LAW OF PRIVATE DEFENSE

SELF DEFENSE WHY?

Nowadays we see violence attack on Hindus, in West Bengal, Jammu and Kashmir and so on. Hindus are submissive by nature and do not believe in violence. Peace is their religion, and inner peace is their yog.

But now with increase in violence on Hindus, there is a hot discussion whether we can keep arms with us for self -defence? I feel its just not due to such incidents like Pahalgam but in general, all children must be trained in self-defence from school. It should be compulsory in curriculum.

ARMS ACT 1959

So lets start to learn the legal provisions. One cannot keep arms with him/her. Why? Because they are governed by Arms Act 1959.

“arms” means articles of any description designed or adapted as weapons for offense or defense, and includes firearms, sharp-edged and other deadly weapons, and parts of, and machinery for manufacturing, arms, but does not include articles designed solely for domestic or agricultural uses such as a lathi or an ordinary walking stick and weapons incapable of being used otherwise than as toys or of being converted into serviceable weapons;

Here we are not talking about ammunition. Which is very dangerous like bombs, rockets, grenades etc. To possess arms, one requires license under Sec 3 of said Arms Act. Certain arms and ammunition are totally prohibited under the said Act.

Now let us see which arms are permissible under the law or can say are out of reach of Arms Act.

Gun with License, however, certain firearms and ammunition, such as those of .303, 7.62mm, 9mm, and .455 bore, are prohibited and not available for civilian ownership.

Pepper Spray is legal in India for self-defence, stun gun, telescopic baton, lipstick stun gun, electroshock weapon, flashlights, red pepper gel spray.

Difference between Self-Defense and Private Defense:

While self-defense primarily focuses on personal protection, private defense extends to protecting others or one’s belongings. The principles of proportionality and reasonableness in using force also apply to private defense. The right to protect oneself, others, or property from harm or unlawful aggression.

The terms “self-defense” and “private defense” are essentially synonymous in Indian law. They refer to the right to use force to protect one’s own body, or the body and property of another, against an immediate threat. While the terms are used interchangeably, “private defence” is sometimes used to encompass a broader range of situations, including defending others or one’s property, in addition to self-defense

BNS Act 2023 provides Private Defence as under:

RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENSE

Nothing is an offense which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.
Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in section 37, to

defend—

(a) his own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting

the human body;

(b) 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.

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, a person of unsound mind, 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.

(1) There is no right of private defence,––

(a) against an act which does not reasonably 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;

(b) against an act which does not reasonably 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;

authorities.

(2) The right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than 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.

The right of private defence of the body extends, under the restrictions specified in section 37, 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:—

(a) such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that death will otherwise be the consequence of such assault;

(b) such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault;

(d) an assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust;

(e) an assault with the intention of kidnapping or abducting;

(f) 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;

(g) 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.

If the offence be not of any of the descriptions specified in section 38, 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 specified in section 37, to the voluntary causing to the assailant of any harm other than death.
The right of private defence of the body commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit the offence though the offence may not have been committed; and it continues as long as such apprehension of danger to the body continues.
The right of private defence of property extends, under the restrictions specified in section 37, to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the wrong-doer, if the offence, the committing of which, or the attempting to commit which, occasions the exercise of the right, be an offence of any of the descriptions hereinafter enumerated, namely:—

(a) robbery;

(b) house-breaking after sunset and before sunrise;

(c) mischief by fire or any explosive substance committed on any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or as a place for the custody of property;

(d) theft, mischief, or house-trespass, under such circumstances as may reasonably cause apprehension that death or grievous hurt will be the consequence, if such right of private defence is not exercised.

If the offence, the committing of which, or the attempting to commit which occasions the exercise of the right of private defence, be theft, mischief, or criminal trespass, not of any of the descriptions specified in section 41, that right does not extend to the voluntary causing of death, but does extend, subject to the restrictions specified in section 37, to the voluntary causing to the wrong-doer of any harm other than death.
The right of private defence of property,––

(a) commences when a reasonable apprehension of danger to the property commences;

(b) against theft continues till the offender has effected his retreat with the property or either the assistance of the public authorities is obtained, or the property has been recovered;

(c) against robbery continues as long as the offender causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint or as long as the fear of instant death or of instant hurt or of instant personal restraint continues;

(d) against criminal trespass or mischief continues as long as the offender continues in the commission of criminal trespass or mischief;

(e) against house-breaking after sunset and before sunrise continues as long as the house-trespass which has been begun by such house-breaking continues.

If in the exercise of the right of private defence against an assault which reasonably causes the apprehension of death, the defender be so situated that he cannot effectually exercise that right without risk of harm to an innocent person, his right of private defence extends to the running of that risk.

Illustration.

A is attacked by a mob who attempt to murder him. He cannot effectually exercise his right of private defence without firing on the mob, and he cannot fire without risk of harming young children who are mingled with the mob. A commits no offence if by so firing he harms any of the children.

PRECEDENT

A Full Bench of the Orissa High Court in State of Orissa v. Rabindranath Dalai & Another 1973 Crl LJ 1686 (Orissa) (FB) summarized the legal position with respect to defence of person and property thus: “In a civilized society the defence of person and property of every member thereof is the responsibility of the State. Consequently, there is a duty cast on every person faced with apprehension of imminent danger of his person or property to seek the aid of the machinery provided by the State but if immediately such aid is not available, he has the right of private defence.

In Laxman Sahu v. State of Orissa 1986 (1) Supp SCC 555 Supreme Court observed that it is needless to point out in this connection that the right of private defence is available only to one who is suddenly confronted with immediate necessity of averting an impending danger not of his creation.

In Raghavan Achari v. State of Kerala 1993 Supp. (1) SCC 719 court observed that “No court expects the citizens not to defend themselves especially when they have already suffered grievous injuries”.

In Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1993 SC 970 Supreme Court held that “the accused has taken a specific plea of right of self-defence and it is not necessary that he should prove it beyond all reasonable doubt. But if the circumstances warrant that he had a reasonable apprehension that death or grievous hurt was likely to be caused to him by the deceased or their companions, then if he had acted in the right of self- defence, he would be doing so lawfully.”

In Puran Singh & Others v. The State of Punjab (1975) 4 SCC 518 court observed that in the following circumstances right of private defence can be exercised :-

There is no sufficient time for recourse to the public authorities ii. There must be a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt to the person or danger to the property concerned.

iii. More harm than necessary should not have been caused.

In Buta Singh v. The State of Punjab (1991) 2 SCC 612, the court noted that a person who is apprehending death or bodily injury cannot weigh in golden scales in the spur of moment and in the heat of circumstances, the number of injuries required to disarm the assailants who were armed with weapons. In moments of excitement and disturbed mental equilibrium it is often difficult to expect the parties to preserve composure and use exactly only so much force in retaliation commensurate with the danger apprehended to him where assault is imminent by use of force, it would be lawful to repel the force in self-defence and the right of private- defence commences, as soon as the threat becomes so imminent. Such situations have to be pragmatically viewed and not with high-powered spectacles or microscopes to detect slight or even marginal overstepping. Due weightage has to be given to, and hyper technical approach has to be avoided in considering what happens on the spur of the moment on the spot and keeping in view normal human reaction and conduct, where self-preservation is the paramount consideration. But, if the fact situation shows that in the guise of self- preservation, what really has been done is to assault the original aggressor, even after the cause of reasonable apprehension has disappeared, the plea of right of private defence can legitimately be negatived. The court dealing with the plea has to weigh the material to conclude whether the plea is acceptable. It is essentially, as noted above, a finding of fact.”

The following principles laid down by Supreme Court on scrutiny of the several judgments:

(i) Self-preservation is the basic human instinct and is duly recognized by the criminal jurisprudence of all civilized countries. All free, democratic and civilized countries recognize the right of private defence within certain reasonable limits.

(ii) The right of private defence is available only to one who is suddenly confronted with the necessity of averting an impending danger and not of self-creation.

(iii) A mere reasonable apprehension is enough to put the right of self-defence into operation. In other words, it is not necessary that there should be an actual commission of the offence in order to give rise to the right of private defence. It is enough if the accused apprehended that such an offence is contemplated and it is likely to be committed if the right of private defence is not exercised.

(iv) The right of private defence commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension arises, and it is co-terminus with the duration of such apprehension.

(v) It is unrealistic to expect a person under assault to modulate his defence step by step with any arithmetical exactitude.

(vi) In private defence the force used by the accused ought not to be wholly disproportionate or much greater than necessary for protection of the person or property.

(vii) It is well settled that even if the accused does not plead self-defence, it is open to consider such a plea if the same arises from the material on record.

(viii) The accused need not prove the existence of the right of private defence beyond reasonable doubt.

(ix) The Indian Penal Code confers the right of private defence only when that unlawful or wrongful act is an offence.

(x) A person who is in imminent and reasonable danger of losing his life or limb may in exercise of self defence inflict any harm even extending to death on his assailant either when the assault is attempted or directly threatened.

Darshan Singh vs State of Punjab & Anr on 15 January, 2010

Equivalent citations: AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 1212, 2010 (2) SCC 333, 2010

This is landmark judgment on Right of Self-Defence