Explanation – When A arrives and starts hitting B with a stick under an argument and B pulls out his pistol on the instance and shoots A. In the present case, B cannot use the right of private defence, since that right is subject to certain restrictions. It states that you cannot use force majeure or excessive force against the person. The main feature of the right of private defence is as follows: Ø This right exists only when there is no time to resort to the protection of public authority. (S99, third) Ø A. Everyone has this right (§ 99, “third”). B. It may be exercised against anyone, even if (i) he is mentally sound or (ii) immature, etc. (§ 98) (iii) subject to certain exceptions relating to public servants (§ 99, “first” and “second”).
Ø The scope of the right is the infliction of the damage necessary for the purposes of the defence (§ 99, “fourth”). This may be the wilful cause of death (arts. 100 and 103) or only damage other than death (arts. 101 and 104). Ø The object of the right is the body if the person exercising the right or another person opposes an offence affecting the human body; and the property of the person exercising the right or of any other person against theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespassing (§ 97). Ø The right begins as soon as a well-founded fear of danger arises (§§ 102 and 105). Ø The right expires when the fear of danger ceases or when the offence has ceased (Articles 102 and 105). There are obvious differences between English and Indian law on the “right to private defence”. A person is not normally entitled to private defence (self-defence) under English law, unless his own life or that of a person closely associated with him, such as his husband, wife, guardian, master and servant, is threatened. On the other hand, the first paragraph of Section 97 of the Indian Penal Code provides that a person has the right to defend himself from his body if his own life or that of a person who is in danger due to fear of danger to life due to a sudden quarrel, in which case the person purporting to act in self-defence shall be treated as possible and try other means, to avoid killing. President.
The next item is the report (Doc. The motive of self-preservation would dictate a defined aggression to an innocent person. The right of self-defence derives from the need to preserve oneself, but the latter is further and there can be no right to self-defence in all cases of necessity. It may be interesting to note in this context that the Commissioners for Justice who, under the chairmanship of Lord Macaulay, prepared the initial draft of the Criminal Code, did not claim in their report on sections 96 to 106 that their draft was based on the principles of English common law relating to the “right of self-defence”. They indicated that they had developed these provisions taking into account what was necessary under the conditions prevailing in that country (India).  SCOPE OF THE RIGHT OF SELF-DEFENCE§ 96 does not define the rights of the defence, but merely states that nothing constitutes a criminal offence committed in the exercise of the right to private defence. We can therefore say that this right only applies to an act that would otherwise constitute a criminal offence and not to an act that is not an offence. Thus, inflicting the wounds inflicted by the deceased on the accused in the exercise of his right of self-defence does not constitute a criminal offence to grant him the right of self-defence under Section 96 of the Indian Penal Code. It is sufficient for the accused to understand that such an offence is contemplated and likely to be committed if the right of self-defence is not exercised. The law does not give a man who seeks an attack that can end the death of the other the right to self-defense. An individual`s right to self-defence, conferred by law or guaranteed by law, is a very narrow and limited right that can only be exercised if the circumstances fully justify the exercise of that right.
The first thing to remember is that the right to self-defence cannot, under any circumstances, justify something which, strictly speaking, is not a defence but a crime, but sometimes an attack may be the most effective means of justifying the defence in such cases. You cannot invoke self-defense if you courted the attack yourself. Herel argues that denying self-defense would minimize the frequency of violence in society by inducing individuals to moderate their behavior. If individuals know that they will not be allowed to use self-defense violence if they contribute to it in any way, then they will act more cautiously, thus creating a society with a lower incidence of crime and violence. Whether the damage was inflicted more than necessary for self-defence is a purely factual question. If the right is exceeded and the damage caused is not justified, the polluter is in the same situation as if he did not have the right to a private defence. § 97 – Right to private defence of body and property: Everyone has the right (subject to the restrictions contained in § 99) to: – Ø First, to defend his own body and that of any other person against any crime affecting the human body; Second.– The movable or immovable property of himself or another person against any act that constitutes a criminal offence within the meaning of the definition of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespassing, or that constitutes attempted theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespassing. In any civilized society, the defence of the person and property of each member is the responsibility of the State. Therefore, any person who fears imminent danger to his person or property is obliged to seek assistance from a mechanism provided by the State, but if such assistance is not immediately available, he has the right to defend himself. When we see Article 97, we can say that this article in the name of the responsibility of the State towards persons; provides for a right of self-defence which includes both the person who acted in self-defence and the person on whose behalf that self-defence was exercised, although it may also be exercised against the unhealthy person § 98 against the innocent person in the event of a fatal assault if the defence lawyer is in circumstances such that he cannot effectively exercise self-defence, without running the risk of harming an innocent person, § 106.
Sections 100, 101, 103 and 104 should be read together, which deal with the organization`s right of self-defence. These relate to the extent of harm that can be inflicted on an aggressor when exercising his or her right of self-defence. Where the right of self-defence exists, it extends to causing injury necessary for the defence with death, but may, in special cases, go as far as causing death and is justified. A person who pleads self-defence must prove in court that self-defence was justified. In general, a person may use reasonable force when it seems reasonably necessary to prevent imminent injury. A person who uses force in self-defense should only use the force necessary to repel the attack. No lethal force can be used to repel a non-lethal attack or a lethal attack. Lethal force can be used to repel an attacker who uses lethal force, but cannot be used to repel an attacker who does not use lethal force. The right to self-defence of body and property begins and continues as long as the dangers are not lost. Jai Dev v. State of PunjabThe Supreme Court has ruled that the right to private defence against an attack that causes fear of death or serious bodily harm ends as soon as the threat of attack has ceased and the fear of danger has been completely eliminated. If the accused shoots the attackers, even if everyone has fled, and shoots people who are standing at a great distance, they cannot invoke the right to private defence and are guilty of murder.
Biran Singh v. Bihar StateTwo of the defendants, who had sustained minor injuries, ran home, fetched a sword and used the sword to deliver fatal blows to the deceased`s head. The court ruled that even assuming that the deceased had inflicted simple injuries on the accused, there could be no justification for one of the accused to strike the deceased with a sword on a vital part of the body such as the head. The severity of the injuries was also no coincidence. The acts bore a stamp design. The right to private defence cannot be exercised by the accused. These particular cases in which it is justified to cause death in self-defence are:Ø Assult that gives rise to a reasonable fear of death, serious bodily harm or rape or an unnatural crime, abduction or unlawful detention in such circumstances, if he may reasonably fear that he will not be able to: provide the Authority with funds for his release. Ø Robbery, night burglary, mischief by fire on buildings, tents or vessels used to inhabit or store property, theft, mischief or trespassing in circumstances that may give rise to fear of death or serious injury. Bhaja Pradhan v. State of Orissa.  The deceased had stolen a goat from the defendant`s barn. The accused accused him of retrieving his property and attacked him to retrieve it, unaware that he had struck the vital parts of the body.
The accused had exceeded his right to a private defence. RESTRICTIONS ON THE RIGHT OF SELF-DEFENCE: We see that article 97 is provided for in the name of State responsibility, so that this cannot be exercised against the authority of the State or against a person who is legally entitled to act. Section 97 of the Code provides that every person has a right, subject to the restrictions set out in section 99.