Site icon Legal Vidhiya

PRIVATE DEFENSE AGAINST THE BODY

Admin
Advertisements
Spread the love

This article is written by Antara Roy of 4th Semester of LL.M (Criminal Law and Criminology) of Kazi Nazrul University, Asansol, West Bengal, an intern under Legal Vidhiya

Abstract-

This right can be used to defend one’s own body, another person’s body, or one’s own property against aggression toward one’s body or property while committing one of the above offenses. The defender does not have to be linked to the person whose body or property is being attacked, according to Indian law on the right to private defense. It grants everyone the right to defend anyone and everyone’s body or property against offenses for which the right to private defense is provided, if the use of force is limited to what is necessary to protect the body or property and the use of force is not excessive.

Keywords-

 Private Defense, Indian Penal Code, Right, crime, Accused person, victim.

Introduction-

 One has the right to protect themselves from harm or restraint. A person also has the right to defend his property from acts that could be considered theft, robbery, mischief, criminal trespass, or attempts to conduct any of those crimes. A system of rules and a piece of legislation that outlaws crime is known as criminal law. Any action that violates the law is considered a crime and is punished. The “Right to private defense” is based on the principle that it is acceptable to use force against someone who is committing a crime in self-defense. It’s an unalienable natural right. The right to life is one of the most fundamental liberties protected by Article 21 of our Constitution, which includes a broad spectrum of rights. The protection of an individual’s life, liberty, and property are all included in this right. As a result, possessing the right to self-defense is crucial for protecting one’s life, property, and freedom.

According to Bentham, the ability to defend oneself is crucial. The vigilance of the Magistrates can never take the place of each person’s vigilance on his or her own behalf. More effectively than the law ever could, the terror of absolute individual opposition can dissuade evildoers. You automatically become a supporter of all bad men if you take away this right. Along with his own property, a person may exercise his right against the property of others. The privilege or right of private property defense must be used to defend against crimes that fall within the categories of burglary, theft, mischief, or criminal trespass, as well as against crimes like robbery, mischief, or house trespass that the individual reasonably dreads or fears may result in death or serious injury. Every person has the choice to throw away his possessions as well as any intruders who enter his land without permission. However, if the trespasser is the owner of the property and the owner considers it, the owner is not entitled to the right of private defense. Consider the word occupier.

This right dates to ancient Rome, Italy, when there were two homicide defenses available: excusable and justifiable. One of the justified defenses was the private defense. This was how private defense began. Lord Macaulay, who believed that one should always employ some degree of force if one injures oneself, introduced this right in India during the colonial era. Since then, the Indian legal system has allowed for private defense. In England, there have been several revisions to the legislation governing private defense. In ancient England, anyone who defended themselves was solely responsible for any harm incurred as a result of doing so. Nevertheless, even homicides committed as a result of Private protection is acceptable.

The Constitution’s Article 21 and the Right to Private Defense

Man acknowledges the Right to Life and Personal Liberty as his/her First Right, as stated in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. In any civilized community, personal life and liberty are given top priority; yet, any restrictions on them must be done so legally. The seven-judge panel of the Supreme Court outlined the principles of reasonableness, which are both legally and philosophically necessary for equality and are also non-arbitrary in nature.[1] Because the statute is only available when it is justified to use, which is under the anticipation of danger and imminent risk to life, limb, property, or property, the so-providing exception under the right to private defense should not be utilized for any retaliatory nature or purpose. Additionally, it empowers strangers to defend the same in the event of a person or piece of property being apprehended. Therefore, courts must exercise caution when making decisions regarding private defense cases. They must be aware of the circumstances surrounding the case because it frequently occurs that people may engage in anti-social behavior under the guise of private defense, such as participating in street fights and similar situations where there is No immediate threat or concern to one’s health, safety, or property.[2]

What is the Detailed Overview of the Private Defense Right?

The right to private defense refers to the ability to defend one’s own person and possessions from unauthorized aggression by others. This right is inalienable and is founded on the fundamental idea that it is a man’s responsibility to help himself. It is important to remember that the right to private defense cannot be used in just any situation. For instance, if the person has the resources to request protection from the state, he cannot use this defense. If that were allowed, people would start acting on their own, and the legal system would quickly degenerate into a giant loophole.

The “Right to a Private Defense” in criminal law is thoroughly explained in “The Indian Penal Code’s” sections 96 to 106, titled “General Exceptions.” In this study project, the idea of “The Right to Private Defense” was addressed in relation to several case laws and the Court of Law’s judicial viewpoint.[3]

The Propositions-

  1. Society assumes this duty and, for the most part, succeeds in protecting ordinary people from unauthorized attacks on their lives and property.
  2. That it must be reported to anyone who can aid it,
  3. That, in the absence of support, the person can take all necessary safety measures for themselves.
  4. Self-defense,
  5. Violence must, however, be employed with consideration for the harm to be averted rather than to sate vengeful or spiteful inclinations.[4] What Is Private Defense?
  6. Self-defense is a flexible concept. This suggests that the legal foundation for self-defense is not fixed and instead varies from country to country and occasionally depending on the particulars of each instance. Since the beginning of time, self-defense has seen substantial modification. Before modern times, the law was based on the principle that would make right,” and the concept of a defense against criminal prosecution had no place in criminal law. But as society got more civilized, the concept of the state began to take hold, and the criminal code now has statutory limitations as part of the state’s obligation to protect citizens’ lives and property.
  7. In a democratic society, the state frequently retains the exclusive right to use force, which means that only the state is allowed to take legal action against and punish criminals. There may be instances, nevertheless, in which a person or his property is in danger right away and neither the state apparatus nor any other authority can help. There is not any other choice in these circumstances. In certain situations, a man is allowed to use physical force to deter a threat to his or another man’s property. The private ‘defensive right’ is this. The word ‘self-defense’ is derived from the Latin verb ‘se defendendo,’ which means “to defend oneself” or ‘private defense.’ Once an
  8. Individuals who lack the resources to rely on the legal system’s protection to protect themselves or their property can use it as a justification for their defense.

Private Defence-

The “Indian Penal Code” does not define “Private defense.’’ The judiciary was asked to define “private defense” because there was no official term. The Right to private defense,’’ or the ability to defend oneself or another’s body solely with one’s own means and without the assistance of government machinery, is a concept. This means that if assistance or recourse from State machinery cannot be attained, a person has the right to defend himself or another against any assault or harm that could cause death or serious injury. Additionally, the defender is not breaking the law because they are protected from criminal responsibility for using self-defense in this way.

According to the Supreme Court, the right to a private defense is a legally protected defensive right that can only be exercised by someone who can adequately explain their situation. Since this privilege can be used to defend oneself from an offense, any actions taken to exercise it cannot be used to the aggressor’s advantage. The Supreme Court established the following guidelines for the Right to private defense in the case of Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab, right to individual defense is recognized in all civilized nations, but naturally within appropriate bounds. All civilized nations’ criminal jurisprudence formally recognizes the right to self-defense. The option of self-defense is only available when it is necessary to do so in order to avoid danger from others. To use the right of self-defense, only a plausible apprehension is required. The right to a private defense may be invoked without the offense having been committed in its entirety. If the accused believes that an offense would likely be committed if their right to a private defense is not used, it is sufficient evidence. As soon as a valid concern is raised, the right to private defense kicks in and lasts for the duration of that concern. We cannot expect someone who is being attacked to deploy his defense piecemeal. In a private defense, the accused may only use force that is reasonable and required to protect the person or property. Unless the defendant enters a plea of Self-defense, the court may consider the likelihood of such a defense based on the evidence presented. The accused is not required to establish the existence of the right to a private defense beyond a reasonable doubt. The right to a private defense is only available in cases of an offense, according to the Indian Penal Code. A person may use his or her right to self-defense to hurt an aggressor to the point of death if that person is in immediate and reasonable danger of losing life or limb.[6]

Section 96[7]of Indian Penal Code –

Nothing done in the exercise of the right to private defense constitutes an offense, according to Section 96 of the IPC[8]. This is not an unqualified right. It is subject to some limitations that are outlined in Section 99 of the IPC. Neither party may assert their right to private defense during a free fight. In Bachan Singh and Others Vs. The State, 1969 P.L.R, 393 (P&H (DB) and Gaja Nand Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1954 (SC), 695[9], The court tried to explain the significance of the free combat. The court stated that when both sides intend to engage in combat from the outset and there is a pitched conflict, the question of who assaults and who defends is completely irrelevant and depends on the strategies used by the opposing commanders. The burden of establishing the right to a private defense rest with the person claiming it, even if a person may be exonerated on this basis even if they have not made a specific claim.  Although it goes without saying, the right to private defense can only be used if the act is one of defense rather than offense.

According to Section 97 of IPC[10] of the Indian Penal Code, every citizen has the right to protect their own body, another person’s body, and property (whether it be mobile or immovable) from crimes including robbery, theft, larceny, felony, and attempts to commit such crimes. This privilege is nevertheless constrained by the restrictions listed in Section 99 of the IPC. The first is the self-help principle, which denotes a person’s responsibility to assist themselves. A social obligation to safeguard other people and their possessions that result from human sympathy follows.[11]

Basic/ General Principles-

In, Darshan Singh Versus State of Punjab and Another, defined the tenets of the private right of defense as it is pursued, Self-defense is a fundamental aspect of human nature, and every country with a developed social structure views it as such in its criminal laws. All nations that are free, governed by the law, and enlightened recognize the right to one’s own defense within reasonable boundaries;

The right to self-defense is only available to those who are suddenly confronted with the necessity to avert an impending danger rather than one they have created;

The right to private defense can be invoked with just a small, reasonable worry. At the end of the day, it is not essential that the crime really be committed in order to support one side of private defense. If the right to a private defense cannot be arranged, it is necessary that the accused is apprehended and that the offense is investigated; When a reasonable fear first appears, the right to private defense begins, and the duration of that fear is observed;

It is illogical to expect that someone who is being attacked will adapt his defense incrementally and precisely, Private defense should not be wholly out of proportion or significantly more prominent than would typically be acceptable for the security of the person or their property; It is widely accepted that, even if the accused does not claim self-defense, the court may still take such a request into account if the evidence suggests otherwise; and It is generally acknowledged that the court may nonetheless consider such a motion even if the accused does not assert self-defense if the evidence suggests otherwise; Only when that unlawful or illegitimate behaviour constitutes an offense does the Indian Penal Code grant the right to private defense;

According to Section 98 of IPC 1860,[12] The Right of “Private Defence” Against the Law of an Individual of Unsound Mind is one of the provisions included in this section. The right to a private defense is also applicable when an offense would not have been committed without the offender’s mental impairment, insanity, intoxication, or other misconceptions. Everyone has the same right to a “Private Defense”[13] against the behavior as they would have had if it were deemed criminal.

Can a person of unsound mind utilize their right to private defense against them?

We are aware that a person who is mentally ill is not subject to punishment for any crime. But what can we do if they attack us or try to damage our property or body? It is argued that the insane person’s immunity will not in any way influence his right to a private defense. Even though any crime committed by a lunatic is not a crime in the eyes of the law, this will not impair your right to a private defense. The right to private defense is the same for a person facing an insane person as it is for a person facing a sane person. For instance, a person who is sleepwalking attempts to murder Mr. Gabbar. In self-defense, Mr. Gabbar beats the person with a stick hurting someone. In this case, the sleepwalker is not at fault for anything.

1)A child under the age of 12, 2) a non-understanding individual, 3) A person with a bad mental state, 4) A drunken individual

According to Section 99 of IPC 1860,[14]

Every person has the same right to private defense against an act as he would have if the act were that offence, even when an act that would otherwise be a certain offense is not that offense due to the youth, lack of understanding maturity, unsoundness of mind, intoxication of the person performing the act, or due to any misconception on that person’s part.

condemning the conduct of an official operating in good faith;

  1. Against the conduct of an official acting in good faith
  2. Opposing the actions of people who are following a public servant’s orders or authority.
  3. where public authorities can be contacted with enough notice;
  4. The amount of damage that could be done must never be excessive. There should be conclusive proof that an individual with official standing was involved in the behavior.[15]

In Queen Versus. Fukira Chamar, Similar circumstances led to the death of a robber who was struck five times on the head by a pole. It was decided that more force was employed than was necessary.

According  to Sec 100, of the Indian Penal Code, 1860[16]

Seven circumstances are listed in Section 100 of the IPC where one is right to self-defense may include killing someone. If the offense that prompts the use of the right is one of the ones listed below, then the right to private defense of the body extends, subject to the limitations mentioned in the preceding section, to the willing infliction of death or other harm upon the aggressor, including:

  1. An assault that could legitimately give rise to the concern that death would otherwise follow from the attack;
  2. Any assault that could fairly give rise to the concern that it will otherwise result in great harm;
  3. Violence committed with the intent to rape;
  4. A crime carried out with the goal of satisfying unnatural lust;
  5. A physical assault with the goal to kidnap or abduct;
  6. An attack with the goal of holding someone against their will and doing so in a situation where they would fairly suspect they will not be able to get out by going to the authorities.
  7. Any throwing or administration of acid, or attempt to throw or administer acid, that gives rise to a justifiable fear that this kind of action might otherwise result in great harm.[17]

In Sheo person Singh Versus. State of U.P, 1979,[18]

Two people were asleep on the road in the middle of the night when a truck driver ran them over, killing them. People stood in the middle of the road in front of the truck to stop it, but he ran them over and killed some of them. He invoked his right to private defense because he was concerned that those attempting to stop him would inflict great harm. The Supreme Court ruled that even while errant drivers have frequently been dealt with severely by the general public, this does not grant them the right to kill several persons in self-defense. The motorist had no right of private defense when he fled the site of the accident, and the persons on the road had the right to stop him several persons were killed in the accident.

Section 101: Injury less than death-

The right to self-defense does not include the ability to kill an attacker when the offense is not one listed in the previous section. However, the right to self-defense does include the ability to inflict harm other than death, subject to the limitations listed in section 99.

Section 102: Beginning and continuation of the right to a private defense[19]–

The right to self-defense of the body begins the moment there is a reasonable suspicion that the body is in danger due to an attempt or threat of committing the crime, even if the crime has not yet been committed; and it persists as long as there is continued concern for bodily harm.

Section 103: The right to self-defense covers all forms of violence short of murder[20]

This Section cannot be interpreted as in any way allowing the accused to go over their RPD. Anyone who violates Section 304, part II’s right to private defense and results in the trespasser’s death is guilty.[21]

Section 105: Beginning and continuation of the right to a private defense of property[22]

 if there was a reasonable anticipation of such danger and when it began, rather than whether there was any danger, will determine how far this privilege is justified. Until the criminal has fled with the stolen goods, aid from the government is secured, the stolen goods have been recovered, or the right of private property defense against theft has expired. If the perpetrator inflicts or seeks to inflict bodily harm, unlawful restraint, or the threat of imminent death, bodily harm, or immediate personal restraint, the right to private property defense against robbery remains in effect. Continued private property rights of defense against criminal trespass or mischief so long as the violator keeps committing criminal trespass or mischief. The right of private property defense against nighttime break-ins remains in effect if the house trespass that was started by such a break-in persists.[23]

Sec 106,[24] Right to self-defense from a fatal assault-

This section addresses the risk a person could be forced to take in order to protect himself from a violent assault that properly raises the possibility of death. The right to a private defense extends to taking the risk if the defender is in a position where he cannot effectively exercise that right without endangering an innocent person.

Potential for harm to innocent people-

In a situation of exceptional necessity, as described in Section 106, a person is permitted by law to take the chance of hurting even innocent people in order to defend himself from being fatally hurt. The clause states that whenever there is a fear of death the individual’s circumstances prevent him from exercising the right the ability to defend himself privately without risking injury to others. He could accept the chance of causing such harm to an innocent individual. For example, as stated in the example appended to the section, if A is he is being attacked by a mob that wants to kill him, but he cannot defend himself

utilize his right to personal defense without opening fire on the crowd, and he can’t fire without endangering everyone.

Illustration

A is targeted by a mob that wants to kill him. Without shooting on the rabble, he is unable to effectively exercise his right to private defense, and he cannot fire without the possibility of hurting nearby small children the gang. A does not violate the law if he injures any of the kids in this way.

The right to private defense is generally accepted as being available to protect against hostility when the security of the state authority is not, so long as it is exercised within the parameters set forth in Section 99 of the IPC and other relevant arrangements. The legal doctrine that no assailant may guarantee the right to private defense is well-established.

In Kishan versus province of M.P,[26] the Supreme Court ruled that the defendant, who was an assailant, was ineligible for the right of private defense.

Free Battle- In a free battle, neither party has the option of using private defense because both parties are actively engaging in combat. Both parties are not eligible for a private defense in this situation.

Decent will- According to Section 52 of the Indian Penal Code, “Good Faith” is defined as follows: Nothing is stated to be done or trusted in line with some fundamental honesty if it is not done or accepted with due care and attention. A verified search for the truth is recommended by due research and reflection over a prepared acknowledgment based on ill-intentioned belief. However, the question of good faith is a matter of certainty and needs to be built from the encompassing circumstances. Although necessary care and alertness should always be considered for each circumstance with reference to the overall conditions as well as the capacity and understanding of the person whose faith is being discussed, good faith does not necessitate constant dependability.

In Kesho Ram v. Delhi Administration,[27] the Supreme Court ruled that a local official may claim immunity under Section 99 of the I.P.C. if the demonstrations were conducted in good faith and under the cover of his office, even though the lawfulness of the demonstration could not usually be sustained.

colour of the office- Under the colour of his office refers to really accepting that it was a public employee’s responsibility to carry out the act, regardless of whether he was acting lawfully or illegally in the discharge of his duties. The phrase “colour of office” describes unpredictable behaviour as opposed to illegal behaviour. No right to a private defense would arise if what was done was done in accordance with ordinary decency while acting on behalf of his office. It demonstrates that the behaviour was legal and that the area has only occasionally or inadequately been used. The act was thus performed improperly, even if it could have been.[28]

The purpose of Section 99 is to appoint a local official and, in addition, to limit his options for resistance. However, Section 183 of the I.P.C. does not give the local official any protection and instead gives him the authority to pursue legal action against anyone who objects to the rightful seizing of property. It is one thing to state that a municipal official who is behaving honestly in the course of his duties should be protected from acts of cruelty, but this is going too far. Protection from a public official working honestly but in excess of his authority may give rise to some charges in the concept of Despite the onslaught, it is unable to afford to prosecute any establishments in accordance with Section 183 of the I.P.C[29]. There are no terms in that section, as there are in Section 99, I.P.C., widening the activity of the area to acts that are not strictly legal. It relates to protection from the taking of property by the authorized authority of a local official. The word ‘Strictly’ has been purposefully inserted into Section 99 of the I.P.C. to demonstrate that this section was not intended to apply to circumstances in which the act was wholly unjustifiable. It does not extend to circumstances when a complete requirement for jurisdiction exists. The Patna High Court observed in Jograj Mahato Versus. Emperor that only circumstances in which there is a place to conduct an act but the ward has been, in some manner, constituted illegitimately are covered by Section 99 of the I.P.C. The language used in this Section falls under the definition of “Strictly justifiable by law.” This section was not meant to apply in situations where the act was entirely unreasonable because ‘Strictly’ was most likely placed on purpose by the lawmakers. In situations when there is utter absence of jurisdiction, it is not applicable.

Acid attack-

According to the seventh clause of Section 100, the right to private defense up to the point of causing death is available if the accused reasonably fears that they will suffer severe harm as a result of throwing, supervising the throwing of, or attempting to administer acid. Through the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 2013, the Justice Verma Committee incorporated this clause addressing acid assault. Since there was no specific law in India dealing with acid assault, instances were instead listed under different parts of the Indian Penal Code, particularly those dealing with injury, serious injury from destructive substances, and attempted murder and murder. The Committee suggested If an acid attack were to occur, which was deemed a crime under Section 326A[30] of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 2013, such criteria should also apply to one side of private defense. In order to enforce a strict legal framework for the general populace, the government added acid attacks to the IPC’s list of explicit offenses. Before the adjustment, the IPC rarely included any clear procedures for corrosive assault offenses. Since acid is considered a harmful substance, Sections 324 and 326 of the Criminal Code, which deal with serious injury caused by “destructive substances” like acids, apply to offenses using it. Similarly, Section 100’s clause grants the right to private defense to the extent of inflicting death when there is a reasonable suspicion that grave harm will typically follow. In this sense, the second provision of this Section effectively protects against the reasonable fear of terrible harm from caustic substances within Section 100. In any case, it has become clear that this does not adequately explain how acid-related injuries are not considered to be grievous injuries under Section 320. The provision was included with the intention of giving an acid or corrosive attack a specific heading in light of the rise in the number of such cases.

It is also a well-established legal principle that Indian courts have not upheld the common law norm of retreating to the wall. In State of V.P. v. Ram Swarup, the Supreme Court ruled that a victim cannot be expected to flee or submit to aggression because he is in a place where he has a right to be. He is entitled to confront the violence and repel it with all necessary force. The right to private defense is a right of defense, not of immunity, so he must keep this in mind. Retribution is possible to individuals who act morally in the face of impending danger faith. This right may never be granted to someone who stage-manages an event situation in which an act of hostility can be justified by using the right as a shield. The intended victim has the right to take legal action if someone shoots another person with a gun. self-defense, and if he does so, the former has no right to murder him in response to stop him from engaging in self-defense. preserving the right to privacy defense. There is no way that the penal code has created a system whereby an attack is provoked on the pretense of killing.

In Sections 96–106 of Chapter IV of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the right to private defense is granted. The IPC makes no mention of the definition of private defense; thus, courts have the discretion to determine whether cases fall within this category. No action taken during private defense constitutes a crime, according to Section 96 of the Indian Penal Code. This means that it is not an offense if someone uses reasonable force to remove a more serious injury. This right is available in India for one’s own body as well as another person’s or another person’s property or other person’s property. This property is capable of being both moveable and immovable. A query pops up frequently in our minds Can we utilize private defense to defend someone who is mentally ill? True is the response. Section 98 of the IPC an individual has the right to self-defense against others who are inebriated, mentally unstable, or misinformed. As an illustration, drunk A tries to kill Z. Z uses a rod to injure A while being protected by him. Z is not responsible in this situation because he was merely acting to defend himself.[31]

This privilege may not apply in some circumstances. These are:-

  1. A public official is presumed to have acted in good faith; therefore, defense cannot be used in such cases. However, the conduct should not be so severe as to put a person in danger of dying or receiving severe harm.
  2. An action that a governmental servant directed
  3. A circumstance where contacting the authorities would have been possible.

There are several instances of private defense that can even result in a person’s death, such as assault with a fear of death, severe injury, rape, kidnapping, unnatural lust, and wrongfully confining a person. According to the Nirbhaya Act of 2013, another right was added whereby an act of throwing acid that results in the death of the thrower is not regarded as an offense. This was a person’s body’s defense mechanism. Additionally, there are laws against property that do not consider killing someone to be an offense. These crimes include robbery, arson, trespassing, and late-night housebreaking. Section 106 states that this right also applies to attacks that result in the death of an innocent person. For instance, suppose “B” is lynched by a mob, and B begins firing on the throng to defend himself. An innocent child who got mixed up in the mob was struck during the shooting. In this situation, B will not be held accountable under Section 106. According to the Indian legal system, as it is right now, these are the private defense provisions.[32]

Conclusion-

 After conducting our study, we have concluded that self-defense requires the use of only reasonable force. The amount of force applied should be appropriate for the harm caused. The Indian Penal Code provides for the right to private defense under sections 96 to 106. There are a few limitations to this right, and in some circumstances, even if death occurs, no crime will be prosecuted. We also witnessed the case of Nirbhaya, in which the victim was killed due to the use of force, but the accused was exonerated because the victim did not intend to be killed. Private defense should be used as a shield rather than a weapon.

References-

  1. D.D Basu, (2015), Introduction to the Constitution of India, Lexis Nexis
  2. Asst.Prof. Seema A. Patil “Evolving Judicial Approach Towards Right to Private Defence Against Body” Volume-1 Kesari Maharatta Trust 1(2023) Last visited as on 2023
  3. https://blog.ipleaders.in/private-defence-related-to-property-a-guide, Last Visited on 11.9.23
  4. https://lawcorner.in/what-is-the-right-of-private-defence-of-a-person Last Visited on 12.9.23
  5. https://lawbhoomi.com/private-defence-in-ipc, Last Visited on 11.9.23
  6. https://sociallawstoday.com/right-to-private-defence-sections, Last Visited on 11.9.23
  7. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 1860
  8. https://lawcorner.in/what-is-the-right-of-private-defence-of-a-person, Last Visited on 10.9.23
  9. R.N. Saxena, Indian Penal Code, (2017, 20 Ed.) Central Law Publications
  10. https://legodesk.com/legopedia/right-of-private-defence, Last visited on 10.0.23
  11. https://www.srdlawnotes.com/2017/05/right-of-private-defence-section-96-to.html, Last visited on 11.9.23
  12. https://blog.ipleaders.in/private-defence-related-to-body-under-ipc, Last visited on 11.9.23
  13. https://blog.ipleaders.in/private-defence-related-to-body-under-ipc, Last Visited as on 11.9.23
  14. https://www.brillopedia.net/post/present-legal-scenario-of-right-of-private-defence-in-india, Last visited on 11.9.23

[1] Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597

[2] D.D Basu, (2015), Introduction to the Constitution of India, Lexis Nexis

[3] Asst.Prof. Seema A. Patil “Evolving Judicial Approach Towards Right to Private Defence Against Body” Volume-1 Kesari Maharatta Trust 1(2023) Last visited as on 2023

[4] https://lawcorner.in/what-is-the-right-of-private-defence-of-a-person

[5] https://lawbhoomi.com/private-defence-in-ipc, Last Visited on 11.9.23

[6] https://sociallawstoday.com/right-to-private-defence-sections, Last Visited on 11.9.23

[7] Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 1860

[8] IPC Sec 96

[9] In Bachan Singh and Others Vs. The State, 1969 P.L.R, 393 (P&H (DB) and Gaja Nand Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1954 (SC), 695

[10] Section 97 of IPC

[11] https://lawcorner.in/what-is-the-right-of-private-defence-of-a-person, Last Visited on 10.9.23

[12] Section 98, of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

[13] R.N. Saxena, Indian Penal Code, (2017, 20 Ed.) Central Law Publications

[14] Section 99 of Indian Penal Code, 1860

[15] https://legodesk.com/legopedia/right-of-private-defence, Last visited on 10.0.23

[16] Section 100 of Indian Penal Code, 1860

[17] Section 2 of “The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013” was added.

[18] In Sheo person Singh Versus. State of U.P, 1979

[19] Sec. 102, of Indian Penal Code 1860

[20] Sec. 103, of Indian Penal Code 1860

[21] V. C. Cheriyan versus. State of Kerala, 1982 Cri LJ 2071

[22] Sec 105 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

[23] https://www.srdlawnotes.com/2017/05/right-of-private-defence-section-96-to.html, Last visited on 11.9.23

[24] Sec 106, of Indian Penal Code, 1860

[25] https://blog.ipleaders.in/private-defence-related-to-body-under-ipc, Last visited on 11.9.23

[26] In Kishan versus province of M.P,

[27] In Kesho Ram v. Delhi Administration, 1974 AIR 1158, 1974 SCR (3) 827

[28] https://blog.ipleaders.in/private-defence-related-to-body-under-ipc, Last Visited as on 11.9.23

[29] Sec. 183 of IPC 1860

[30] Indian Penal Code, Sec 326A

[31] https://www.brillopedia.net/post/present-legal-scenario-of-right-of-private-defence-in-india, Last visited on 11.9.23

[32] https://www.brillopedia.net/post/present-legal-scenario-of-right-of-private-defence-in-india, Last visited on 11.9.23

PDF 📄
Exit mobile version