VoxJuris
Home › Acts › IPC › Chapter IV › Section 97

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

Section 97: Right of private defence of the body and of property

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024.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 35 (Right of private defence of body and of property)

In plain words

Subject to section 99, every person has a right to defend their own body, and anyone else's, against any offence affecting the human body. They can also defend their own or anyone else's property against theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or attempts to commit them.

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

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 or criminal trespass.

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 97 grants the right of private defence, subject to section 99. Every person may defend their own body or the body of any other person against any offence affecting the human body, and their own or another's property against theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or attempts at these.

Two heads of the right

BodyProperty
WhoseOne's own or any other person'sOne's own or any other person's, movable or immovable
AgainstAny offence affecting the human bodyTheft, robbery, mischief, criminal trespass, or attempts
Extends to deathSection 100 casesSection 103 cases
OtherwiseAny harm short of death (section 101)Harm short of death (section 104)

Defence, not retaliation

The right is preventive. It exists to repel an attack that has begun or is reasonably feared, not to punish an attacker afterwards. Once the danger has passed, any further harm is retaliation and is an offence. Equally, a person who is themselves the aggressor cannot claim the right.

No duty to run away

Indian law does not require a person facing an unlawful attack to retreat. The Supreme Court has said that a law-abiding citizen is not expected to behave like a coward when faced with imminent unlawful aggression. Retreat matters only in the sense of section 99: where there is time to call the authorities, the right does not arise.

Burden and how the plea is proved

  • Under section 105 of the Evidence Act the accused must bring the case within the exception, but only on a balance of probabilities.
  • The plea need not be taken in the section 313 statement; it can be inferred from the prosecution's own evidence.
  • Unexplained serious injuries on the accused can make the prosecution's version doubtful and support the plea.

Key Supreme Court rulings

  • Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab 2010 INSC 45

    The law does not require a law-abiding citizen to behave like a coward when confronted with imminent unlawful aggression. Where there is real apprehension that the aggressor might cause death or grievous hurt, the right extends to killing the aggressor; the accused's conviction was set aside.

  • Narain Singh v. State of Haryana 2008 INSC 471

    Private defence is essentially a defensive right, available only when the circumstances clearly justify it; it does not include a right to launch an offensive, particularly when the need to defend no longer survives.

  • State of U.P. v. Gajey Singh 2009 INSC 251

    Non-explanation by the prosecution of serious injuries on the accused created serious doubt about its case; the accused had not exceeded their right of private defence and the acquittal was upheld.

Common mistakes

  • Treating private defence as permission to retaliate after the danger is over.
  • Assuming the accused must prove the plea beyond reasonable doubt.
  • Forgetting the right extends to defending other people and their property.

Read with: Section 96 IPC, Section 99 IPC, Section 100 IPC, Section 35 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 97