Right to Private Defence in Indian Penal Code-Statutory and Judicial Attitude

Legal status of self defence In most jurisdictions, when the defence succeeds, it operates as a complete justification when the degree of violence used is comparable or proportionate to the threat faced, so deadly force would only be excused in situations of “extreme” danger. The defence would fail if a defendant deliberately killed a petty thief who did not appear to be a physical threat. Similarly, when an assailant ceases to be a threat (say, being tackled and restrained), the defence will fail if the defending party presses on to attack. A somewhat less obvious application of this rule is that admitting the use of deadly force in an attempt to disable rather than kill the assailant can be construed as evidence that the defendant wasn't yet in enough danger to justify lethal force in the first place. Sometimes there is a duty to retreat which makes the defence problematic when applied to abusive relationships and in burglary situations given the so called castle exception, which argues that one cannot be expected to retreat from one's own home, namely, “a man's house is his castle, et domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium”, that is, Latin for “and each man's home is his safest refuge”. However, if one is “challenged” in a bar for a fight, accepting such challenge, instead of walking away, generally will not constitute a self defence. In some countries, the concept of “pre-emptive” self defence is limited by a requirement that the threat be imminent. Thus, lawful “pre-emptive” self defence is simply the act of landing the first-blow in a situation that has reached a point of no hope for de-escalation or escape. Many self-defence instructors and experts believe that if the situation is so clear-cut as to feel certain violence is unavoidable, the defender has a much better chance of surviving by landing the first blow (sucker punch) and gaining the immediate upper hand to quickly stop the risk to their person.¹