Under section 96 of right to private defense this section says that nothing is an offence if done in the exercise of the right of private defense. According ot Mayne, the whole law of self-defense rest on certain circumstances:
- Society undertakes, and, in the great majority of cases is able to protect private persons against unlawful attacks upon their persons and property.
- Where the aid of society can’t be obtained, individual may do everything necessary to protect himself.
However right to private defense have some limits too which is that the right of private defense can’t be termed as legal if the act done is an offence. And secondly it won’t be amount to private defense if u yourself have courted the attack.
In Laxman v. state of Orissa it was held that the right of private defense must be held legal only when if the act is done in confrontation and not if the attack was mere of his own acts or creation. It should be real, present and visible attack.
It was held in Gordhan v. state of Rajasthan that the right of private defense should be based on positive material. It can’t be stated out of illusion or felling. The injuries suffered on the accused will be taken in consideration while stating act of private defense. The court take int o consideration if the accused had time to rush toward public authorities for safety.
No right of private defense against act of self defense:
In Pammi v. State of M.P the appellant went to the house of one of the partners of a liquor business along with the other partner. The partners were having a dispute over the settlement of accounts. The group entered the house of K.K Jaiswal late in the night to settle the accounts and were armed. The deceased tried to pacify the parities but the group fired at the deceased who died. Another person reached the spot and was also shot at by the appellant. But police alter on nabbed the accused. The accused pleaded the right of private defense under section 96 of IPC which was allowed by session court but refused by high court and later on the supreme court upheld the decision of high court and rejected his claim of self-defense and held that the aggressor can’t avail the right of private defense.
Under section 97 right of private defense of property or of another body as every person has the right to protect their property subject to the restriction contained in section 99 to defend his own body and the body of any other person against any offense affecting the human body.
This was also done in the real-life movie “RUSTOM” which is the classical example in this movie it was shown that the accused was a navy officer and usually remain out for duty behind his back some stranger started to have physical relationship with his wife by intimidation after finding out this the accused went to the deceased house there was a confrontation between the two and it was the nature of the deceased to show aggression and in the habit of pulling out his revolver in small confrontation. While in the spat the deceased tried to reach for his revolver in the meantime accused shot him. It was later ruled out by the court as an act of self-defense by court as he protected himself.
This is the one of the best provisions introduced in the IPC according to me as individual should have right to protect his property. Though according to me there are various modes of manipulation and the ways in which the accused can save himself from conviction and can take shelter of self-defense. In most of the cases the supreme court rules out the fact and produce the convict but still chances are there for the accused to save himself. With growing time and modernizing judiciary the chances are slim for accused to take shelter of self-defense.