Self-preservation is the basic human instinct and is duly recognized by the criminal jurisprudence of all the civilized countries.
All the civilized, free, and democratic countries recognize the right of Private or Self Defence with certain reasonable limits.
To claim the right of private defence one must show that there were circumstances giving rise to reasonable grounds for apprehending that either death or grievous hurt is or was caused by certain actions.
Self-preservation is of paramount importance as nothing is more important to a person or any living being, for that matter than their physical well being.
Every legal system in the world today recognizes and accepts that every person has an interest in protecting their life and property.
“Extreme pacifists kept aside, virtually everyone agrees that it issometimes morally permissible to engage in what Glanville Willams has termed as “private defence”, i.e., to inflict serious (even lethal) harm upon another person in order to protect oneself or some innocent third party from suffering the same.
The rule of preservation renders it fair and just for a person to save his life or bodily integrity even if the only way to do so is to sacrifice the assailant's life or limb.
There would be a logical inconsistency if the right to life that has been affirmed by the constitution but the permission to use reasonable means necessary to repel aggressive threats is refused or denied.
Private Defence may be considered as the oldest ground of justification for the use of force in all legal systems around the globe.
The law permits the defence of others because the righteous resentment kindled while observing the strong ill-treating the weak is surely a noble impulse.
In organized societies, the state and its officials are given exclusive law enforcement responsibilities. Private acts of retribution and violence are strictly prohibited and disqualified by the laws for the time being in force.
The Right of Self Defence revolves around the general adage that "necessity knows no law"
It is the duty of the state to protect its citizens but the police of the state are not ubiquitous and a person may then have to strikeout to protect himself.
The provisions regarding Self Defence form a valuable defence in criminal law and have been set forth under the caption "General Exceptions" of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The relevant provisions are laid down in sections 96 to 106 of the Indian Penal Code which is ostensibly based on the idea that the right of self-preservation is a basic human instinct.
These sections, which are clustered under the abovementioned sub-heading constitute a comprehensive legislative framework of the Right to Self Defence as it deals with nature, extent, as well as the limitations within which the right of Self Defence is required to be exercised.
Concept of Self/Private Defence in India
The expression "Private Defence", which has been used in India, has not been defined in the Indian Penal Code (IPC)
In the absence of any statutory definition, the judiciary was invited to delineate the contours of this expression.
It furnishes justification for an act which would, otherwise, be considered as a crime. It basically creates an exception to criminal liability only in certain situations.
The law of Self Defence embodied in the IPC is based upon the English Law but has been adapted with slight changes suited to the needs of our country.
The Right of Self Defence will be of no use if it were to be exercised after the commission of an offence. In fact, it should be exercised with proper care and only reasonable force shall be used.
It has been ruled to the effect that for a plea of right to private defence to succeed in totality, it must be proved that there existed a right to private defence in favour of the accused.
Many natural inequalities may be allowed to run free, but all legal systems attempt to equalize human beings to the extent of preventing resort to force by those who are
It is not necessary that there should be an actual commission of the offence in order to give rise to the right of self defence mere reasonable apprehension is enough to put this right into operation.
In self defence the person should not use disproportionate force or much greater than required and only necessary force or the same amount of force shall be used as used by an assailant.
The Right of Self Defence is preventive and not punitive.
Apparent danger can be understood by:
If a person feels that the other person is committing an assault with the intent to commit rape then the death can be committed for self defence. This was ruled by the Hon'ble Orissa High Court in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Nirupama Panda.
What does the Hon'ble Supreme Court State on the Right of Self Defence.
It is not the right to take revenge but it is a right to defend. The right of Self Defence can only be exercised when a person is unable to get immediate help from the police.
The right can be extended to protect the body, property as well as a third party.
It should be an act of necessity and not self-creation. Only the necessary force shall be used to tackle that situation or danger.
The right of Self Defence is recognized under the law but should be exercised within reasonable limits.
Conclusion
The right of Self Defence has been recognized by the laws in almost every country today. Self-preservation is a basic human instinct. I hope this blog post gave a broad and clear idea pertaining to the Right of Self Defence.
Comments