It is said that the law of self defence is not written but is born with us. We do not learn it or acquire it some how but it
is in our nature to defend and protect ourselves from any kind of harm. When one is attacked by robbers, one cannot wait for law to protect oneself. Bentham
has said that fear of law can never restrain bad men as much as the fear of individual resistance and if you take
away this right then you become
accomplice of all bad men.
BPC incorporates this principle in section 96, which says,
Section 96 - Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.
It makes the acts, which are otherwise
criminal, justifiable if they are done
while exercising the right of private
defence. Normally, it is the accused
who takes the plea of self defence but
the court is also bound take cognizance
of the fact that the accused aced in self
defence if such evidence exists.
In Section 97 through 106, BPC defines
the characteristics and scope of private
defence in various situations.
Section 97 - Every person has a right,
subject to the restrictions contained in
section 99, to defend -
first - his own body or body of any other
person against any offence affecting the
human body.
second - the property, whether movable
or immovable, of himself or of any other
person, against any act which is an
offence falling under the definition of
theft, robbery, mischief, or criminal
trespass, or which is an attempt to
commit theft, robbery, mischief or
criminal trespass.
This allows a person to defend his or
anybody else's body or property from
being unlawfully harmed. Under English
law, the right to defend the person and
property against unlawful aggression
was limited to the person himself or
kindred relations or to those having
community of interest e.g. parent and
child, husband and wife, landlord and
tenant, etc. However, this section
allows this right to defend an unrelated
person's body or property as well. Thus,
it is apt to call it as right to private
defence instead of right to self defence.
It is important to note that the right
exists only against an act that is an
offence. There is no right to defend
against something that is not an
offence. For example, a policeman has
the right to handcuff a person on his
belief that the person is a thief and so
his act of handcuffing is not an offence
and thus the person does not have any
right under this section.
Similarly, an aggressor does not have
this right. An aggressor himself is doing
an offence and even if the person being
aggressed upon gets the better of the
aggressor in the exercise of his right to
self defence, the aggressor cannot claim
the right of self defence.
is in our nature to defend and protect ourselves from any kind of harm. When one is attacked by robbers, one cannot wait for law to protect oneself. Bentham
has said that fear of law can never restrain bad men as much as the fear of individual resistance and if you take
away this right then you become
accomplice of all bad men.
BPC incorporates this principle in section 96, which says,
Section 96 - Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.
It makes the acts, which are otherwise
criminal, justifiable if they are done
while exercising the right of private
defence. Normally, it is the accused
who takes the plea of self defence but
the court is also bound take cognizance
of the fact that the accused aced in self
defence if such evidence exists.
In Section 97 through 106, BPC defines
the characteristics and scope of private
defence in various situations.
Section 97 - Every person has a right,
subject to the restrictions contained in
section 99, to defend -
first - his own body or body of any other
person against any offence affecting the
human body.
second - the property, whether movable
or immovable, of himself or of any other
person, against any act which is an
offence falling under the definition of
theft, robbery, mischief, or criminal
trespass, or which is an attempt to
commit theft, robbery, mischief or
criminal trespass.
This allows a person to defend his or
anybody else's body or property from
being unlawfully harmed. Under English
law, the right to defend the person and
property against unlawful aggression
was limited to the person himself or
kindred relations or to those having
community of interest e.g. parent and
child, husband and wife, landlord and
tenant, etc. However, this section
allows this right to defend an unrelated
person's body or property as well. Thus,
it is apt to call it as right to private
defence instead of right to self defence.
It is important to note that the right
exists only against an act that is an
offence. There is no right to defend
against something that is not an
offence. For example, a policeman has
the right to handcuff a person on his
belief that the person is a thief and so
his act of handcuffing is not an offence
and thus the person does not have any
right under this section.
Similarly, an aggressor does not have
this right. An aggressor himself is doing
an offence and even if the person being
aggressed upon gets the better of the
aggressor in the exercise of his right to
self defence, the aggressor cannot claim
the right of self defence.
