Right of private defence of the body and of property
Section 97 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with right of private defence of the body and of property. Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in section 99, to defend- First.--His own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body; 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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.
Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in section 99, to defend-
First.--His own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body;
Secondly.--The property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person, against any act which is an offence falling under the defintion of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass.
Section 97, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 35 Right of private defence of body and of property Text carried over almost unchanged 94%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
-
Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-5.pdf 2010-01-15 (not same-date order-6 ROP). Bhandari/Ganguly, Crl A 1057/2002. Restores trial-court acquittal on private defence: ss.96–100 IPC. The right commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt arises; the defender is not expected to modulate the defence step by step; burden is preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. A licensed-gun response to a gandasa attack in a family land dispute was held justified. Map the core body-defence cluster 96/97/99/100 (not every 96–106 number).
On this section: s.97: the right extends to defence of body and of property; the gandasa/land-dispute facts engaged body defence.
-
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: Defines right of private defence of body; establishes when such right arises
-
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: Defines the subject matter of the right of private defence; the right extends to defence of the body of the person exercising the right or any other person.
-
State of U. P vs Gajey Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When injuries sustained by the accused persons during an alleged criminal incident are not explained by the prosecution witnesses, and those injuries are serious and substantial rather than superficial or minor, the non-explanation constitutes a significant circumstance that renders the prosecution version doubtful and may justify a finding that the accused legitimately exercised the right of private defence. The accused need only show that their defence plea was probable and that there was reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt based on the nature and manner of assault, the weapons involved, and the surrounding circumstances. The burden does not rest on the accused to prove their defence case to the hilt, but rather on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt without suppressing the true genesis and origin of the occurrence.
On this section: Specifies the extent of right of private defence covering defence of one's own body or any other person's body against offences affecting the human body
-
Ravishwar Manjhi vs State of Jharkhand
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When injuries are found on the person of the accused in a case where a plea of private defense is raised, the prosecution must explain these injuries. If the prosecution fails to adequately explain the injuries on the accused and the circumstances suggest a probable case of self-defense, the accused is entitled to acquittal. The right of private defense need not be specifically pleaded; courts may act upon such conclusion based on materials placed on record by the prosecution itself. In cases involving armed conflict where both parties sustained injuries, the court must examine whether the accused were aggressors or acted in self-defense, considering the genesis of the occurrence and the nature of injuries. Procedural defects in investigation, including failure to produce crucial evidence like station diary and non-examination of Investigating Officer, combined with temporal inconsistencies and delayed witness statements, can vitiate the prosecution case and entitle the accused to acquittal.
On this section: Deals with the subject matter of private defense covering body and property
-
Ravishwar Manjhi vs State of Jharkhand
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When in a criminal case involving violent confrontation both parties are armed with deadly weapons and sustain injuries, uniform murder convictions under Section 302 IPC cannot be sustained against all accused. If material on record creates reasonable probability that accused exercised right of private defence against apprehended death or grievous hurt, the accused is entitled to acquittal even without express plea, provided the right was not exercised after danger ceased. The prosecution must prove initial aggression and must explain injuries on accused persons when self-defence is a probable scenario. Courts must evaluate all circumstances pragmatically without hyper-technical approach and cannot reject defence merely because accused failed to prove it, but must assess whether it was probable given the materials on record.
On this section: Deals with subject matter of private defence relating to body or property
-
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: Defines subject matter of right of private defence as extending to defence of body or property of person exercising right or any other person.
-
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: Define the subject matter and limits of right of private defence. Section 97 covers defence of body and property. Section 99 controls and limits the right. Applied to determine whether circumstances satisfied conditions for exercising the right.
-
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: Defines subject matter of right of private defence of body or property; extends to person exercising right or any other person
-
Arjun vs State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an act of violence resulting in death is committed in heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, without premeditation, without any undue advantage taken, and in the course of a mutual fight where both parties sustained injuries, the conviction under Section 302 IPC (murder) should be altered to Section 304 Part 1 IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), even though the accused was armed with a lethal weapon and the victim was unarmed, provided the overall circumstances do not show deliberate calculation or predetermined violence.
On this section: Defines scope of right of private defense - includes body or property of person exercising right or any other person
-
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: Right of private defence of body and property - defines the subject-matter of the right and comprehends both body and property of the person exercising the right or any other person
-
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: Subject matter of right of private defence covering body or property of self or others
-
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 subject matter of right of private defence - relates to body or property of person exercising the right or any other person; extends to offences against body and in case of theft, robbery, mischief, criminal trespass.
-
Vinay vs State of Karnataka
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When multiple accused armed with deadly weapons such as sickles and talwars cause grievous injuries to multiple victims, convictions under Sections 326 and 427 IPC read with Section 34 IPC are justified based on consistent testimony of injured witnesses corroborated by medical evidence. However, in criminal cases involving closely related parties (such as real brothers) where both parties sustained injuries in a sudden quarrel in heat of passion, the principle of proportionality in sentencing permits reduction of custodial sentence to period already undergone with substitution of fine and victim compensation. Courts must liberally exercise power under Section 357(1) CrPC to award compensation to victims from fine amount imposed on accused, after assessing the accused's capacity to pay, as this power is independent and in addition to other sentences, not ancillary thereto.
On this section: Right of Private Defence - Raised by appellants but rejected; Court found that even if appellants had any right to defend their home, they exceeded that right and committed assault disproportionate to any threat
-
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: Recognises the right of a person to defend not only his own or another's body but also his own or another's property even against an attempt to inflict any offensive act against the property. The court applied this section to recognize the appellants' right to protect their property against criminal trespass.
-
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: Defines the subject matter of right of private defence covering body or property of person exercising right or any other person; applied to determine scope of right claimed
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 97
What have the courts held on Section 97 of the Indian Penal Code?
Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab (15 Jan 2010) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.97: the right extends to defence of body and of property; the gandasa/land-dispute facts engaged body defence. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 15 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2006 to 2015.
How do I find court cases under Section 97 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 97, section 97 IPC, section 97 of the Indian Penal Code. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab (15 Jan 2010).
What should I read with Section 97 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 35 (Right of private defence of body and of property), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 97 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 97 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 97, 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.