(3) “child” means any person below the age of eighteen years;

(10) “gender”.—The pronoun “he” and its derivatives are used of any person, whether male,
female or transgender.
Explanation.–– “transgender” shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (k) of section 2
of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019;
2 (14) “injury” means any harm whatever illegally caused to any person, in body, mind,
reputation or property;
(18) “local law” means a law applicable only to a particular part of India;
(19) “man” means male human being of any age;
(24) “offence”.—Except in the Chapters and sections mentioned in subclauses (a) and (b), the
word “offence” means a thing made punishable by this Sanhita, but––
(a) in Chapter III and in the following sections, namely, subsections (2),(3), (4) and (5) of
section 8, sections 9, 49, 50, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 119,120, 123, subsections (7)
and (8) of section 127, 222, 230, 231, 240, 248, 250,251, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263,
subsections (6) and (7) of section 308 and subsection (2) of section 330, the word “offence”
means a thing punishable under this Sanhita, or under any special law or local law; and
(b) in subsection (1) of section 189, sections 211, 212, 238, 239, 249, 253 and subsection (1)
of section 329, the word “offence” shall have the same meaning when the act punishable
under the special law or local law is punishable under such law with imprisonment for a term
of six months or more, whether with or without fine;
(25) “omission” denotes as well as a series of omissions as a single omission;
(26) “person” includes any company or association or body of persons, whether
incorporated or not;
(30) “special law” means a law applicable to a particular subject;
(35) “woman” means a female human being of any age;

GENERAL EXCEPTIONS
General exceptions provide immunity from criminal liability for acts that would otherwise be
considered offences.
3. (1) Throughout this Sanhita every definition of an offence, every penal provision, and
every Illustration of every such definition or penal provision, shall be understood subject to
the exceptions contained in the Chapter entitled “General Exceptions”, though those
exceptions are not repeated in such definition, penal provision, or Illustration.
CHAPTER III
GENERAL EXCEPTIONS
1. Mistake of Fact (Sections 14 and 17):
2. Judicial Acts (Section 15 and 16):
3. Accident (Section 18):
4. Absence of Criminal Intent (Sections 19 to 24, 30 to 32):
5. Consent (Sections 25 to 27, 30):
6. Communication (Section 31):
7. Duress (Section 32):
8. Trifling Acts (Section 33):
9. Private Defence (Sections 34 to 44):

The General Exceptions are divided into 2 categories:

 Excusable Acts
 Judicially Justifiable Acts

Excusable Acts Justifiable Act

A mistake of Fact under section 14 An act of Judge and Act performed in pursuance of an order under
and 17. Section 15 and 16.

Accident under Section 18. The necessity under 19.

Infancy – Section 20 and 21. Consent under Section 25 – 27 and Section 28 and 30.

Insanity – Section 22. Communication under Section 31.

Intoxication – Section 23 and 24. Duress under Section 32.

Trifles under Section 33.

Private Defence under Section 34 – 44.

Excusable Acts

Mistake of Fact (Sections 14 and 17)

 Section 14: Act done by a person bound, or by mistake of fact believing himself bound, by
law.

Rule: A person is not guilty of an offence if:

1. They do something they believe they are legally required to do,

2. This belief is due to a mistake of fact, not a mistake of law,

3. They act in good faith.

Illustrations:

1. Soldier: A soldier fires at a mob following his superior's lawful orders. He is not guilty.

2. Court Officer: A court officer arrests the wrong person by mistake after thorough
investigation. He is not guilty.

Objective of Section 14:

1. Protect Honest Mistakes: Safeguard those acting under a genuine mistake of fact.

2. Ensure Good Faith: Protect actions taken in good faith under mistaken belief of legal duty.

3. Support Lawful Orders: Shield those following lawful orders.

4. Promote Justice: Prevent punishment for genuine mistakes

Section 17: Act done by a person justified, or by mistake of fact believing himself justified,
by law.

Rule: A person is not guilty of an offence if:

1. They are justified by law in doing something, or

2. They believe, due to a mistake of fact and not a mistake of law, that they are justified by
law,

3. They act in good faith.

Illustration:

Apprehending a Suspected Murderer: A sees Z commit what looks like a murder. A,

believing he has the legal right to apprehend a murderer, seizes Z to take him to the
authorities. Even if it turns out Z was acting in selfdefence, A is not guilty.

Objective of Section 17:

1. Protect Justified Actions: Safeguard those legally justified in their actions.

2. Allow for Mistakes of Fact: Provide immunity for actions based on a genuine mistake of
fact.

3. Encourage Good Faith Efforts: Support actions taken in good faith.

4. Balance Law Enforcement: Ensure fair treatment for wellintentioned mistakes.

Judicial Acts (Section 15 and 16):

Section 15: Act of Judge when acting judicially

Rule: A judge is not guilty of an offence for actions taken:

1. While acting judicially,

2. In the exercise of any power given to him by law,

3. Or which he believes in good faith to be given to him by law.

Illustration:

Judge's Decision: Judge A, in the course of a trial, orders the seizure of certain property
believing it to be within his legal authority. Even if it later turns out that the judge did not
have the authority to order the seizure, Judge A is not guilty of an offence because he acted in
good faith believing he was exercising a legal power.

Objective:
Protect Judges: Ensure judges can perform their duties without facing criminal charges.

Promote Judicial Independence: Encourage judges to make decisions in good faith under their
perceived legal authority.

Section 16: Act done pursuant to judgment or order of Court

Rule: A person is not guilty of an offence for actions taken:

1. In pursuance of, or warranted by, a court's judgment or order,

2. While such judgment or order is in force,

3. Even if the court had no jurisdiction, provided the person acted in good faith believing the
court had jurisdiction.

Illustration:

Execution of Order: Court Officer B, acting on a court's order, seizes a person's property.
Later, it is found that the court had no jurisdiction to issue that order. However, Officer B
believed in good faith that the court had the jurisdiction, so he is not guilty of an offence for
following the court's order.

Objective:

Protect Compliance: Safeguard individuals following court orders from criminal liability.

Encourage Legal Certainty: Ensure actions taken under court orders are respected, even if the
court's jurisdiction is later questioned.

Accident under Section 18. Accident in doing a lawful act.

Objective of Section 18

Section 18: Accident in doing a lawful act

Rule: No offence is committed if:

1. The act is done by accident or misfortune,

2. There is no criminal intention or knowledge involved,

3. The act is in the course of doing a lawful act,

4. It is done in a lawful manner and by lawful means,

5. It is done with proper care and caution.

Illustration:

Accidental Death: A is using a hatchet at work; unexpectedly, the head of the hatchet flies
off and kills a person nearby. If A took proper care and caution while using the hatchet, and
the incident was purely accidental without any criminal intent or negligence, A's action is
excusable and not considered an offence.

A construction worker is hammering nails into a wall. Accidentally, a nail slips off and hits a
passerby, causing injury. If the worker was using the hammer properly and exercising due
caution, the injury would be considered accidental and not an offence.

Infancy – Section 20 and 21.

Section 20: Act of a child under seven years of age

Rule: No offence is committed if:

1. The act is done by a child under seven years of age.

Section 21: Act of a child above seven and under twelve years of age of immature
understanding

Rule: No offence is committed if:

1. The act is done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve years of age,

2. The child has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and
consequences of their conduct on that occasion.
These sections aim to protect young children who may not fully comprehend the
consequences of their actions from being held criminally responsible.

Illustrations for Sections 20 and 21

Section 20: Act of a child under seven years of age

Illustration:

Scenario: A child who is six years old picks up a toy belonging to another child and
unintentionally breaks it. The child is not guilty of any offence under Section 20 because they
are under seven years of age and may not fully understand the consequences of their actions.

Section 21: Act of a child above seven and under twelve years of age of immature
understanding

Illustration:

Scenario: A child who is ten years old takes a bicycle for a ride without permission and
accidentally damages it. The child, due to their age and immature understanding, did not
realize the potential consequences of taking the bike. In this case, the child is not guilty of an
offence under Section 21 because they have not attained sufficient maturity of understanding
to judge the nature and consequences of their conduct.

Insanity – Section 22.

Section 22: Act of a person of unsound mind

Rule: No offence is committed if:

1. The act is done by a person who, at the time of doing it,

2. Due to unsoundness of mind,

3. Is incapable of knowing:

The nature of the act, or

That what they are doing is either wrong or contrary to law.

This section provides protection for individuals who, due to mental incapacity, are unable to
understand the nature or consequences of their actions.

The M'Naghten Rule, also known as the M'Naghten Test, is a legal standard used in many
common law jurisdictions, including England and several U.S. states, to determine the
insanity defence in criminal cases.

It originated from the 1843 case of Daniel M'Naghten, who attempted to assassinate the
British Prime Minister's secretary under delusional beliefs.

Criteria of the M'Naghten Rule:

1. Cognitive Test (intellectual, reasoning etc)

The rule primarily focuses on the cognitive abilities of the defendant at the time of the
offence.

It asks whether the defendant knew the nature and quality of their act or understood what
they were doing.

Specifically, it examines whether the defendant understood:

The nature of the act itself (i.e., whether they knew what they were physically doing),

The quality of the act (i.e., whether they understood the consequences and circumstances
surrounding the act),

Whether the act was morally or legally wrong.

2. Wrongfulness of the Act:

If the defendant did not understand the nature of their actions or did not know that their
actions were wrong (in a legal or moral sense), they may be found not guilty by reason of
insanity under the M'Naghten Rule.

Application in Court:

Courts use expert testimony, medical records, and other evidence to assess the defendant's
mental state at the time of the offence.
 The burden of proof typically rests on the defence to demonstrate, on the balance of
probabilities, that the defendant meets the criteria of the M'Naghten Rule to establish legal
insanity.

Criticisms and Modifications:

Narrow Focus: Some critics argue that the M'Naghten Rule focuses too narrowly on
cognitive abilities and fails to consider volitional (behavioral) aspects of mental illness.

Legal Precedent:

Despite criticisms, the M'Naghten Rule remains influential in many jurisdictions as a

fundamental test for determining criminal responsibility based on the defendant's mental state
at the time of the offence.

Intoxication – Section 23 and 24.

Section 23: Act of a person incapable of judgment by reason of intoxication caused against
his will

Rule: No offence is committed if:

The act is done by a person who, at the time of doing it,

Due to intoxication caused against their will,

Is incapable of knowing:

The nature of the act, or

That what they are doing is either wrong or contrary to law,

Provided that the intoxicating substance was administered to them without their knowledge or
against their will.

Section 24: Offence requiring a particular intent or knowledge committed by one who is
intoxicated

Rule: This section applies in cases where an act is only considered an offence if it is done
with a specific intent or knowledge.
1. General Principle: Some offences require a particular mental state, such as intent
(knowingly or intentionally) or knowledge (knowing certain facts or circumstances).

2. Effect of Intoxication: If a person commits such an act while intoxicated:

They are treated as if they had the same mental state (intent or knowledge) required for the
offence,

This means they can be held criminally liable as if they were not intoxicated and possessed
the necessary mental state.

3. Exception: However, if the intoxicating substance was administered to them without their
knowledge or against their will:

This exception applies to both Section 23 and Section 24,

In such cases, the person may not be held liable as if they had the required mental state
because their intoxication was involuntary.

Example:

Scenario: John consumes alcohol voluntarily and becomes intoxicated. While intoxicated, he
commits an assault that requires intent to cause harm.

Application of Section 24:

Despite being intoxicated, John will be treated as if he had the intent to cause harm required
for the assault offence.

Exception: If someone spiked John's drink without his knowledge, causing his intoxication:

John may argue under Section 24 that he should not be held liable as if he had intent
because his intoxication was involuntary.

This section clarifies how voluntary and involuntary intoxication affect criminal liability
based on the mental state required for specific offences.

Section 19: Act likely to cause harm, but done without criminal intent, and to prevent other
harm
Rule: An act is not considered an offence merely because it is done with the knowledge that it
is likely to cause harm if the following conditions are met:

1. The act is done without any criminal intention to cause harm.

2. The act is done in good faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm to a
person or property.

Explanation: Whether the harm to be prevented or avoided justifies or excuses the risk of
doing the act is a question of fact. The danger being prevented must be of such a nature and
so imminent that it justifies the action taken.

Illustrations:

1. Illustration (a):

Scenario: A captain of a vessel finds himself in a situation where he must choose between
two harmful outcomes:

Running down boat B with 2030 passengers on board.

Changing course and risking running down boat C with only two passengers on board.

Action: The captain changes course to avoid boat B, knowing it risks hitting boat C.

Outcome: If it is found that the danger to boat B's passengers was so imminent and serious
that it justified the risk to boat C, the captain is not guilty of an offence.

2. Illustration (b):

Scenario: A person pulls down houses during a great fire to prevent the fire from
spreading.

Action: The person does this in good faith to save lives or property.

Outcome: If it is found that the harm being prevented (the spread of the fire) was so
imminent and serious that it justified the destruction of the houses, the person is not guilty of
an offence.

Objective:
Section 19 aims to protect individuals who perform acts that might cause harm, provided
these acts are done without criminal intent and in good faith to prevent a greater imminent
harm. It balances the need to prevent harm with the recognition that sometimes causing
limited harm is necessary to avoid a larger disaster.

CONSENT

Section 25: Act not intended and not known to be likely to cause death or grievous hurt,
done by consent

Rule: An act is not considered an offence if:

1. It is not intended to cause death or grievous hurt.

2. The doer does not know that it is likely to cause death or grievous hurt.

3. The person harmed is above 18 years of age and has given consent (either express or
implied) to suffer the harm.

Illustration:

Example: A and Z agree to fence for fun.

Implied Consent: Both A and Z have consented to any harm that might occur during the
fencing, as long as there is no foul play.

Outcome: If A accidentally hurts Z while fencing fairly, A has not committed an offence
because Z consented to the risk.

Section 25 protects individuals from criminal liability for harm caused during consensual
activities, provided the harm was not intended or known to be likely to cause serious injury or
death, and the person harmed is an adult who consented to the risk.

Section 26: Act not intended to cause death, done by consent in good faith for person's
benefit

Rule: An act is not an offence if:

1. It is not intended to cause death.

2. It causes harm, but the harm is intended or known by the doer to be likely to cause harm.

3. The act is done in good faith for the benefit of the person harmed.

4. The person harmed has given consent (either express or implied) to suffer the harm or take
the risk of the harm.

Illustration:

Example: A surgeon, A, knows that a certain operation is likely to cause the death of Z, who
suffers from a painful condition.

Action: A performs the operation, not intending to cause Z's death but intending to benefit
Z in good faith.

Consent: Z has consented to the operation.

Outcome: A has committed no offence because the act was done in good faith for Z's
benefit with Z's consent, and it was not intended to cause death.

Section 26 allows for acts that may cause harm but are done in good faith for the benefit of
the person harmed, provided the person has consented and there is no intention to cause
death. This typically applies to medical procedures and other situations where harm might
occur as part of a beneficial act.

Section 27: Act done in good faith for the benefit of a child or person of unsound mind, by,
or by consent of guardian

Rule: An act is not an offence if:

1. It is done in good faith for the benefit of a person under twelve years of age or a person of
unsound mind.

2. It is done by, or with the consent (express or implied) of, the guardian or lawful caretaker
of that person.

3. The act causes harm, or is intended or known to be likely to cause harm.

Exceptions: This exception does not apply to:

(a) Intentional causing of death or attempting to cause death.

(b) Actions known to be likely to cause death, unless done to prevent death or grievous hurt,
or to cure a grievous disease or infirmity.

(c) Voluntary causing of grievous hurt or attempting to cause grievous hurt, unless done to
prevent death or grievous hurt, or to cure a grievous disease or infirmity.

(d) Abetment of any offence not covered by this exception.

Illustration:

Example: A father, A, has his child undergo a surgical operation to remove a stone, knowing
that the operation is likely to cause the child's death but not intending to cause the child's
death.

Action: The operation is performed for the child's benefit and with the father's consent.

Outcome: A is within the exception because the action was done in good faith for the
child's cure, despite the risk of death.

Section 27 allows for acts done in good faith for the benefit of children under twelve or
persons of unsound mind, with the consent of their guardians, even if the acts cause harm.
However, this protection does not extend to intentional or likely causing of death, grievous
hurt, or abetment of offences not covered by the exception.

Section 28: Consent known to be given under fear or misconception

Rule: Consent is not valid if:

(a) It is given under fear of injury or a misconception of fact, and the person performing the
act knows or has reason to believe that the consent was given because of such fear or
misconception.

(b) It is given by a person who is unable to understand the nature and consequences of the
consent due to unsoundness of mind or intoxication.

(c) It is given by a person who is under twelve years of age, unless the context suggests
otherwise.

Explanation of Each Clause:

(a) Consent under fear or misconception:

If a person consents to something because they are afraid of being injured or are misled
about a fact, and the person performing the act knows this, the consent is invalid.

Example: If A threatens B with harm unless B agrees to sign a document, B's consent is not
valid because it was given under fear.

(b) Consent by unsound mind or intoxicated person:

If a person is unable to understand what they are consenting to due to mental incapacity or
intoxication, their consent is invalid.

Example: If C, who is drunk, agrees to sell D their property, C’s consent is not valid as C is
unable to understand the nature of the agreement.

(c) Consent by a minor under twelve years:

Generally, consent given by a person under twelve years of age is not valid.

Example: If E, who is eleven years old, agrees to engage in a risky activity with F, E's
consent is not valid because they are under twelve.

Section 28 establishes that for consent to be valid under the law, it must be given freely and
with full understanding of the situation. Consent given under fear, misconception, by
someone mentally incapable, intoxicated, or under twelve years of age, is not considered
valid. This ensures that consent is genuine and not manipulated or coerced.

Section 29: Exclusion of acts which are offences independently of harm caused

Rule: The exceptions in Sections 25, 26, and 27 do not apply to acts that are offences in
themselves, regardless of any harm they may cause, intend to cause, or be known to be likely
to cause to the person giving consent or on whose behalf consent is given.

Explanation:

Scope: This rule clarifies that certain acts are considered offences by law, regardless of the
consent or the resulting harm. The consent of the victim or their guardian does not justify
such acts.
 Independent Offences: These are actions that are illegal on their own, not just because they
cause harm. The consent of the person affected or their guardian cannot legitimize these acts.

Illustration:

Example: Causing a miscarriage (except when done in good faith to save the life of the
woman) is an offence.

Action: Even if a woman consents to a miscarriage or her guardian consents on her behalf,
it is still an offence because causing a miscarriage is illegal independently of the harm it may
cause to the woman.

Section 29 emphasizes that certain acts remain criminal offences regardless of consent or
harm considerations. This ensures that acts deemed illegal by their nature cannot be excused
by claiming they were done with consent or caused harm only with consent. For instance,
causing a miscarriage is an offence regardless of the consent of the woman involved,
reinforcing the principle that some actions are prohibited outright.

Section 30: Act done in good faith for the benefit of a person without consent

Rule: An act that causes harm is not an offence if:

It is done in good faith for the benefit of a person.

The person cannot give consent due to circumstances, incapacity, or lack of a guardian or
legal representative who can give consent in time for the act to be beneficial.

Exceptions: This does not apply to:

(a) Intentional causing of death or attempting to cause death.

(b) Actions known to be likely to cause death, except for preventing death, grievous hurt, or
curing a grievous disease or infirmity.

(c) Voluntarily causing hurt or attempting to cause hurt, except for preventing death or hurt.

(d) Abetment of any offence not covered by this exception.

Illustrations:
Example 1: Z is unconscious after a fall from a horse. A surgeon, A, finds that Z needs an
urgent surgery to save his life. A performs the surgery without waiting for Z to regain
consciousness.

Outcome: A has committed no offence because the act was done in good faith for Z's
benefit.

Example 2: Z is being carried away by a tiger. A shoots at the tiger, knowing the shot might
hit Z but intending to save Z. Unfortunately, the shot kills Z.

Outcome: A has committed no offence because the act was done in good faith to save Z.

Example 3: A surgeon, A, sees a child injured and likely to die without immediate surgery.
There is no time to contact the child's guardian. Despite the child's protests, A performs the
surgery.

Outcome: A has committed no offence because the act was done in good faith for the
child's benefit.

Example 4: A house is on fire, and A is with a child, Z, on the top floor. People below hold a
blanket for rescue. A drops Z from the top floor, knowing it might kill Z but intending to save
Z. Z dies from the fall.

Outcome: A has committed no offence because the act was done in good faith to save the
child.

Explanation: Mere pecuniary benefit does not qualify as "benefit" under Sections 26, 27, and
30.

Section 30 allows acts done in good faith for the benefit of a person who cannot give consent
due to incapacity or emergency circumstances, provided the act does not intentionally cause
death or harm. It ensures that beneficial actions taken under urgent and unavoidable situations
are not penalized, emphasizing the importance of good faith and the urgency of the situation.

Section 31: Communication made in good faith

Rule: A communication made in good faith is not an offence, even if it causes harm to the
person to whom it is made, as long as it is made for that person's benefit.

Explanation:
 Scope: This rule protects individuals who communicate harmful information if the
communication is done in good faith and for the benefit of the recipient.

Good Faith: The communication must be honest and intended to help the person receiving it.

Illustration:

Example: A surgeon, A, tells a patient that they have a terminal illness and cannot survive.
The patient dies from the shock of the news.

Outcome: A has committed no offence because the communication was made in good faith
and intended for the patient's benefit, even though it caused harm (death) to the patient.

Section 31 ensures that communications made with honest intentions for the benefit of the
recipient are not criminalized, even if they result in harm. It acknowledges the necessity of
sometimes delivering difficult information and protects those who do so in good faith.

Section 32: Act to which a person is compelled by threats

Rule: A person is not guilty of an offence (except murder and offences against the State
punishable with death) if they are forced to commit the act under threats of instant death.

Conditions:

The threat must cause reasonable fear of instant death.

The person must not have voluntarily placed themselves in the situation where they were
subject to the threat.

Explanations:

1. Voluntary Association: A person who joins a gang of criminals, knowing their nature, and
then commits offences under threat is not protected by this exception.

2. Compelled by Threat: A person who is forcibly taken by criminals and compelled under
threat of instant death to commit an offence is protected by this exception.
Illustrations:

Example 1: A person, who willingly joins a gang of dacoits knowing their criminal activities,
cannot claim this exception if they are later forced by the gang to commit crimes.

Outcome: Not entitled to the benefit of this exception.

Example 2: A blacksmith is captured by a gang of dacoits and threatened with instant death
if he does not use his tools to break into a house for the dacoits to rob.

Outcome: Entitled to the benefit of this exception because he acted under the immediate
threat of death.

Section 32 protects individuals who commit offences (except murder and capital offences
against the State) under the compulsion of threats causing reasonable fear of instant death,
provided they did not voluntarily place themselves in such a situation. It differentiates
between voluntary association with criminals and being forcibly compelled to commit crimes.

Section 33: Act causing slight harm

Rule: An act is not an offence if the harm it causes, or is intended to cause, or is known to be
likely to cause, is so minor that a person of ordinary sense and temper would not complain
about it.

Explanation:

Minor Harm: The harm caused must be trivial or insignificant.

Reasonable Person Standard: The measure of whether the harm is slight is based on what a
person of ordinary sense and temper would consider not worth complaining about.

Illustration:

Example: If someone accidentally steps on another person's foot in a crowded place, causing
only minor discomfort.

Outcome: This act would not be considered an offence because the harm is so slight that a
reasonable person would not find it worth complaining about.
Section 33 provides that trivial acts causing minimal harm, which a reasonable person would
not find significant enough to complain about, are not considered offences. It uses the
perspective of an average person to determine the triviality of the harm.

Of right of private defence

Things done

in private

defence.

Section 34: Act done in the exercise of the right of private defence

Rule: An act is not an offence if it is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.

Explanation:

Right of Private Defence: This provision protects individuals who take necessary actions to
defend themselves, their property, or others from harm.

Lawful Defence: The act must be within the scope of what is considered reasonable and
necessary for self defence.

Illustration:

Example: A person, A, is attacked by B with a knife. A, in selfdefence, uses reasonable force

to repel the attack and accidentally injures B.

Outcome: A's act is not an offence because it was done in the exercise of the right of private
defence.

Section 34 ensures that actions taken in lawful selfdefence are not considered offences. It
recognizes the necessity of protecting oneself, one's property, or others from imminent harm
and provides legal protection for such defensive actions, as long as they are reasonable and
necessary.
Right of

private

defence of

body and of

property

Section 35: Right of Private Defence

Rule: Every person has the right to defend:

(a) Their own body and the body of any other person against any offence affecting the
human body.

(b) Property (movable or immovable) of themselves or others against theft, robbery,

mischief, criminal trespass, or attempts to commit these offences.

Illustrations:

1. SelfDefence of Body: A uses reasonable force to stop B from attacking C. A's actions are
justified.

2. Defence of Property: D prevents E from stealing F's car. D's actions are justified.

Right of

private

defence

against act of

a person of

unsound mind,
etc.

Section 36: Right of Private Defence Against Excusable Acts

Rule: You have the right to defend yourself against acts by individuals who are not held
criminally responsible due to youth, immaturity, unsound mind, intoxication, or
misconception, just as if the act were an offence.

Illustrations:

1. Unsound Mind: Z, an insane person, tries to kill A. Z is not guilty, but A can defend
himself as if Z were sane.

2. Misconception: A legally enters a house at night. Z, thinking A is a burglar, attacks A. Z

commits no offence, but A can defend himself as if Z's actions were an offence.

Acts against

which there is

no right of

private

defence.

Section 37: Limits on the Right of Private Defence

Rule: You cannot claim the right of private defence in certain situations:

1. Against Public Servants:

If a public servant, acting in good faith under their official capacity, does or tries to do
something that does not reasonably cause fear of death or severe injury, even if it's not strictly
lawful.
 If someone acts on the orders of a public servant in good faith under their official capacity,
and their actions do not reasonably cause fear of death or severe injury, even if the order isn't
strictly lawful.

2. Alternative to SelfDefence: If there's time to seek help from public authorities, you can't
claim the right of private defence.

3. Proportionality: The right of private defence cannot justify inflicting more harm than
necessary to protect yourself.

Explanations:

1. Public Servant's Identity: You lose the right of private defence against a public servant's
actions only if you know or should reasonably believe they are a public servant.

2. Direction by Public Servant: You lose the right of private defence against actions done by
someone under a public servant's direction only if you know or should reasonably believe
they are acting under such direction, or if the authority is stated or shown when demanded.

When right of

private

defence of

body extends

to causing

death.

Section 38: Right of Private Defence Leading to Death or Harm

Rule: You have the right to cause death or harm to an attacker in selfdefence if the attack falls
under any of these categories, within the limits set by Section 37:
1. Fear of Death: An assault causing a reasonable fear that death will result.

2. Fear of Severe Injury: An assault causing a reasonable fear of grievous hurt.

3. Intent to Commit Rape: An assault with the intention of committing rape.

4. Unnatural Lust: An assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust.

5. Kidnapping/Abduction: An assault with the intention of kidnapping or abducting.

6. Wrongful Confinement: An assault intending to confine a person in a way that reasonably

causes fear of being unable to seek help from public authorities.

7. Acid Attack: An act of throwing or administering acid, or an attempt to do so, causing a

reasonable fear of grievous hurt.

In these situations, the use of force, including causing death, is justified to protect oneself or
others.

When such

right extends

to causing any

harm other

than death.
Section 39: Right of Private Defence Harm Other Than Death

Rule: If an attack does not fall under the specific categories listed in Section 38, you cannot
use your right of private defence to cause the death of the attacker. However, you can still
cause any other type of harm to the attacker, within the limits set by Section 37.

This means that while you can't kill the assailant, you can defend yourself by causing them
nonfatal injuries to protect yourself.

Commencement

and
continuance of

right of private

defence of

body.

Commencement: The right of private defence of the body begins immediately upon a
reasonable apprehension of danger, whether from an attempt or threat to commit an offence.

Duration: It continues as long as the apprehension of danger persists.

Scope: Individuals can use necessary and proportionate force to protect themselves against
imminent harm.

This section of the Indian Penal Code allows individuals to defend themselves from
immediate threats without waiting for assistance from authorities, provided their response is
reasonable and necessary.

When right of

private

defence of

property

extends to

causing death.

Extent of Right: The right of private defence of property allows for the voluntary causing of
death or harm to the wrongdoer, under the restrictions outlined in Section 37.

Conditions: This right is applicable if the offence that triggers the exercise of this right is any
of the following:

Robbery (forcible stealing)

 Housebreaking occurring between sunset and sunrise

Mischief by fire or explosive substances committed on a building, tent, or vessel used as a

human dwelling or for property storage

Theft, mischief, or housetrespass under circumstances causing reasonable apprehension of

death or grievous hurt if private defence isn't exercised.

This section empowers individuals to protect their property against serious offences using
necessary and proportionate force, considering the imminent threat posed.

When such

right extends

to causing any

harm other

than death.

Scope of Right: The right of private defence in cases of theft, mischief, or criminal trespass
(not falling under Section 41 offences) does not extend to causing the death of the wrongdoer.

Allowable Actions: However, under the limitations set in Section 37, individuals have the
right to cause harm to the wrongdoer other than death, if necessary to defend against theft,
mischief, or criminal trespass.

This section clarifies that lethal force is not justified for defending against lesser property
offences unless they fall under the more serious categories listed in Section 41.

Commencement

and

continuance

of right of

private
defence of

property.

Commencement: The right of private defence of property begins when there is a reasonable
fear or apprehension of danger to the property.

Against Theft: This right persists until the thief has escaped with the property or until public
authorities arrive or the property is recovered.

Against Robbery: The right lasts as long as the robber poses a threat of death, hurt, or
restraint, or as long as there is fear of immediate harm.

Against Criminal Trespass or Mischief: It continues as long as the trespass or mischief is

ongoing.

Against Housebreaking at Night: The right lasts for the duration of the trespass that began
with the housebreaking during the prohibited hours (between sunset and sunrise).

These provisions outline when and for how long individuals can legally defend their property
under different circumstances of threat or crime.

Right of private

defence against

deadly assault

when there is

risk of harm to

innocent person.

Section 44 of the law extends the right of private defence in situations where defending
against an assault that reasonably causes fear of death may pose a risk to innocent persons:
 Scenario: If a person defending themselves reasonably believes they are at risk of death due
to an assault, and defending themselves effectively could potentially harm an innocent person
nearby,

Extension of Right: The defender's right to defend themselves extends to taking that risk,
even if it involves potential harm to an innocent person.

Illustration:

A is surrounded and attacked by a violent mob intent on killing him. In order to defend
himself effectively, A must use his firearm, but doing so poses a risk of harming young
children who are among the mob. Despite this risk, A fires at the mob to protect himself,
inadvertently causing harm to some children. Under these circumstances:

Legal Position: A has not committed an offence by harming the children while defending
himself against the mob.

Reasoning: The law acknowledges that in situations where the defender faces a threat of
death or grievous harm, they may exercise their right of private defence, even if it entails
some risk to innocent bystanders, such as the children in this case.