Exceeding Right Of Private Defence
1. Right of Private Defence: Basic Concept
The right of private defence is a legal right available to a person to protect their body and property against unlawful attacks without waiting for the state to intervene.
It is codified under Sections 96 to 106 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The right is not absolute; it has limits, especially regarding the quantum of force used.
2. Exceeding the Right of Private Defence: Explanation
Section 99 IPC states that the right of private defence does not extend to causing death if the offence is not likely to cause death or grievous hurt.
In other words, excessive or disproportionate use of force beyond what is reasonably necessary is illegal.
The defender must use only such force as is necessary and reasonable to prevent the harm.
If the person uses more force than necessary, they lose the protection of the right of private defence and may be held liable for assault or homicide.
3. Legal Principles Governing Exceeding Right of Private Defence
The attack must be imminent and unlawful.
The defensive act must be proportionate to the threat.
There is no right of private defence against an act which is not an offense.
The defender should retreat or avoid the conflict if possible (especially if the attacker is a public servant or police officer lawfully acting).
Excessive force beyond what is needed can lead to criminal liability.
4. Landmark Case Laws on Exceeding the Right of Private Defence
Case 1: K.M. Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra (1961)
Facts:
Naval officer Nanavati shot dead his wife’s alleged lover.
Claimed it was in private defence of his honour and anger.
Judgment:
The court held that Nanavati had exceeded the right of private defence because the threat was not imminent.
The killing was not justified as the response was disproportionate.
Significance:
Established that private defence cannot be claimed after the danger has passed or when retaliation is disproportionate.
Case 2: State of Punjab vs. Bhagwan Singh (1967)
Facts:
Accused inflicted fatal injuries on attacker who was unarmed and retreating.
Judgment:
Court held the accused exceeded right of private defence as the attacker was no longer a threat.
Defensive action must end once the threat ceases.
Significance:
Reinforced that excessive force after neutralizing danger is unlawful.
Case 3: Queen-Empress vs. Abdul Gaffar (1896)
Facts:
Defendant used deadly force against a non-lethal attack.
Judgment:
Court ruled that the force used was excessive relative to the threat.
Significance:
Early precedent stating the importance of proportionality in private defence.
Case 4: Shivaji Kisanrao vs. State of Maharashtra (1971)
Facts:
Accused responded with fatal force to a minor assault.
Judgment:
Supreme Court held accused exceeded the right of private defence as the assault was not life-threatening.
Significance:
Clarified that right of private defence to cause death applies only where there is reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt.
Case 5: Chandrappa vs. State of Karnataka (2007)
Facts:
Accused used lethal force against an attacker wielding a knife.
Judgment:
Court held the right of private defence was justified as the attacker posed imminent threat of grievous harm.
Significance:
Affirmed right to cause death in self-defence when there is a reasonable apprehension of death or serious injury.
Case 6: Nand Kishore vs. State of Punjab (1968)
Facts:
Accused inflicted fatal injury while defending against unlawful attack.
Judgment:
Held that the force was proportionate and justified under the right of private defence.
Significance:
Differentiated justified self-defence from excessive force.
5. Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Key Point | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| K.M. Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra (1961) | Excessive force after threat ceased | No private defence |
| State of Punjab vs. Bhagwan Singh (1967) | Force beyond necessity after attacker retreated | Exceeded private defence |
| Queen-Empress vs. Abdul Gaffar (1896) | Deadly force against minor attack | Excessive force, no defence |
| Shivaji Kisanrao vs. Maharashtra (1971) | Fatal force to minor assault | Exceeded right of private defence |
| Chandrappa vs. Karnataka (2007) | Lethal force justified for imminent deadly threat | Right of private defence upheld |
| Nand Kishore vs. Punjab (1968) | Proportionate defensive force | Justified use of private defence |
6. Conclusion
The right of private defence is an important legal principle allowing self-protection, but it is limited by necessity and proportionality. Exceeding this right — using excessive or unnecessary force — removes the protection and attracts criminal liability. Courts have consistently stressed that the force used must be reasonable in relation to the threat perceived.
RELATED Blog
0 comments