrollably when life or property is in danger. Therefore, the STK granted the right to private defence. The right to private defence is based on two different principles:

1. Everyone has the right to private defence of their own body and property. 
2. The right to private defence does not apply in cases where the aggressor is the accused himself. 

 General principles 

 A two-judge SC bench in Darshan Singh vs State of Punjab and Another laid down the principles of private defence. 

1. Self-defense is a mortal nature, and the criminal activity of every socialized nation discovers it. 
2. All free, law-based and enlightened nations enjoy the honour of private defence within certain reasonable limits. The honour of private defence belongs only to the one who suddenly resists the need to fend off an emerging threat, not to set a tone. 
3. Irrelevant reasonable suspicion is sufficient to place private defence in the public interest. After all, it is not unreasonable for the other side of the private defence to have a genuine commitment to crime. Imprisonment of the accused is sufficient if such a crime is investigated and expected to be exposed if the right of private defence is not explained. 
4. The right of private defence begins when reasonable fear appears and is seen by the duration of similar fear 
5. It is unreasonable to expect the person under attack to gradually adjust his defences to any arithmetical perfection. 
6. In private defence, the force used by the accused should not be completely disproportionate or much more visible than would normally apply to the safety of persons or property; 
7. All agree that regardless of whether the accused does not plead a defence,  such a plea may be considered if the material on record reveals the original. 
8. The accused shall not show his presence after reasonable arrest in honour of private defence 
9. The Indian Penal Code grants the right of private defence only when the illegal or unlawful act in question is a crime. 
10. A creature in direct and acceptable capture, or in danger of losing its life or aids, can use self-defence or private defence to process mischief in any case by killing its attacker either in an attempted attack or in imminent danger.

 Private defence of the body  

1. If a person is attacked in such a way as to make him believe that if he does not exercise his right of private defence, such an attack will result in death. 
2. When a person is attacked in a way that creates in his mind that if he does not exercise his right to private defence, a similar attack will cause great harm. 
3. When a person is assaulted to get ravished. 
4. When a person is attacked with the intention of unnatural lust (unnatural sexual desire).  
5. If the person was abused by being abducted or kidnapped.
6. When a person is ill-treated and unjustly imprisoned, and the thought arises in the person’s mind that he is no longer fit for purpose for the authorities.
7. If someone suspects that acid is being directed or thrown at him and does not exercise his right to private defence, serious injury will result. 

 The right to private defence is preventive, not punitive

 The Supreme Court noted that the right to private defence is a statutory right of defence and it is available only if the person can justify his circumstances. This right exists against a crime, so if the act is done in the exercise of the right of private defence, such an act cannot benefit the attacker. In the case of Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court laid down the following principles of “right to private defence”. 

 “All civilized countries respect the right of private defence, but of course with reasonable limitations. the preservation of tone is respected by the criminal law of all cultivated lands. The right of private defence exists only when a person is forced to attack the danger, not to create it myself 

Reasonable fear is sufficient to exercise the right to self-defence. The crime does not have to be real to justify private self-defence. It is sufficient if the accused limits that the crime is probable if the right of private defence is not exercised.  The right to private defence begins as soon as reasonable arrest occurs and continues as long as reasonable arrest exists. It cannot be foreseen that a person suffering from violence will use his protection step by step. In private defence, the force used by the defendant must be reasonable and necessary to protect the person or property. However, based on the available material, the court may consider the probability of the reality of a similar defence if the accused does not rely on self-defence. The defendant certainly does not have to prove that he had the right to private defence. Under the Indian Penal Code, the right to private defence is only against crime. 

If the person is in immediate and reasonable danger of losing his life or limb; he can use his right of self-defence to cause harm, which can amount to the death of the aggressor. Chapter IV of the IPC, comprising sections 76 to 106, explains the general defences that can be taken as an exception to any offence. The right of private defence explains that if the act is in private defence, it is not a crime. The right to defend oneself does not include the right to initiate a crime, especially when there is no longer a need to defend oneself. The right of private defence must be exercised in direct proportion to the extent of the aggression. There is no corresponding in-depth formula for checking whether a person’s action is covered by private protection or not. It depends on the circumstances in which the person acted. The issue is whether a person acted lawfully in a certain situation to exercise his right to self-defence. When deciding this question of fact, the court must consider the facts and circumstances. However, the court is willing to consider the basis of the action, if the circumstances show that the right of private defense has been used legally. There are some factors to consider when considering a private defence act  –

1. Whether the authorities had enough time to adjust or not 
2. Whether the damage caused was greater than justified or not 
3. Whether it was necessary to perform similar actions or not 
4. Whether the accused was the aggressor or not 
5. Whether serious injury or injury to body or property, if there was reason to suspect death.  

 Conclusion 

The right of private defence is a weapon of self-defence for Indian citizens, but many people often use it for evil or illegal purposes. The court must satisfy itself that the right was exercised in good faith or not. The passage of the right of private defence depends on actual danger, not on factual peril. This right can only be extended to a certain extent in certain situations. The force used should only be necessary to repel the attack.

References

1. https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-9582-right-of-private-defence-under-ipc.html#:~:text=Private%20defence%20is%20a%20right,prevent%20any%20other%20criminal%20activity.
2. https://blog.ipleaders.in/privathe-defence-under-ipc/ 
3. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/readersblog/lawpedia/right-of-private-defence-33052/
4. Darshan Singh vs State of Punjab and Another, Criminal Appeal No. 1688 of 2009.