RIGHT TO PRIVATE DEFENCE

 RIGHT TO PRIVATE DEFENCE

Crime is seen as the international commission of an act usually deemed socially harmful or dangerous and specifically defined, prohibited, and punishable under criminal law. 

Crime is also defined as an illegal act for which someone can be punished by the government especially; a gross violation of the law.

Criminal behavior is defined by the laws of particular jurisdictions and there are sometimes vast differences between and even within countries regarding what types are prohibited. Conduct that is lawful in one country or jurisdiction may be criminal in another, and activity that amounts to a trivial infraction in one jurisdiction may constitute a serious crime elsewhere.

In India, criminal law is stated in the Indian penal code. It contains 511 sections, but this article talks about the very important right known as the right to private defense. The state has the responsibility to protect its citizens, but in certain circumstances state might not be present to protect the citizen every time. 

Section 96 to 106 of the Indian penal code, 1860 provides for provisions relating to the right to private defense of person and property. This right can only be exercised when recourse to public authorities is not available to a person.  This principle is based on the ‘reasonableness’ of the defense used. The extent to exercise the right of private defense depends on the reasonableness of the apprehension of the danger and not on the extent of actual danger.

The Thangavel is the case where it was held that the general proverb or adage that ‘ necessity knows no law’ does not find a place in modern jurisprudence. The right to self-preservation is inherent in every person but to achieve that end nothing could be done that militates against the right of another person. 

Case; Kamparsare v. Putappa, in this case, it was held that where a boy in a street was raising a cloud of dust and an asset –by therefore chased the boy and beat him, it was held that the passer-by committed no offense. His act was one in the exercise of the right of private defense.

Case; Chotelal v. State, B was constructing a structure on land subject to disputes between A and B. A was trying to demolish the same. B, therefore, assaulted A with a lathi. It was held that A was responsible for the crime of waste and B had therefore a right to defend his property. 

Case; Parichhat V. State of M.P, A lathi blow on his father's head, his son, the accused, gave a blow with a Ballam on the chest of the deceased. The court decided that the accused had obviously exceeded his right to private defense.

Case; Mohinder Pal Jolly v. the State of Punjab, workers of a factory threw brickbats and the factory owner by short from his revolver caused the death of a worker, it was held that this section did not protect him as there was no apprehension of death or grievous hurt.