Introduction

Sections 96 to 106 of the penal code state the law relating to the right of private defence of
person and property. The provisions contained in these sections give authority to a man to use
necessary force against an assailant or wrong-doer for the purpose of protecting ones own
body and property as also anothers body and property when immediate aid from the state
machinery is not readily available; and in so doing he is not answerable in law for his deeds.

Self-help is the first rule of criminal law. The right of private defense is absolutely necessary
for the protection of ones life, liberty and property. It is a right inherent in a man. But the kind
and amount of force is minutely regulated by law. The use of force to protect ones property
and person is called the right of private defense.

Self-defense or private defence is a countermeasure that involves defending oneself, one's

property, or the well-being of another from harm. The use of the right of the self defence as the
legal justification for the use of force in times of danger is the available in many jurisdictions,
but the interpretation varies widely. It is the first duty of man to help himself . The right private
defense is recognized in every system of law and its extent varies in the inverse ratio to the
capacity of the state to protect life and property of the subject.

However in all instances, one may only use reasonable and not excessive force in self- defense.
In R v, Clegg a soldier in Northern Ireland shouted at a car approaching a checkpoint to halt.
When it did not Mr. Clegg fired three shots, killing a women. It had hit her in the back, and
Mr. Clegg was sentenced for murder because by then the car had passed, the forced was
excessive an there was no justification for self -defense.

150 years ago, during colonialism, an enthusiastic Macaulay proposed a right of private defense
in his draft code with the ambitious project of encouraging a manly spirit among the natives.
The ideal Indian would stand his ground in the face of danger and not hesitate to defend his
own body or property or that of another. He would respond with defensive force to prevent
certain crimes, even to the extent of causing death. As a general idea, the right of private
defense permits individuals to use defensive force which otherwise be illegal, to fend off
attacks threatening certain important interests. Like the defense of necessity, the right of private
defense authorizes individuals to take the law into their own hands.

1
Private Defense: Meaning and Types

The expression private defense that has been used in the Bangaladesh Penal Code, 1860, has
not been defined therein. Thus, it has been the prerogative of the judiciary to evolve a workable
framework for the exercise of the right. Thus in India, the right of private defense is the right
to defend the person or property of himself or of any other person against an act of another,
which if the private defense is not pleaded would have amounted to a crime. This right therefore
creates an exception to criminal liability. Some of the aspects of the right of private defense
under the IPC are that no right of self-defense can exist against an unarmed and unoffending
individual, the right is available against the aggressor only and it is only the person who is in
imminent danger of person or property and only when no state help is available. The right of
private defense is a natural right which is evinced from particular circumstances rather than
being in the nature of a privilege.

However, the most important principle is that the right of private defense requires that the force
used in the defense should be necessary and reasonable in the circumstances. But, in the
moments of disturbed mental condition, this cannot be measured in golden scales. Whether the
case of necessity exists must be determined from the viewpoint of the accused and his act must
be viewed in the light of the circumstances as they appear on such occasion. Specific limitations
have also been provided for when the right cannot be validly exercised and also the provision
specifies clearly the cases in which the right can extend to the causing of death of the aggressor.
The reasonable apprehension can only be justified if the accused had an honest belief that there
is danger and that such belief is reasonably warranted by the conduct of the aggressor and the
surrounding circumstances. This brings in an iota of an objective criterion for establishing
reasonableness. The imminence of danger is also an important prerequisite for the valid
exercise self-defense. Thus, there should be a reasonable belief that the danger is imminent and
that force must be used to repel it.

. Definition of private defence:

Self-defense or private defence is a countermeasure that involves defending oneself, one's
property, or the well-being of another from harm.1 The use of the right of the self defence as
the legal justification for the use of force in times of danger is the available in many

1
Dictionary. com's Definition of ''private defence''.

2
jurisdictions, but the interpretation varies widely.2 It is the first duty of man to help himself .
The right private defense is recognized in every system of law and its extent varies in the
inverse ratio to the capacity of the state to protect life and property of the subject.

However in all instances, one may only use reasonable and not excessive force in self- defense.
In R v, Clegg3 a soldier in Northern Ireland shouted at a car approaching a checkpoint to halt.
When it did not Mr. Clegg fired three shots, killing a women. It had hit her in the back, and
Mr. Clegg was sentenced for murder because by then the car had passed, the forced was
excessive an there was no justification for self -defense.

Nature Of The Right

It is the first duty of man to help himself. The right of self-defense must be fostered in the
citizens of every free country. The right is recognized in every system of law and its extent
varies in inverse ratio to the capacity of the state to protect life and property of the citizens. It
is the primary duty of the state to protect the life and property of the individuals, but no state,
no matter how large its resources, can afford to depute a policeman to dog the steps of every
rouge in the country. One thing should be clear that there is no right of private defense when
there is time to have recourse to the protection of police authorities. The right is not dependent
on the actual criminality of the person resisted. It depends solely on the wrongful or apparently
wrongful character of the act attempted and if the apprehension is real and reasonable, it makes
no difference that it is mistaken. An act done in exercise of this right is not an offence and does
not, therefore, give rise to any right of private defense in return.

Types of right of private Defence:

There are two types of right of private defense provided by the penal code, 1860. Section 97 of
the code clearly provides that, subject to the restriction contained in section 99, every person
have a right defend-

Fistly-His own body, and the body of any other person against any offence affecting the human
body; (Right of private defense of body)

2
Kopel, David B; Gallant, Paul and Eisen, Joanne D. The Human Right of ''self-defence ''.
3
R v Clegg [1995] 1 All ER 334

3
In Md. Ashraf vs State it was held that right of self -defense Accused would be within his own
body and that of any other person against any offence affecting human body. He would have
right to defend his own body as well as that of his co- accused -His act would be covered by
first and 2nd exceptions under section 100, PC and as he would not be guilty of offence for
which he was charged. 4

Secondly.- The property, whether moveable or immovable, himself of any other person,
against any act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief or
criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief, or criminal
trespass. 5(Right of Private defense of property)

Private Defense In The Bangaladesh Legal System

Jeremy Bentham, an English Legal Luminary, once opined, This right of defense is absolutely
necessary. The vigilance of the Magistrates can never make up for vigilance of each individual
on his own behalf. The fear of the law can never restrain bad men so effectually as the fear of
the sum total to individual resistance. Take away this right and you become, in so doing, the
accomplice of all bad men. This right is based on two principles,

It is available against the aggressor only, and

The right is available only when the defender entertains reasonable apprehension.

There are three tests for ascertaining reasonable apprehension; they are the objective, subjective
and expanded objective tests. While objective test emphasizes as to how in a similar
circumstance an ordinary, reasonable, standard and average person will respond, the subjective
test examines the mental state based on individual attitude. However, expanded objective test,
being a combination of aforesaid two tests, bases its inquiry to determine whether or not the
individual acted as a reasonable person. Right of private defense serves a social purpose and
the right should be liberally construed. Such a right is not only a restraining influence on corrupt
characters but also encourages manly spirit in a law abiding citizen. It should not be narrowly

4
sec 1998 CriLj 1o1
5
sec. 97

4
construed as it necessitates the occasions for the exercise of this right as an effective means of
protection against wrong doers.

The Right to private defense of a citizen, where one can practically take law in his own hands
to defend his own person and property or that of others, is clearly defined in Section 96 to
Section 106 of the Indian Penal Code.

Section 96 talks about things done in private defense Nothing is an offence, which is done in
the exercise of the right of private defense.

Right of private defense cannot be said to be an offence in return. The right of self-defense
under Section 96 is not, absolute but is clearly qualified by Section 99 which says that the right
in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary for the purpose of defense.
It is well settled that in a free fight, no right of private defense is available to either party and
each individual is responsible for his own acts. The right of private defense will completely
absolve a person from all guilt even when he causes the death of another person in the following
situations, i.e.

If the deceased was the actual assailant, and

If the offence committed by the deceased, which occasioned the cause of the exercise
of the right of private defense of body and property falls within anyone of the six or
four categories enumerated in Sections 100 and 103 of the penal code.

Section 97 talks about Right of private defense 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;

Secondly-The property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person,

against any act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief or
criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief for criminal
trespass.

This Section limits exercise of the right of private defense to the extent of absolute necessity.
It must not be more than what is necessary for defending aggression. There must be reasonable

5
apprehension of danger that comes from the aggressor. This Section divides the right of private
defense into two parts, i.e. the first part deals with the right of private defense of person, and
the second part with the right of private defense of property.

Section 99 lays down the acts against which there is no right of private defense: There is no
right of private defense against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of
death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by a public servant acting in good
faith under color of his office, though that act, may not be strictly justifiable by law.

Section 99 lays down the conditions and limits within which the right of private defense can
be exercised. The first two clauses provide that the right of private defense cannot be invoked
against a public servant or a person acting in good faith in the exercise of his legal duty provided
that the act is not illegal Similarly, clause three restricts the right of private defense if there is
time to seek help of public authorities. And the right must be exercised in proportion to harm
to be inflicted. In other words, there is no right of private defense:

Against the acts of a public servant; and

Against the acts of those acting under their authority or direction;
When there is sufficient time for recourse to public authorities; and
The quantum of harm that may be caused shall in no case be in excess of harm that may
be necessary for the purpose of defense.
Section100 specifies when the right of private defense of the body extends to causing
death:

The right of private defense of the body extends, under the restrictions mentioned in the last
preceding section, to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the assailant, if the
offence which occasions the exercise of the right be of any of the descriptions hereinafter
enumerated, namely:

First-Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that death will otherwise be
the consequence of such assault;

Secondly-Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will
otherwise be the consequence of such assault;

Thirdly- An assault with the intention of committing rape;

6
Fourthly- An assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust;

Fifthly- An assault with the intention of kidnapping or abducting;

Sixthly- An assault with the intention of wrongfully confining a person, under circumstances
that may reasonably cause him to apprehend that he will be unable to have recourse to the
public authorities for his release.

Seventhly an act of throwing acid or attempting to throw acid.

To invoke the provisions of Section 100 of P.C., four conditions must exist:-

The person exercising the right of private defense must be free from fault in bringing
about the encounter,
There must be an impending peril to life or of great bodily harm,
There must be no safe or reasonable mode of escape by retreat,
There must have been a necessity for taking life.

Section101 prescribes when such right extends to causing any harm other than death:-

If the offence be not of any of the descriptions enumerated in the last preceding section, the
right of private defense of the body does not extend to the voluntary causing of death to the
assailant, but does extend, under the restrictions mentioned in Section 99, to the voluntary
causing to the assailant of any harm other than death.

Section102 is very important as it deals with the commencement and continuance of the right
of private defense of the body:

The right of private defense 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. The apprehension of danger must be reasonable, not fanciful. For example,
one cannot shoot ones enemy from a long distance, even if he is armed with a dangerous
weapon and means to kill. This is because he has not attacked you and therefore there is no
reasonable apprehension of attack. In other words, there is no attack and hence no right of
private defense arises. Moreover the danger must be present and imminent.

7
Section103 specifies when the right of private defense of property extends to causing death:

The right of private defense of property extends, under the restrictions mentioned in Section
99, to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the wrong-doer, if the offence, the
committing of which, or the attempting to commit which, occasions the exercise of the right,
be an offence of any of the descriptions hereinafter enumerated, namely: Robbery, House-
breaking by night, Mischief by fire committed on any building, tent or vessel, which building,
tent of vessel is used as a human dwelling, or as a place for the custody of property, Theft,
mischief, or house-trespass, under such circumstances as may reasonably cause apprehension
that death or grievous hurt will be the consequence, if such right of private defense is not
exercised.

Section 103 provides the right of private defense to the property whereas Section 100 is meant
for exercising the right of private defense to the body of a person. It justifies homicide in case
of robbery, house breaking by night, arson and the theft, mischief or house trespass which cause
apprehension or grievous harm. If a person does not have possession over the property, he
cannot claim any right of private defense regarding such property. Right to dispossess or throw
out a trespasser is not available to the true owner if the trespasser has been successful in
accomplishing his possession to his knowledge. This right can be only exercised against certain
criminal acts that are mentioned under this section.

Section104 tells us 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 defense, 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 wrongdoer of any harm other than death. This Section cannot
be said to be giving a concession to the accused to exceed their right of private defense in any
way. If anyone exceeds the right of private defense and causes death of the trespasser, he would
be guilty under Section 304, Part II. This Section is corollary to Section 103 as Section 101 is
a corollary to Section 100.

Section105 prescribes the commencement and continuance of the right of private defense of
property:

8
The Right of private defense of property commences when a reasonable apprehension of danger
to the property commences. The right of private defense of property against theft continues till
the offender has affected his retreat with the property or either the assistance of the public
authorities is obtained, or the property has been recovered .The right of private defense of
property against robbery continues as long as the offender causes or attempts to cause to any
person death or hurt or wrongful restraint of as long as the fear of instant death or of instant
hurt or of instant personal restraint continues

The right of private defense of property against criminal trespass or mischief continues
as long as the offender continues in the commission of criminal trespass or mischief.
The right of private defence of property against house-breaking by night continues as
long as the house-trespass which has been begun by such house-breaking continues.

Section106 talks about right of private defence against deadly assault when there is risk of harm
to innocent person:

If in the exercise of the right of private defence against an assault, which reasonably causes the
apprehension of death, the defender be so situated that he cannot effectually exercise that right
without risk of harm to an innocent person his right or private defence extends to the running
of that risk.

Evolution of the Right of Private Defence

In Roman law, homicide was considered to be an act by which the life of a human-being was
taken away. There were two degrees of criminal homicide, namely, murder and manslaughter,
and two degrees of homicide that did not expose a person to punishment, namely, justifiable
and excusable. Self-defence was placed in the category of justifiable homicide. In self-defence
violence was lawful: Vim enim vi defendere omnes leges emniaque jure permittunt (A man,
therefore, incurs no liability, if he kills anothers slave who attacks him.). The Justinian code
and the Twelve Tables reiterated this right of private defence- the Code holding that no greater
force than what was sufficient to ward off the threatened danger was permitted and the Tables
on the other hand, allowing killing in such a case without restrictions regarding it to be
permissible self-redress rather than self-defence.

9
Under English law the status of the right of self-defence underwent a series of changes through
the ages. In the ancient period, there was absolute liability even for homicide committed se
defendendo. In the Medieval period, the theory of pardon developed and it became excusable,
whereas in the Modern Age, homicide committed in self-defence is treated as justifiable,
because it is presumed that such an act is not backed with evil intent. In the early days, the law
regarded the word and the act of the individual but it did not search the heart of the man. It was
the age of strict liability. Man was held responsible for his acts irrespective of his intentions.
His mental state was not taken into account when determining liability for the commission of
the crime. It was the external conduct and the injury upon which liability was imposed. The
accidental injuries and the injuries inflicted during self-defence, also attracted liability. Thus,
criminal liability was not related to the evil intention of the actor.

However, in the 13th century there was a shift from strict liability and emphasis was laid on the
mental element. During this period, killing was justified in a few exceptional cases. One who
killed in misadventure, or in self-defence was still guilty of a crime, although he deserved a
pardon from the King. During the Medieval period, though the accused obtained pardon yet he
forfeited his goods for the crime committed in self-defence. The moral sense of the community
could not tolerate indefinitely the idea that a blameless self-defender was a criminal.
Ultimately, the jury was allowed to give a verdict of not guilty in such cases. Pardon of the
King soon became a formality in such cases and thus grew the concept of excusable homicide.
The act of pardon was a kind of excuse. The word excuse itself denoted the condo nation of
wrong committed by the offender. Blackstone perceived the essence of excuses to be the want
or defect of will. This all changed in the modern period. In modern times, there is a
presumption that there is no mens rea in the homicides committed in self-defence and as such
it has become a justifiable general defence in law. Thus, now no criminal liability is attached
to the accused in such cases. This is in conformity with the provisions of Article 2 of the
European Convention on Human Rights.

Thus, in modern times every evolved legal system has accepted the right of self-defence as a
universal one.

10
Private Defence In Various Legal Systems

English Law

As the common law system does not provide a statutory definition of self-defence, it is often
the opinions of legal authorities that are relied upon. Blacks Law Dictionary enumerates two
elements that are necessary to constitute self-defence, namely

Accused does not provoke difficulty, and

There must be impending peril without convenient or reasonable mode of escape.

On the other hand Glanville Williams analysis of the elements is more comprehensive:

The force is threatened against the person,

The person threatened is not the aggressor,
The danger of harm is imminent,
The force is unlawful,
The person threatened must actually believe that a danger exists, that the use of force is
necessary and that the kind and amount of force being used is required in the
circumstances, and that the above beliefs are reasonable.

American Law

The position under American law is also very similar. Great importance is given to the
following concepts when dealing with the concept of self-defence.

Requirement of reasonableness (a reasonable and honest belief is essential),

Only that amount of force should be used which reasonably appears necessary to
prevent the threatened harm.

Thus, it can be seen that in the various legal systems of the world, there are certain common
established principles pertaining to self-defence.

11
Judicial View on Private Defence

The protection of life and property is axiomatic in every civilized society and because it is
impossible for the State to do so on every occasion as law enforcement officers cannot be
omnipresent, the individual is given the right of private defence. The right of private defence
legally accords to the individuals the right to take reasonably necessary measures to protect
themselves under special circumstances. Notably, on the execution of the private defence
provisions in the Penal Code, the framers said we leave it still in a very imperfect statewe
are inclined to think that it must always be one of the least exact parts of every system of
criminal law. This suggests that they recognized the necessity for latent ambiguity to allow
judges the flexibility to read and apply the provisions so as to achieve fairness.

However, the local courts have overlooked this discretion conferred upon them and instead
opted for a far too restrictive (and even unreasonable) interpretation of the provisions to the
extent where private defence is hardly adequate as a defence, defeating the intention of the
provision. The inconsistency between the judicial interpretation and the intention of the Code
framers is exemplified in the interpretation of reasonable apprehension under Sections 100
and 102. Evidently, the local courts have adopted a strict objective approach in determining
reasonable apprehension, ignoring its inherent ambiguity. This is in contrast to the current
English law that judges the nature of the danger wholly according to that of the accuseds
perception (purely subjective test).

Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab

The Supreme Court laid down Guidelines for Right Of Private Defence for Citizens. It observed
that a person cannot be expected to act in a cowardly manner when confronted with an
imminent threat to life and has got every right to kill the aggressor in self defense. A bench
comprising Justices Dalveer Bhandari and Asok Kumar Ganguly, while acquitting a person of
murder, said that when enacting Section 96 to 106 of the IPC, the Legislature clearly intended
to arouse and encourage the spirit of self-defense amongst the citizens, when faced with grave
danger. The law does not require a law-abiding citizen to behave like a coward when

12
confronted with an imminent unlawful aggression. As repeatedly observed by this court, there
is nothing more degrading to the human spirit than to run away in face of danger. Right of
private defense is thus designed to serve a social purpose and deserves to be fostered within
the prescribed limit.

The court laid down ten guidelines where right of self-defence is available to a citizen, but
also warned that in the disguise of self-defence, one cannot be allowed to endanger or threaten
the lives and properties of others or for the purpose of taking personal revenge. The apex court
concluded by saying that a person who is under imminent threat is not expected to use force
exactly required to repel the attack and his behaviour cannot be weighed on golden scales.

The Court declared their legal position under the following 10 guidelines:

1. Self-preservation is a basic human instinct and is duly recognized by the criminal

jurisprudence of all civilized countries. All free, democratic and civilized countries
recognize the right of private defense within certain reasonable limits.
2. The right of private defense is available only to one who is suddenly confronted with
the necessity of averting an impending danger and not of self-creation.
3. A mere reasonable apprehension is enough to put the right of self-defense into
operation. In other words, it is not necessary that there should be an actual commission
of the offence in order to give rise to the right of private defense. It is enough if the
accused apprehended that such an offence is contemplated and it is likely to be
committed if the right of private defense is not exercised.
4. The right of private defense commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension arises
and it is co-terminus with the duration of such apprehension.
5. It is unrealistic to expect a person under assault to modulate his defense step by step
with any arithmetical exactitude.
6. In private defense the force used by the accused ought not to be wholly disproportionate
or much greater than necessary for protection of the person or property.
7. It is well settled that even if the accused does not plead self-defense, it is open to
consider such a plea if the same arises from the material on record.
8. The accused need not prove the existence of the right of private defense beyond
reasonable doubt.
9. The Indian Penal Code confers the right of private defense only when the unlawful or
wrongful act is an offence.
13
 10. A person who is in imminent and reasonable danger of losing his life or limb may, in
exercise of self defense, inflict any harm (even extending to death) on his assailant
either when the assault is attempted or directly threatened.

Yogendra Moraji v. State

The Supreme Court discussed in detail the extent and the limitations of the right of private
defence of body. One of the aspects emphasized by the court was that there must be no safe or
reasonable mode of escape by retreat for the person confronted with an impending peril to life
or of grave bodily harm except by inflicting death on the assailant. This aspect has create quite
a confusion as it indirectly suggests that once should first try to see the possibility of a retreat
than to defend by using force, which is contrary to the principle that the law does not encourage
cowardice on the part of one who is attacked. But another viewpoint is that this retreat theory
in fact is an acceptance of the English common law principle of defence of body or property
under which the common law courts always insisted to look first as to whether the accused
could prevent the commission of crime against him by retreating.

Nand Kishore Lal v. Emperor

Accused who were Sikhs, abducted a Muslim married woman and converted her to Sikhism.
Nearly a year after the abduction, the relatives of the womans husband came and demanded
that she return. The accused refused to comply and the woman herself expressly stated her
unwillingness to rejoin her Muslim husband. Thereupon the husbands relatives attempted to
take her away by force. The accused resisted the attempt and in so doing one of them inflicted
a blow on the head of the womans assailants, which resulted in the latters death. It was held
that the right of the accused to defend the woman against her assailants extended under this
section to the causing of death and they had, therefore, committed no offence.

Mohinder Pal Jolly v. State of Punjab

Workers of a factory threw brickbats from outside the gates, and the factory owner by a shot
from his revolver caused the death of a worker, it was held that this section did not protect him,
as there was no apprehension of death or grievous hurt.

Mithu Pandey v. State

14
Two persons armed with tangi and danta respectively were supervising collection of fruit
by labourers from the trees that were in the possession of the accused persons who protested
against the act. In the altercation that followed one of the accused suffered multiple injuries
because of the assault. The accused used force resulting in death. The Patna High Court held
that the accused were entitled to the right of private defence even to the extent of causing death.

Jassa Singh v. State of Haryana

The Supreme Court held that the right of private defence of property would not extend to the
causing of the death of the person who committed such acts if the act of trespass is in respect
of an open land. Only a house trespass committed under such circumstances as may reasonably
caused death or grievous hurt is enumerated as one of the offences under Section 103.

Conclusion

In general, private defence is an excuse for any crime against the person or property. It also
applies to the defence of a stranger, and may be used not only against culpable but against
innocent aggressors.

The defence is allowed only when it is immediately necessary-against threatened violence. A

person who acts under a mistaken belief in the need for defence is protected, except that the
mistake must be reasonable. In principle, it should be enough that the force used was in fact
necessary for defence, even though the actor did not know this; but the law is not clear. There
is no duty to retreat, as such, but even a defender must wherever possible make plain his desire
to withdraw from the combat. The right of private defence is not lost by reason of the defenders
having refused to comply with unlawful commands.

15
The force used in defence must be not only necessary for the purpose of avoiding the attack
but also reasonable, i.e. proportionate to the harm threatened; the rule is best stated in the
negative form that the force must not be such that a reasonable man would have regarded it as
being out of all proportion to the danger.

The carrying of firearms and other offensive weapons is generally forbidden, but (1) a thing is
not an offensive weapon if it is not offensive per se and is carried only to frighten; (2) a
person does not have it with him if he merely snatches it up in the emergency of defence.

The right of defence avails against the police if they act illegally, but the defender cannot take
benefit from a mistake as to the law of arrest or self-defence. The traditional rule is that even
death may be inflicted in defence of the possession of a dwelling.

The occupier of premises may use necessary and reasonable force to defend them against a
trespasser, or one reasonably thought to be a trespasser; and it seems that even a licensee (such
as a lodger) can eject trespassing strangers. It is a statutory offence to set spring guns or
mantraps, except in a dwelling house between sunset and sunrise. It has not been decided
whether the exception operates to confer an exemption from the ordinary law of offences
against the person. Such defences as spikes and dogs are lawful if reasonable. Guard dogs must,
by statute, be kept under full control, except in private houses or on agricultural land.

Thus, we can see the right of private defence is very helpful in giving citizens a weapon which
in a case that its not misused is subject to certain restrictions, helps them protect their and
others lives and property.

16
 Bibliography

The Penal Code, A.M. Monirujjaman

The Penal Code,Soiod Hasan Jamil
https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/right-private-defence/

The Penal Code,Dr,Mir Samsur Rahman and Nazia Wahab

17