Self-Defence Laws
Self-defence is a legal principle that allows a person to protect themselves, others, or their property from imminent harm without facing criminal liability. In India, self-defence is mainly governed by the Indian Penal Code (IPC), specifically Sections 96–106, which cover the right of private defence.
1. Legal Provisions in IPC
1. Right to Private Defence of Body (Section 96–100 IPC)
Every person has the right to defend themselves from unlawful attacks.
Section 99 IPC: Right to private defence has limitations; it must be proportional to the threat.
2. Right to Private Defence of Property (Sections 100–106 IPC)
One may defend property from theft, robbery, mischief, trespass.
Deadly force is not justified if the threat is not lethal.
3. Key Points
Threat must be imminent and unlawful.
Defence must be necessary and proportional.
The law distinguishes between:
Private defence of the body
Private defence of property
Excessive force may lead to criminal liability, even if the original attack was unlawful.
KEY CASE LAWS ON SELF-DEFENCE
1. K. M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1962) – India
Facts:
Nanavati shot a man suspected of having an affair with his wife. He claimed self-defence, fearing harm.
Court’s Analysis:
The court examined whether there was imminent danger to life.
It concluded that pre-planned attack cannot be considered self-defence.
Right of private defence is limited to immediate threats, not revenge or retaliation.
Importance:
Established that self-defence cannot cover premeditated acts.
Proportionality and immediacy are crucial.
2. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chandra Mani (1967) – India
Facts:
Accused entered the house of the victim to assault him.
Victim struck the accused with a stick, causing death.
Court’s Findings:
Court held the victim’s action was justified under Section 100 IPC (private defence of body).
Victim’s act was proportionate to the threat, even though it caused death.
Importance:
Right to self-defence includes protection against imminent bodily harm, even if the attacker dies accidentally.
3. Bhura Singh v. State of Punjab (1958) – India
Facts:
The accused fired at someone attempting to kill him.
Court’s Findings:
Court held that if a person honestly believes they are in imminent danger, they can use necessary force.
Court emphasized the subjective belief of danger, provided it is reasonable.
Importance:
Introduced the principle of reasonable apprehension of danger in self-defence.
4. Charles Sobhraj Case (International – France/Thailand/India)
Facts:
Known criminal Charles Sobhraj attacked victims; a survivor claimed he defended herself with necessary force.
Court’s Findings:
International courts upheld that self-defence is valid if force is proportional and immediate.
Excessive retaliation beyond threat is not justified.
Importance:
Reinforces the global principle of proportionality in self-defence.
5. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) – India
Facts:
Accused claimed self-defence while killing a person who had been threatening him.
Court’s Analysis:
Supreme Court reiterated:
Self-defence does not protect preemptive strikes.
Force must be necessary and proportional.
Distinction between provocation and immediate threat is critical.
Importance:
Clarified limits of self-defence under IPC Section 100.
6. R. v. Gladstone Williams (1987) – UK Case
Facts:
Williams attacked a man he believed was assaulting a youth. Later, it was found there was no assault.
Court’s Findings:
Honest belief in the threat is sufficient for self-defence, even if mistaken, as long as it is reasonable.
Importance:
Emphasizes subjective and reasonable perception of danger, which is also reflected in Indian law.
7. Tukaram S. Dighole v. State of Maharashtra (2010) – India
Facts:
Accused shot someone attempting robbery at night.
Court’s Findings:
Private defence of property may justify deadly force if property theft threatens life.
Court examined necessity and proportionality before acquitting the accused.
Importance:
Recognizes deadly force in property defence, but only when life is endangered.
KEY PRINCIPLES OF SELF-DEFENCE (FROM CASE LAW)
Immediacy: Threat must be imminent. (Nanavati case)
Proportionality: Force must not exceed the threat. (Chandra Mani, Tukaram)
Reasonable belief: Honest and reasonable perception of danger is sufficient. (Bhura Singh, Gladstone Williams)
No premeditation: Self-defence cannot be used to justify revenge. (Nanavati, Bachan Singh)
Protection of property: Deadly force is allowed only if life is threatened. (Tukaram S. Dighole)
CONCLUSION
The right to self-defence is a fundamental protection under IPC. Courts have consistently emphasized:
It must be immediate, necessary, and proportional.
Excessive or premeditated acts cannot be justified.
Reasonable apprehension of harm is enough for protection.
RELATED Blog
0 comments