When such right extends to causing any harm other than death
Section 42 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with when such right extends to causing any harm other than death. If the offence, the committing of which, or the attempting to commit which occasions the exercise of the right of private defence, be theft, mischief, or criminal trespass, not of any of the descriptions specified in section 41, that right does not extend to the voluntary causing of death, but does The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
If the offence, the committing of which, or the attempting to commit which occasions the exercise of the right of private defence, be theft, mischief, or criminal trespass, not of any of the descriptions specified in section 41, that right does not extend to the voluntary causing of death, but does extend, subject to the restrictions specified in section 37, to the voluntary causing to the wrong-doer of any harm other than death.
Section 42, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 101 When such right extends to causing any harm other than death Text carried over almost unchanged 95%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Gopal vs State of Rajasthan
Decided under Indian Penal Code 101, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The right of private defence is available only so long as there is reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt from the person against whom the defence is exercised. Once the threat ceases, such as when the other party flees the scene, the right of private defence also ceases. Chasing and beating a fleeing person constitutes an excess of the right of private defence and renders the accused liable for causing death or injury to that fleeing person. The burden on an accused to establish the plea of self-defence is to show preponderance of probabilities in favour of the plea, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. This burden can be discharged by reference to circumstances from the prosecution evidence itself.
On this section: Referenced in relation to defining extent of private defence of body
-
Hanumantappa Bhimappa Dalavai vs State of Karnataka
Decided under Indian Penal Code 101, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The right of private defence cannot be claimed by a person who deliberately retrieves a weapon from his premises and then assaults the visitors; such conduct bears the stamp of design to kill and falls outside the purview of private defence as defined in Sections 96-106 of the Indian Penal Code. The absence of injury on the accused persons, combined with credible eye-witness testimony of the victims, the deliberate fetching of a weapon, and the coordinated nature of the assault, establishes that the appellants were aggressors, not defenders, and the burden on the accused to establish self-defence by preponderance of probabilities was not discharged. Consequently, the conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC and grievous hurt under Section 326 IPC is upheld.
On this section: Extends the right of private defence to causing death under certain circumstances; cited in conjunction with Section 100.
-
Raghbir Singh vs State of Haryana
Decided under Indian Penal Code 101, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The right of private defence is a defensive right available only when circumstances clearly justify it and cannot be used as pretext for vindictive or aggressive purposes. While a person facing reasonable apprehension of threat cannot be expected to modulate defence step-by-step with arithmetical exactitude in the heat of moment, and situations must be pragmatically viewed without hyper-technical scrutiny, an accused must establish on preponderance of probabilities that the assault was necessity for warding off attack or forestalling reasonable apprehension. When an accused fails to fully establish self-defence plea but the facts show assault occurred in course of sudden quarrel without premeditation using non-lethal weapons, Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC applies, reducing offense from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 IPC), with custodial sentence appropriately reflecting the seriousness of causing death by dangerous act.
On this section: Defines extent of right of private defence of property; supplements Section 100 in matters of property protection.
-
Dinesh Singh vs State of U. P
Decided under Indian Penal Code 101, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where an accused claims the right of private defence, he must establish on the basis of preponderance of probabilities that there existed reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt at the time of the alleged defensive action. The right of private defence is a legitimate right available only when circumstances clearly justify it, requiring careful examination of the entire incident in its proper setting. Where no person on the prosecution side is shown to be armed with any weapon, there cannot be any reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt, and therefore the right cannot extend to causing death. The burden rests on the accused to establish this right, and absent such establishment, an act causing death constitutes culpable homicide.
On this section: Defines extent of right of private defence of property
-
Sadhu Singh vs State of Punjab
Decided under Indian Penal Code 101, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused claims the right of private defence in a criminal matter, the burden is on the accused to establish, through careful examination of the entire incident in its proper setting, that circumstances gave rise to reasonable grounds for apprehending that death or grievous hurt would be caused to him. The right of private defence commences as soon as reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit an offence and continues so long as the reasonable apprehension of danger persists. Once the cause for reasonable apprehension disappears and the threat has been destroyed or put to rout, there is no further occasion to exercise the right of private defence. If the evidence shows that an accused exceeded the right of private defence, the appropriate conviction would be under Section 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) rather than Section 302 IPC (murder), with the sentence determined to meet the ends of justice.
On this section: When right of private defence of property extends to causing of death - defines limits and extent of right to use fatal force in defence of property
-
Santokh Singh vs State of Punjab
Decided under Indian Penal Code 101, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A right of private defence extending to causing death cannot be claimed merely because a quarrel occurred and some injuries were sustained by the accused. To establish such a right, it must be shown that the accused was under grave apprehension about the safety of their life and property, and that retaliation to the extent undertaken was absolutely necessary. However, when a homicide occurs in the course of a sudden fight with mutual provocation and without premeditation or undue advantage, it falls under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC and constitutes culpable homicide, not murder. The number of injuries sustained by the accused is not a safe or determinative criterion for establishing private defence.
On this section: Right of private defence of property including right to cause death to prevent certain offences
-
Ranveer Singh vs State of M. P
Decided under Indian Penal Code 101, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The right of private defence under Indian criminal law is a valuable defensive right serving a social purpose, available when there is reasonable apprehension of danger to body arising from attempt or threat to commit an offence. The right extends to causing death if there is reasonable apprehension that death or grievous hurt would result from assault. However, the right is strictly limited: it commences upon reasonable apprehension of imminent danger and continues only so long as that apprehension reasonably exists. Once the threat is eliminated or the cause for apprehension disappears, the right ceases. The burden of establishing private defence rests on the accused by preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. Where the accused exceeds the bounds of private defence and uses force beyond what was necessary or reasonable under the circumstances, the plea cannot protect him from criminal liability, and the conviction may be properly reduced from murder to culpable homicide or a lesser offence accordingly. The assessment must be pragmatic, considering the subjective circumstances as they appeared to the accused in the moment of excitement and confusion, but not permitting the guise of self-preservation to become a pretext for assault or vindictive action.
On this section: Defines limit and extent of right of private defence of body and property.
-
Shivanna vs State of Karnataka
Decided under Indian Penal Code 101, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The right of private defence is a defensive right that cannot be invoked by the aggressor or after the reasonable apprehension of danger has ceased. The burden of establishing this right is on the accused, who must show preponderance of probabilities. The mere fact that injuries were sustained by the accused does not establish self-defence if the evidence clearly shows they were the aggressors. The number of injuries and non-explanation thereof by the prosecution are relevant but not conclusive factors. When prosecutorial evidence is clear, cogent, independent and credible, it can outweigh the unexplained injuries. The right must be examined pragmatically in its proper setting, considering the imminence of threat, the injuries sustained, and whether the accused had time to resort to public authorities, but it cannot be used as a pretext for vindictive or retributive assault.
On this section: Defines extent of right of private defence of property; relevant to determine if property defence could be claimed for agricultural land dispute
-
Shriram vs State of M. P
Decided under Indian Penal Code 101, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The non-explanation of injuries sustained by accused persons does not automatically warrant rejection of the prosecution case. Such non-explanation assumes significance only when the defence version competes in probability with the prosecution version or when the evidence consists of interested witnesses. However, where the prosecution evidence is clear, cogent, credible, independent, disinterested, probable and consistent, and where the injuries on the accused are minor and superficial, the mere failure of the prosecution to explain such injuries cannot be the sole basis for rejection of the case. The test of credibility of eyewitnesses who are related to the deceased is not whether they are interested, but whether upon careful and deeper scrutiny of their evidence, it is found to be acceptable and trustworthy.
On this section: Defines the extent of right of private defence in relation to grievous hurt and death
-
Mohan Lal vs State
Decided under Indian Penal Code 101, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a person is faced with criminal trespass on his property and reacts to protect his property and person, he has the right of private defence available to him. However, this right is circumscribed by law and cannot extend to causing death or grievous hurt unless there is reasonable apprehension that death or grievous hurt would otherwise be the consequence. If the person uses excessive force and causes death when the aggressor is not armed with a deadly weapon and there is no reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt, the act falls under Exception II of Section 300 IPC and is punishable under Section 304 Part-II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and not under Section 302 IPC (murder). The burden is on the accused to show that he had a right of private defence which extended to causing of death, and the court must examine all surrounding circumstances and view the entire incident in its proper setting to determine whether the right of private defence was exceeded.
On this section: Defines the right of private defence of property. The court applied this section to recognize the appellants' right to defend their property against trespass.
-
Pramod Tiwari vs The State of Madhya Pradesh
Decided under Indian Penal Code 104, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a person uses force to prevent damage to his property from cattle trespass on jointly-owned land, after making an oral objection which is refused, such use of force is protected under the right of private defence of property as provided in Sections 96 and 104 of the Indian Penal Code, and does not constitute an offence under Section 325 IPC. The right of private defence extends to causing any harm other than death if used for averting the commission of offence of theft, mischief or criminal trespass, and the necessity for such force is established when the property owner has first attempted peaceful resolution through oral objection.
On this section: Extent of right of private defence of property; court held that the right extends to causing any harm other than death if used for averting commission of offence of theft, mischief or criminal trespass; applied conjointly with Section 96 to protect the applicant's actions
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 42
What have the courts held on Section 42 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Gopal vs State of Rajasthan (18 Jan 2013) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 101, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Referenced in relation to defining extent of private defence of body. Another 10 judgments on this section are set out below, 9 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2003 to 2023.
How do I find court cases under Section 42 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BNS 42, section 42 BNS, section 42 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 11 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Gopal vs State of Rajasthan (18 Jan 2013).
What should I read with Section 42 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 37 (Acts against which there is no right of private defence), section 41 (When right of private defence of property extends to causing death), so none of them can safely be read on its own. It carries forward IPC 101 (When such right extends to causing any harm other than death), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 42 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 42 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 42, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 2. Definitions2199 words
- 356. Defamation1543 words
- 335. Making a false document1318 words
- 101. Murder1177 words
- 303. Theft1104 words
- 3. General explanations858 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.