VoxJuris
Home › Acts › IPC › Chapter IV › Section 100

Indian Penal Code, 1860 · Chapter IV: General Exceptions · Of the Right of Private Defence

Section 100: When the right of private defence of the body extends to causing death

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to matters and proceedings from before that date, as the repealing law provides.

Now in the BNS section 38 (When right of private defence of body extends to causing death)

In plain words

Subject to the restrictions in the previous section, the right of private defence of the body extends to voluntarily causing death or other harm to the assailant if the assault is of certain kinds.

  • An assault that reasonably causes fear of death, or of grievous hurt.
  • An assault intending rape, or to gratify unnatural lust.
  • An assault intending kidnapping or abduction.
  • An assault intending wrongful confinement where the person reasonably fears they cannot get help from the authorities.
  • Throwing or administering acid, or attempting to, in a way that reasonably causes fear of grievous hurt.

A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.

Read the in-depth explanation, with key Supreme Court rulings ↓

Official text

The right of private defence 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; 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 which 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 or administering acid or an attempt to throw or administer acid which may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such act.]

Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.

Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here.

Understanding this section

Section 100 lists the only situations in which defending the body can lawfully extend to killing the attacker. Outside these situations, causing death in self defence is not protected by the right, though section 101 still allows lesser harm.

The seven situations

  • An assault that reasonably causes apprehension of death.
  • An assault that reasonably causes apprehension of grievous hurt.
  • An assault with intent to commit rape.
  • An assault with intent to gratify unnatural lust.
  • An assault with intent to kidnap or abduct.
  • An assault with intent to wrongfully confine, where the victim reasonably fears being unable to reach the authorities for release.
  • Throwing or administering acid, or attempting to, where grievous hurt is reasonably feared.

Reasonable apprehension is the key

The test is not whether death or grievous hurt actually followed, but whether the defender reasonably feared it. Courts look at the weapons, the number of attackers, earlier threats, and the injuries actually suffered. A real threat of a deadly weapon can justify killing even before the blow lands.

Subject to section 99

Even in these situations, the restrictions of section 99 apply: there must be no time to seek the protection of the authorities, and the harm caused must not exceed what was necessary. Section 100 widens what is allowed; it does not remove the limits.

Key Supreme Court rulings

  • Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab 2010 INSC 45

    Where there was a serious apprehension of death or at least grievous hurt, the accused's firing to save himself was fully covered by the right of private defence, and his acquittal was restored.

  • Ex. Ct. Mahadev v. The Director General, Border Security Force 2022 INSC 644

    To claim the right to cause death under section 100, the accused must show a reasonable ground to apprehend grievous hurt or death; the necessity of averting an impending danger is the core criterion.

Common mistakes

  • Assuming any assault justifies killing. Only the seven listed kinds do.
  • Ignoring section 99. Even a section 100 situation does not permit more harm than necessary.

Read with: Section 96 IPC, Section 101 IPC, Section 99 IPC, Section 38 BNS

Prepared with AI assistance as a study aid. Every ruling listed was checked against the Supreme Court's own judgments on this site, and quoted words appear in those judgments; linked names open the full judgment. Read the judgments themselves before relying on them. Not legal advice.

Supreme Court judgments citing the section 100