When such right to causing any harm other than death
Section 104 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with when such right 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 enumerated in the last preceding section, that right does not extend to the voluntary causing of 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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.
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 enumerated in the last preceding section, that right does not extend to the voluntary causing of death, but does extend, subject to the restrictions mentioned in section 99, to the voluntary causing to the wrong-doer of any harm other than death.
Section 104, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 42 When such right extends to causing any harm other than death Text carried over almost unchanged 87%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
This section refers to
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.
-
Mohan Lal vs State
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: Contains the restriction that the right of private defence shall not cross the limit of first degree as against acts which would remain as theft, mischief, or criminal trespass. The court applied this section to hold that Mohan Lal could not use deadly force against Hari Singh's criminal trespass without reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt.
-
Pramod Tiwari vs The State of Madhya Pradesh
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 104
What have the courts held on Section 104 of the Indian Penal Code?
Mohan Lal vs State (01 Aug 2012) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Contains the restriction that the right of private defence shall not cross the limit of first degree as against acts which would remain as theft, mischief, or criminal trespass. The court applied this section to hold that Mohan Lal could not use deadly force against Hari Singh's criminal trespass without reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt. Another 1 judgment on this section is set out below. They run from 2012 to 2023.
How do I find court cases under Section 104 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 104, section 104 IPC, section 104 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 104 punishment in hindi and ipc 104 in bns. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 2 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Mohan Lal vs State (01 Aug 2012).
What should I read with Section 104 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 99 (Acts against which there is no right of private defence), so none of them can safely be read on its own. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 42 (When such right extends to causing any harm other than death), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 104 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 104 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 104, 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.