Right of Private Defence

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh in the case of Rakesh Dutt Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand (2025) acquitted a medical practitioner who was convicted for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, holding that his actions constituted lawful exercise of the right of private defence. 

What was the Background of Rakesh Dutt Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand (2025) Case? 

• The appellant, Rakesh Dutt Sharma, was a medical practitioner who had a monetary dispute with the deceased. 
• The deceased, armed with a pistol, went to the appellant's clinic and shot him, causing injury to his head. 
• In retaliation, the appellant snatched the pistol from the deceased and shot him down, resulting in the deceased's death. 
• Both parties had registered FIRs against each other, but the case against the deceased was closed following his death. 
• The appellant was originally charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 
• The Trial Court convicted him under Section 304 Part I of the IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and sentenced him to life imprisonment. 
• The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence on appeal. 
• The appellant approached the Supreme Court challenging the conviction, claiming that his actions were in exercise of his right of private defence. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Supreme Court noted that the deceased was the clear aggressor who initiated the attack by going to the appellant's clinic armed with a pistol. 
• The Court emphasized that "the right of private defence cannot be brushed aside and cannot be weighed in a golden scale." 
• The bench observed that in situations involving imminent threat, "there is no way the accused person would apply his rational mind in exercising his right of private defence." 
• The Court stressed that the approach should not be pedantic and must be seen from the perspective of a common and reasonable person. 
• The Supreme Court relied heavily on the precedent set in Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr. (2010) and cited the following principles:  
  • Self-preservation is a basic human instinct recognised in criminal law across civilised countries, including the right of private defence within reasonable limits. 
  • Private defence applies only when a person is suddenly confronted with impending danger, not when the danger is self-created. 
  • A reasonable apprehension of danger is sufficient to invoke right of private defence, an actual offence need not have occurred. 
  • The right begins as soon as reasonable apprehension arises and continues for as long as the apprehension lasts. 
  • A person under attack cannot be expected to modulate his defence with mathematical precision. 
  • Force used in private defence must not be wholly disproportionate or much greater than necessary for protection. 
  • Courts can consider self-defence even if the accused has not specifically pleaded it, if it arises from the evidence. 
  • The accused does not have to prove the right of private defence beyond reasonable doubt. 
  • The IPC grants private defence only against unlawful or wrongful acts that amount to offences. 
  • A person facing imminent and reasonable danger of death or serious injury may, in self-defence, cause harm even extending to the death of the assailant. 
• Applying these principles, the court held that Sharma's act fell within the scope of private defence and that both the trial court and the high court erred in convicting him. 
• The Court held that situations involving private defence "have to be judged from the subjective point of view of the accused concerned in the surrounding excitement and confusion of the moment." 
• The bench rejected the prosecution's argument that the appellant had exceeded his right of private defence by shooting the deceased on vital parts. 
• The Court granted complete acquittal to the appellant, setting aside both the Trial Court and High Court judgments. 

What is the Right of Private Defence under BNS? 

About: 

• The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), India's updated criminal code effective July 1, 2024, codifies the right of private defence in Sections 34–44 of BNS replacing the corresponding provisions (Sections 96-106) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC).  

Key Legal Framework: 

• Fundamental Principle: Section 34 of BNS states that "nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.  
• Core Sections: 
  • Section 34: Basic principle - acts done in legitimate private defence are excused. 
  • Section 35: Right to defend one's own body/property or that of others against criminal attacks. 
  • Section 36: Defence against insane or intoxicated aggressors (same rights apply). 
  • Section 37: Restrictions - no right against lawful public servant acts or when safe alternatives exist 

When Deadly Force is Permitted: 

For Body Defence (Section 38): 

• When the assailant's assault reasonably causes apprehension of death or grievous hurt, or is committed with intent to commit rape, unnatural sex, kidnapping, unlawful confinement, or throwing acid.

For Property Defence (Section 41): 

• Against robbery, night-time burglary (after sunset before sunrise), or mischief by fire to a dwelling.  

Notable Features: 

• BNS retained and refined the old IPC rules on self-defence while using updated language and examples. 
• The framework covers defence of both person and property. 
• Special provisions exist for scenarios involving innocent bystanders (Section 44). 
• The law permits defending life even at some risk to innocents, reflecting the priority of saving the defender's life.