Skip to main content

The Right of Private Defence under IPC

 The Right of Private Defence under IPC

By Shweta Nair


The law does not expect its citizens to be cowards and even though it is a preposterous presumption to say that a person should be allowed to take the law in his own hands, certain situations can be envisaged where it can be justified that a person be allowed to do so. Man is endowed with this inherent right of private defence in order to safeguard one’s life, liberty and property. Thus, when there is no help from the state and a person is in danger from the suspect, it becomes necessary for the person in danger to use reasonable amount of force according to circumstances in order to defend himself or his property. However, it is very important that the law lays down clear cut circumscribing limits within which such right is to operate. 

The word ‘Defence’ contemplates two things- the subject matter to be defended and the aggression against which the defence is to be exercised. The law allows the right to Private Defence to be exercised in respect of the following six things: 

  • One’s own body

  • Another’s personal body 

  • Own movable property 

  • Another person’s movable property 

  • Own immovable property 

  • Another person’s immovable property. 


Body can be protected against any offence relating to human body and property against any offence which falls under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass. 


The limitations to the right of Private Defence as follows: 


  1. The right of Private Defence is not available against a public servant (or a person acting under the directions of a public servant) acting in good faith under the colour of his office. 

Provided that the person knows that he is a public servant and there is no apprehension that death or grievous hurt would otherwise be a result. 

  1. There is no right of Private Defence if there is time to take recourse or seek the help of public authorities. 

  2. The right of Private Defence can be exercised only to the extent to which it is necessary for the purpose of defence and not more. 

The last point i.e., determining the extent to which such right can be exercised is of extreme importance and tricky to lay down. Here, the law has only prescribed circumstances under which the right of Private Defence can extend to the causation of death. In all other cases, the person defending can cause any other harm except death. 


The right of Private Defence of the body may extend to the causation of death if there is an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension of: 


  • Death

  • Grievous hurt

  • Rape

  • Unnatural lust

  • Kidnapping or Abduction 

  • Wrongful confinement where there could be no chance of going to public authorities. 

  • Acid Attack (New Amendment) 


In any other offences apart from the ones mentioned above, it is limited to causing of harm and does not extend to causation of death. 


It is elaborated that the right of private defence to body as well as property commences as soon as apprehension of danger crop up from attempt to threat to commit an offence and continues till the time such apprehension of danger to the body or property continues.

The right of Private Defence of property may extend to the causation of death in case of the following offences or an attempt to commit any of them. 

  • Robbery

  • Housebreaking by night

  • Mischief by fire in any building, tent etc. 

  • Theft or Mischief or House trespass coupled with the apprehension that death or grievous hurt may be caused. 


In Yogendra Moraji v. State, various limitations and extent of such right was deliberated by the Supreme Court wherein it was held that there should not be any way of ebbing for a person in danger that is to prevent the commission of the crime besides affecting any harm or death on the attacker. This thing should be looked at carefully while analysing a case. 


In Jassa Singh v. State of Haryana, it was held by the Supreme Court that this right does not extend to the act of causing death to the person who caused such an act if it is trespass in an open land. Only a house trespass is covered under such act. 


Thus, the right of private defence is an essential right for each and every person. Protection of one’s own body and property is of utmost importance. 
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more