Right of private defense under Indian Penal Code

Chapter IV (general exception), section 96 to 106private defense extends to causing of death.
explain the provision of the Right of private 
defense.  The right of private defense rests onIn order to avail of such exception of criminal
the general principle that where a crime isliability under this clause, what is require to be
endeavored to be committed by force, it is lawfulestablish is that there was reasonable
to repel that force in self defense.circumstances giving rise to reasonable
 apprehension of either death or grievous hurt.
Basic Principle: self preservation is the privateSuch an apprehension of death or grievous hurt
instinct of every human being. Every man has themust be real or reasonable and not an illusory or
right of private defense his own body, propertyimaginary.  It must be present and imminent and
and the body and property of his nearer.  Thisnot remote or distant one.  The reasonable
basic principle has been recognized in the IPC toapprehension of cause of death or grievous hurt
give protection to the wrong doer, who commitswill be caused to him , however is required to be
a criminal act in the course of protecting hisjudged from the subjective point of view and it
person, property, body and property of hiscannot be subject to microscopic and pedantic
nearest.scrutiny.
  
Russel: Justified the killing of an aggressor, againstThe accused must be bona fide fear that death
the exercise of the right of private defense foror grievous hurt would otherwise be the
saving her body and property.consequence of the assault if he done not defend.
Bantham also justified the principle of selfIt is not essential that actual injury should be
preservation in his principle of penal code, hecaused by the aggressor or the victim before the
admit that  Magistrate (State) is not such capableright of self defense can be availed of. Person
to vigilance (save) every individual, nor the fear ofapprehending danger is not required to wait for
law can restrain bad men as the fear of the sumsustaining injury. Mere apprehension is sufficient to
total of individual resistance.exercise his right of private defense.
Right to private defense and IPC. 
S.96, define that nothing is an office which is doneException of Right to Private Defense
in the exercise of the right of private defense, 
which lays done the general rule on the right ofRight to private defense not available to
private defense. While S.97 which deals with theaggressors.
subject matter of the right of private defense ofThere is no right to private defense can be
body and property and lays down the extent ofclaimed by the aggressors. It is available against
the right of private defense, proclaims that everyany offense and therefore, where an act is done
person, subject to restrictions contained in S.99,in exercise of the right of private defense, such
has a right to defend his own body and the bodyact cannot rise to any right of private defense in
of another , against any office affecting human,favor of the aggressor in return. Chacko v/s
and right to defend the property of his own andstate of kerala.
his nearer or any other person against any actQuantum of injuries:
which is an offence falling under the definition ofIf a person exercising the right of private defense
theft, robbery, mischief, or criminal trespass. andhas the better of the aggressor, provided he
S.99 lists the situation wherein the right to privatedoes not exceed his right because the movement
defense of body as well as property is nothe exceeds it he commits and offense. The
available to an individual, s102 and s105 deal withinjuries given to the aggressor by the accused
commencement and continuation of right tomust be in propositioned the assault.
private defense of body and property.Free fight:
Whereas SS.100,101,103,104 deals with the extantThere is no defense available of right of private
of harm (including voluntary death) that my bedefense when there is a free fight between two
inflicted on the assailant in exercise of the right ofparties or individual, one another using unlawful
body and of property respectively, while S.98 alsoforce against each other. Both the sides mean to
provide the right of private defense against thefight from the start. And they have the same
lunatic person as well.intention to give the injuries to other.
  
S100.Right of private defense of the bodyNo right of private defense available in the
extends to causing death:following condition also:
The right of private defense of the body extends 
to causing death is recognized by S100 of IPC,- Against lawful acts.
but this right is subject to  the restrictions- Unlawful assembly.
mentioned in the S.99 of IPC, to the voluntary 
causing of death or of any other harm to the 
assailant,  when any one of the six situationsCase Laws.
stipulated therein arise in the committing of the 
offence of body extend to the causing ofVishwantha v/s Stateof UP AIR 1960 SC 67
voluntary death of the actual or potential assailantSC held that appellant had the right of private
if he through either of the specified assaultsdefense of person under the fifth clause of s.100
causes reasonable and immediate apprehension ofIPc and did not cause more harm than was
death or grievous hurt  in the mind of thenecessary and acquitted the appellant.
accused. 
The  categories of assault specified in theState of UP v/s Zalim and other.
sections are: 
 SC held that mere apprehension of death is not
1. Assault to kill.the ground of right to private defense.
2. Assault to cause grievous hurt. 
3. Assault to commit rape.State of UP v/s Chattur sing
4. Assault to gratify unnatural lust.Hon'ble court held that accused intention and
5. Assault to kidnap or abductpremeditated notion to murder is clear and
6. Assault to wrongfully confining a person and theaccused is liable to be convicted to be murder.
accused cannot recourse to the public authority 
for his release. 
  
 Conclusion:
Reasonable apprehension of Death or Grievous 
hurt Sufficient:Right to private defense is essentially a defensive
The first clause of s.100 stipulates that the rightright circumscribed by the IPC and it is available
of private defense of body extends to causingonly when the circumstances clearly justify it. It is
death, when such an assault reasonably causesexercised only to repel unlawful aggression and to
the apprehension that death will otherwise be thepunish the aggressor for the offence committed
consequence of such assault.by him. It is basically preventive in nature and
 the second clause of s100 stipulates that whennot  punitive.  It is neither a right of aggression
an assault caused the reasonable apprehensionnor a reprisal. Its exercise cannot be vindictive or
that grievous hurt will otherwise be themalicious.
consequence of such an assault, the  right of