BACK TO SECTIONSAIR 1973 SC 473(2010) 2 SCC 333
N/ACognizable: N/AN/A
THE STATUTE
Original Text
Section 96: Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. Section 97: Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in Section 99, to defend his own body and property and that of any other person. Section 100: The right of private defence of the body extends to the voluntary causing of death or harm to the assailant if the offence occasions reasonable apprehension that death will otherwise be the consequence.
Simplified
Sections 96–106 codify the right of every person to use proportionate force to protect themselves, others, and property from unlawful aggression. The framework reflects Locke's social contract — the state holds a monopoly on violence but individuals retain the natural right of self-preservation when the state cannot intervene in time. Section 99's three crucial restrictions: (1) no right against a public servant acting in good faith; (2) no right when recourse to public authority is available; (3) force must not be disproportionate to the threat. Section 100 lists six situations where lethal force in body defence is justified: reasonable apprehension of death, grievous hurt, rape, kidnapping, acid attack (BNS addition), or wrongful confinement where release cannot be sought. Section 103 similarly lists situations where killing in property defence is justified — including housebreaking by night. The standard throughout is 'reasonable apprehension' assessed from the accused's perspective at the time, not with hindsight.
Legal Evolution
Private defence jurisprudence draws on both English common law and the social reality of a country where police response times can be slow. Deo Narain v. State of UP (1973) established the subjective assessment standard; Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab (2010) synthesised a comprehensive 10-principle framework.
Landmark Precedents
Deo Narain v. State of UP (1973)
RELEVANCE
Private defence must be judged from the accused's perspective at the time of the act — not with the benefit of hindsight.
Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab (2010)
RELEVANCE
Synthesised 10 governing principles of private defence — plea of self-defence assessed on balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt.
Practical Scenarios
"A woman stabbing an attacker who is dragging her into a vehicle — justified under Section 100 (apprehension of kidnapping/rape)."
"A shopkeeper punching a thief who falls and dies — court assesses proportionality carefully."
"A person who responds to a slap by shooting the slapper — private defence fails; grossly disproportionate."
Common Queries
Section 103 lists housebreaking by night as a situation where lethal force in property defence may be justified. Courts assess contextually — if the intruder was unarmed and fleeing, lethal force would be disproportionate.
Generally no — if you voluntarily provoked or initiated aggression, you cannot claim private defence. However, if the other party's retaliation becomes grossly disproportionate creating a mortal threat, the right may revive.