The Indian Penal Code, 1860 recognizes the right to private defense under General Exceptions in the final 11 sections of Chapter IV, beginning with Section 96 and ending with Section 106. While the subsequent sections include provisions for different types of this right, Section 96 recognizes it in a fashion that is somewhat too vague. Anything done in the exercise of the right to private defense is not illegal, according to Section 96. The Penal Code expressly states that the right to private defense is intended to serve a purpose and cannot be deemed an offense in and of itself; rather, it must be used when there is a legitimate fear of injury to a person or piece of property.

Only if the accused had a sincere fear of harm and that fear was credibly supported by the aggressor's actions and the external environment would the accused's reasonable fear be allowed. There are limitations to the right of self-defense under Section 96. In actuality, it is extended in varied degrees by the code's subsequent provisions (Sections 97-106). Section 99, which prohibits the application of this defense in specific situations and states that the right in no case extends to the inflicting of more injury than is necessary for the purpose of defense, clearly qualifies this defense. The person has the option to assert their right against an offense on their own behalf or through another person.

The scope of this right to be exercised with regard to one's body is covered by sections 100 to 102. A person may exercise this right in seven different circumstances, including when they intentionally cause the attacker's death (Section 100) or cause any other harm besides death if the act does not fall under one of the categories listed in Section 100 (Section 101).

In the manner, Section 102 governs the beginning and ending of this right. As a result, Sections 103 to 105 cover the scope and nature of this right to be exercised in relation to property. In four different categories of property offenses, this right may be used to the extent of killing the attacker (Section 103), or to cause any other harm besides death in other circumstances (Section 104), with Section 105 providing an exhaustive discussion of the right's beginning and continuation. A person may find himself in some incredibly uncommon but plausible circumstances when he is unable to exercise this freedom without jeopardizing the safety of an innocent party who is neither the attacker nor the accomplice.

Key Concepts
The right to private defense cannot be used as a pretext to justify aggression, harm to others, or to inflict disproportionately more harm than is necessary to repel a force that does not comply with the rules of legality. Section 99 serves as a prerequisite to this defense and is specifically mentioned in Sections 97, 100, 101, 103, and 104. All individuals possess this entitlement, but with limitations outlined in Section 99. Since the provision is class-specific and predicated on the legitimacy of this privilege in such circumstances, it is evident that this section is not mentioned in the language of section 98.

The offences themselves serve as a threshold or head of species of offences which naturally get included in the definition of the offence itself listed in the second clause of section 97 by the usage of expression "any act which is an offence falling under the definition of." All of these offences are listed under Chapter XVII of the Penal Code under the heading "Offences against Property." As a result, this privilege covers both theft cases falling under section 378 and other types of theft, such as theft in a dwelling home cases falling under section 380. The same holds true for the remaining offenses mentioned above, such as Dacoity under Section 391 and Dacoity with Murder under Section 396, as well as the offenses listed below the definition of Mischief.

Section 98: Because Section 97 grants a person the right of private defense with regard to a body of property only against acts that qualify as offenses, this section creates an exception to the general rule that would have been left out of the purview and operation of the previous section. Nevertheless, for legal reasons or explanations, some behaviors-despite being frightening or potentially fatal-do not meet the criteria to be considered crimes. Such acts are included in Sections 76 through 86 of the first section of the Chapter. This clause resolves the conflict because it is illegal to deny someone their rights only because they are protected by others or do not have mens rea.

Section 100-102: This power extends to the point of causing the attacker any harm other than death if the offense does not fit any of the previously mentioned categories (Section 101). Section 102 governs the initiation and maintenance of this right. It specifies when an individual can use the right to private property defense and the duration of that right. This is because the law cannot permit someone to pursue an offender after an attack or attempt has ended, locate them, and harm them even after the situation has been resolved or significantly changed, allowing the law to proceed as usual.

Section 103-105: This part follows the similar scheme as discussed above with Section103 specifying the circumstances when this right extends to the voluntary causing of death, Section 104 lays down when this right can be exercised for causing any harm other than death and Section 105 delineating the contours of this right-commencement and continuance. The right of private defence of property extends, under the restrictions mentioned in Section 99, to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the wrong-doer, in the commission or attempt of any offence in the description of:

1. Robbery (390)
2. House-breaking by night (446 read with 445)
3. Mischief by fire 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 (436 and other sections)
4. 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 (390, 425 or 442 read with any other section covering any offence of the description of apprehension of death or grievous hurt). If a person does not have possession over the property, he cannot claim any right of private defence regarding such property. Right to dispossess or throw out a trespasser is not available to the true owner if the trespasser has been successful in accomplishing his possession to his knowledge.

Conclusion
Generally speaking, any offense against a person or piece of property can be justified by private defense. It can be used to defend someone you don't know well and can be applied to both guilty and innocent aggressors. Only in cases of immediate necessity-that is, in response to violence threats-is the defense admissible.

A person is protected if they act in accordance with an incorrect belief regarding the necessity of defense, provided that the error was reasonable. Although the actor may not have known it, it should be sufficient in theory that the force employed was actually required for defense; yet, the law is unclear in this regard. While there isn't exactly a need to retreat, a defender nevertheless needs to express his wish to leave the fight whenever possible.

Written By: Akanksha