If the offence be not of any of the descriptions enumerated in the last preceding section, the right of private defence of the body does not extend to the voluntary causing of death to the assailant, but does extend, under the restrictions mentioned in Section 99, to the voluntary causing to the assailant of any harm other than death.

Section 100. When the right of private defence of the body extends to causing death

The right of private defence of the body extends, under the restrictions mentioned in the last preceding section, to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the assailant, if the offence which occasions the exercise of the right be of any of the descriptions hereinafter enumerated, namely:—

First.— Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that death will otherwise be the consequence of such assault;

Secondly.—Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehen­sion that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault;

Thirdly.— An assault with the intention of committing rape;

Fourthly.—An assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust;

Fifthly.— An assault with the intention of kidnapping or abduct­ing;

Sixthly.— An assault with the intention of wrongfully confining a person, under circumstances which may reasonably cause him to apprehend that he will be unable to have recourse to the public authorities for his release.

1[Seventhly.–– An act of throwing or administering acid or an attempt to throw or administer acid which may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such act]

COMMENTS

Appreciation of death or grievious hurt cases

If the accused had already dealt several blows on the de­ceased, he could not have been in a position to shoot at the accused persons. Having regard to some of the admissions made by the witnesses, it appears that the accused took forcible possession of the land some days ago. Therefore, even assuming that they came into possession after committing trespassing, if the de­ceased and others had gone to the land they cannot be held to be aggressors as pleaded by the defence; Khuddu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1993 SC 1538 (1540).

Ingredients

(i) Self inflicted injuries not explained by prosecution except the reliance on medical evidence acquittal of accused not justified; Chuhar Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1999 SC 1052: 1991 SCC (Cr) 1066: 1998 (4) JT 449.

(ii) The inmates clearly had a right of private defence against the intruders who tried to extract money by force; Kishore Shamb­hudatta Mishra v. State of Maharashtra, (1989) Cr LJ 1149: AIR 1989 SC 1173.

Right of private defence to cause death

(i) Under what circumstances accused gave knife blow to the deceased could not be explained by accused, acquittal on ground of self defence not justified; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Laeeg, AIR 1999 SC 1942: 1999 (5) SCC 588.

(ii) While being chased by deceased appellant attacked on deceased caused fire incised wound, held exceeded the right of private defence, conviction under section 304 Part I proper; Suresh Singh v. State, AIR 1999 SC 1773: 1999 (2) Crimes 42.

(iii) Attack by single blow on the neck of deceased proved fatal. Held accused exceeded right of private defence; Amar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1997 SCC (Cr) 630.

——————————————————————–

1. Inserted by Section 2 of ‘The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013’

There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonable cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that act, may not be strictly justifiable by law.

There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonable cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that direction may not be strictly justifiable by law.

There is no right of private defence in cases in which there is time to have recourse to the protection of the public authorities.

Extent to which the right may be exercised

The right to private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm that it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence.

Explanation 1

A person is not deprived of the right of private defence against an act done, or attempted to be done, by a public servant, as such, unless he knows or has reason to believe, that the person doing the act is such public servant.

Explanation 2

A person is not deprived of the right of private defence against an act done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant, unless he knows, or has reason to believe, that the person doing the act is acting by such direction, or unless such person states the authority under which he acts, or if he has authority in writing, unless he produces such authority, if demanded.

Comments

Time to have recourse to the protection of the public authority

Where there is an element of invasion or aggression on the property by a person who has right to possession, then there is obviously no room to have recourse to the public authorities and the accused has the undoubted right to resist the attack and use even force if necessary; Puran Singh v. State of Punjab, 1975 Cr LJ 1479 SC.

When an act, which would otherwise be a certain offence, is not that offence, by reason of the youth, the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind or the intoxication of the person doing that act, or by reason of any misconception on the part of that person, every person has the same right of private defence against that act which he would have if the act were that offence.

Illustrations

(a) Z, under the influence of madness, attempts to kill A; Z is guilty of no offence. But A has the same right of private defence which he would have if Z were sane.

(b) A enters by night a house which he is legally entitled to enter Z, in good faith, taking A for a house-breaker, attacks A. Here Z, by attacking A under this misconception, commits no offence. But A has the same right of private defence against Z, which he would have if Z were not acting under that misconception.

Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in section 99, to defend—

First.— His own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body;

Secondly.—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.

Comments

Defence of body and property: scope

Where the accused persons armed with guns started continuous firing at members of prosecution parties, even if accused has a claim of right to the property should have approached to Magistrate it is difficult to concede right of private defence; Ayodhya Ram v. State, 1999 (4) Crimes 113: 1999 SCC (Cr) 564.