body
Section 102 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with body. Commencement and continuance of the right of private defence of the body.--The right of private defence of the body commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit the offence though the offence may not have been committed; The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1862. Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
Commencement and continuance of the right of private defence of the body.--The right of private defence of the body commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit the offence though the offence may not have been committed; and it continues as long as such apprehension of danger to the body continues.
Section 102, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 40 Commencement and continuance of right of private defence of body Close, with changes 80%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
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
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 commencement and continuance of right of private defence
-
Hanumantappa Bhimappa Dalavai vs State of Karnataka
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: Deals with commencement of right of private defence of body; the right commences as soon as reasonable apprehension of danger arises from an attempt or threat, although the offence may not have been committed.
-
Raghbir Singh vs State of Haryana
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: Deals with commencement of right of private defence of body; right commences when reasonable apprehension of danger arises from attempt or threat.
-
Ram Pyare Mishra vs Prem Shanker
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Even where the right of private defence is exercised, such right is limited and must not be exceeded. If an accused causes death by force grossly disproportionate to the threat faced and beyond what was necessary to ward off an immediate apprehension of death or grievous hurt, the excess becomes unlawful and constitutes culpable homicide, not murder. The burden of establishing the plea of self-defence lies on the accused and must be discharged by preponderance of probabilities. However, the court must pragmatically view actions taken in moments of peril and excitement, considering the subjective apprehension of the accused, not with hyper-technical scrutiny. When credible eyewitness evidence conclusively establishes the assault and death, minor and superficial injuries on the accused cannot form the sole basis for accepting a self-defence plea lacking material support in the evidence.
On this section: Deals with commencement of right of private defence of body. Applied to determine when reasonable apprehension of danger arose and when the right commenced.
-
Dinesh Singh vs State of U. P
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: Deals with commencement of right of private defence of body; right commences when reasonable apprehension of danger arises from attempt or threat
-
Sadhu Singh vs State of Punjab
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: Commencement of right of private defence of body - right commences as soon as reasonable apprehension of danger arises, although offence may not have been committed
-
Santokh Singh vs State of Punjab
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: Commencement of right of private defence of body - begins as soon as reasonable apprehension of danger arises
-
Ranveer Singh vs State of M. P
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: Deals with commencement of right of private defence of body - commences as soon as reasonable apprehension of danger to body arises from attempt or threat to commit offence.
-
Shivanna vs State of Karnataka
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: Deals with commencement of right of private defence of body, requiring reasonable apprehension of danger; applied to analyze when right commenced in this incident
-
Shriram vs State of M. P
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: Deals with commencement of right of private defence of body; right begins as soon as reasonable apprehension of danger arises from attempt or threat to commit an offence
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 102
What have the courts held on Section 102 of the Indian Penal Code?
Gopal vs State of Rajasthan (18 Jan 2013) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Referenced in relation to commencement and continuance of right of private defence. Another 9 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2003 to 2013.
How do I find court cases under Section 102 of the Indian Penal Code?
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: IPC 102, section 102 IPC, section 102 of the Indian Penal Code. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 10 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 102 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 40 (Commencement and continuance of right of private defence of body), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 102 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 102 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 102, came into force on 01 Jan 1862, having been enacted on 06 Oct 1860. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 499. Defamation1512 words
- 464. Making a false document1223 words
- 300. Murder1172 words
- 378. Theft980 words
- 108. Abettor745 words
- 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property727 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. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 7b7d4fe6-206b-4e33-81f1-b98b018acaf6). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.