IPC Section 96 to 106 of the Penal Code states the law relating to the right of Private defence of person and property. The provision contained in these actions 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.

Nature of the right :-
• The right of private defence is purely preventive and not Punitive Or retributive.
• Danger must be real.
• Right can not be based upon Surmises.
• The right of private defence is subject to limitation mention in section 99 clause (3) and (4).

To justify exercise of right of Private defence the following are to be examine:–
• Entire accident
• Injuries received by the accused.
• Injuries caused by the accused.
• Immense of threat to it’s safety.
• Circumstances whether the accused had time to have recourse to the public authorities.

Right of private defence versus necessity :-
The right of private defence arises from necessity that is necessity for self preservation however the concept of necessity is wider and consequently it can’t be said that whenever there is necessity there is right of private defence.
As expressed in Thangavel case : The general proverb of 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.

CASE ANALYSIS – VISHWANATH vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (1960 AIR 67, 1960 SCR (1) 646)
Facts :-
The relations between one G and his better half were strained. She went to live with her dad B and her sibling V, the litigant. G, with three others, went to the quarter of B and headed inside and came out hauling his reluctant wife behind him. She grasped the entryway and G began pulling her. At this, the litigant yelled to his dad that G was unyielding, and immediately B answered that he ought to be beaten. The litigant took out a blade from his pocket and stabbed G once. The blade entered his heart, and he died.
B and the litigant were pursued for homicide of G; B was acquitted and the litigant was convicted under S. 304 Part II Indian Penal Code and condemned to three years rigorous imprisonment. The litigant fought that he had acted under private defence of individual under Section 100 Indian Penal Code, which extended to the causing of death as G had attacked his significant other with the goal of stealing her.

Issues :-
Is it justifiable under the circumstances to assert the right to private body defence under section 100?

Judgment :-
It was decided that the appealing party had the right to private protection of his sister’s remains, which extended to the cause of G’s death. When an attack of one of the kinds mentioned in the six sections of Section 100 occurred, the all-encompassing right under that section arose. It was not required for the assault to be performed with the same motive every time to be an offence itself. The term “snatching” employed in Section 100’s fifth provision equated to exactly what was defined as “abduction” in Section 362, and it was not required, in order to obtain the insurance of this declaration, that the snatching be of a criminal nature under the Penal Code. Furthermore, the litigant had not caused any more harm than was necessary and was not accountable for any wrongdoing.

Relevance of the Case:-
The right to private bodily defence is protected by section 100 of the IPC. It asserts that any act done to protect the body in self-defense that may result in death is justified if done under the circumstances of death, grave bodily harm, rape, kidnapping, or wrongful incarceration.

CASE ANALYSIS :- KISHAN vs. STATE OF M.P. (AIR 1974 SC 244)
Facts :-
One evening, the accused went to the house of the deceased where the deceased was supervising the foundation-digging near his house. An argument arose between the two over some topics. After the argument, the accused gave a warning that he will not leave the deceased and went away. He again came back in the evening when the deceased was alone. The accused, along with his brother, arrived with lathis and gun. The accused assaulted the deceased with lathis. In his self-defence, the deceased also beat him back due to which one of the accused fell and became unconscious. Seeing this, the other accused gave several blows with the lathis on the deceased head due to which he became unconscious and later died.

Issues :-
Whether the act was an act of private defence?

Judgment :-
The accused assaulted the dead because they were afraid he would beat them as well, according to the Trial Court. As a result, they were correct in punching the deceased back in self-defense. The case was appealed to the HC, which ruled that the accused’s actions were not justified because they came to the deceased with full preparedness to beat him and then when the deceased hit them back in self-defense, the accused could not claim private defence by killing him. As a result, the HC found him guilty under Section 302 of the IPC.

Relevance of the Case :-
The right to private bodily defence is protected by section 100 of the IPC. It asserts that any act done to protect the body in self-defense that may result in death is justified if done under the circumstances of death, grave bodily harm, rape, kidnapping, or wrongful incarceration. The HC properly found in this instance that the accused’s deed was not justifiable because they came to the dead with full preparation to beat him and then when the deceased hit them back in self-defense, the accused could not claim private defence by killing him.

Aishwarya Says:

I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.

If you are interested in participating in the same, do let me know.

Do follow me on Facebook, Twitter  Youtube and Instagram.

The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.

If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at adv.aishwaryasandeep@gmail.com

We also have a Facebook Group Restarter Moms for Mothers or Women who would like to rejoin their careers post a career break or women who are enterpreneurs.

We are also running a series Inspirational Women from January 2021 to March 31,2021, featuring around 1000 stories about Indian Women, who changed the world. #choosetochallenge