Right of Private Defence Questions and Answers

Q: Under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, in which of the following scenarios does the "Right of Private Defence of the Body" extend to the extent of voluntarily causing death to the assailant ?

The right extends to causing death in an assault committed with the intention of kidnapping or abducting a person.Section 100 of the IPC lists the assaults against which the right of private defence of the body extends to voluntarily causing death: an assault reasonably causing apprehension of death or grievous hurt, an assault with the intention of committing rape, of gratifying unnatural lust, of kidnapping or abducting, or of wrongfully confining a person in circumstances causing apprehension that he cannot get help, and an act of throwing acid.A simple unarmed assault does not qualify. Theft is an offence against property, and Section 103 allows death to be caused in defence of property only in grave cases such as robbery or house-breaking by night, never by reference to the value stolen. Trespass on open land is likewise not among the listed cases.

Q: Right to Private defence of body and of property has been dealt with under :

It is dealt with under Section 97 of the IPC.Section 97 states that every person has a right, subject to the restrictions in Section 99, to defend his own body and the body of any other person against an offence affecting the human body, and his own or another's property against theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or attempts at them.Section 96 says only that nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. Section 98 extends the right to acts of persons of unsound mind and others without criminal capacity, and Section 99 sets the limits of the right.

Q: In which of the following cases, the right to private defence extends to causing death ?

The right extends to causing death in house-breaking by night.Section 103 IPC lists the offences against property for which private defence may extend to causing death: robbery, house-breaking by night, mischief by fire to a dwelling or building used for custody of property, and theft, mischief or house-trespass that causes reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt.House-breaking by day, simple house-trespass and ordinary mischief are not on the list unless they carry that apprehension of death or grievous hurt.

Q: The right of private defence is :

The right of private defence is a defensive right.Sections 96 to 106 of the IPC allow a person to protect his own or another's body and property against an unlawful attack. The right is preventive: it exists only to repel the danger, lasts only as long as the danger, and may not inflict more harm than necessary (Section 99).It is not punitive or retributive, because it gives no licence to punish or take revenge on the attacker once the danger has passed. Nor is it remedial, since it prevents harm rather than compensating for harm already done.

Q: Assertion (A) : Private defense can justify causing death even in situations where the danger is not immediate.Reason (R) : Private defense is meant to prevent harm, not retaliate.

The answer is (A) is false, and (R) is true.Private defence (Sections 34 to 44 of the BNS) is a right to protect, not to punish. It begins only when there is a reasonable apprehension of danger and lasts only as long as that apprehension does. Causing death is justified only against the grave and imminent dangers listed in the law, such as an assault reasonably causing fear of death or grievous hurt.So the assertion that it can justify death where the danger is not immediate is false, while the reason, that private defence is meant to prevent harm rather than to retaliate, is a correct statement of the principle.

Q: Sunita sees a man trying to snatch her bag. She hits him with her elbow and runs. The man later files an FIR claiming assault. Which defense will Sunita most likely claim under IPC/BNS ?

Sunita will claim Private defence.The BNS gives every person the right to defend their own property against theft and robbery, and their body against assault. Hitting a man who is trying to snatch her bag, with only the force needed to stop him, falls within the right of private defence, so no offence is committed.Mistake of fact applies when someone acts on a wrong belief about the facts, necessity when harm is caused to avoid a greater harm to others, and accident when harm happens by chance in a lawful act. Sunita acted deliberately to protect herself.

Q: The act of causing death to a person who has committed or attempted to commit house breaking by night is known as ______.

The key takes the act as a purported exercise of the right of self defence.The right of private defence extends to causing death in defence against house-breaking by night, but only while the danger lasts. Where the intruder has already committed the house-breaking, the person causing the death is not acting in defence at that moment, and his act is a purported exercise of the right.It is not a marginal excess of the right, since there is no right in operation at that point, and the question does not call it murder in the key. The last option is not a description of the act.

Under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, in which of the following scenarios does the "Right of Private Defence of the Body" extend to the extent of voluntarily causing death to the assailant ?

A.A simple assault committed without the use of a weapon
B.A case of theft where the value of the stolen property exceeds ₹ 10,000
C.An assault committed with the specific intention of kidnapping or abducting a person
D.An act of criminal trespass occurring on open, vacant land

Exam Year(s)

AIBE - 2026,

Answer: C

The right extends to causing death in an assault committed with the intention of kidnapping or abducting a person.

Section 100 of the IPC lists the assaults against which the right of private defence of the body extends to voluntarily causing death: an assault reasonably causing apprehension of death or grievous hurt, an assault with the intention of committing rape, of gratifying unnatural lust, of kidnapping or abducting, or of wrongfully confining a person in circumstances causing apprehension that he cannot get help, and an act of throwing acid.

A simple unarmed assault does not qualify. Theft is an offence against property, and Section 103 allows death to be caused in defence of property only in grave cases such as robbery or house-breaking by night, never by reference to the value stolen. Trespass on open land is likewise not among the listed cases.

Discuss in Forum

Right to Private defence of body and of property has been dealt with under :

A.Section 96 of IPC
B.Section 97 of IPC
C.Section 98 of IPC
D.Section 99 of IPC

Exam Year(s)

MH SET - 2018, SET Exam - 2018,

Answer: B

It is dealt with under Section 97 of the IPC.

Section 97 states that every person has a right, subject to the restrictions in Section 99, to defend his own body and the body of any other person against an offence affecting the human body, and his own or another's property against theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or attempts at them.

Section 96 says only that nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. Section 98 extends the right to acts of persons of unsound mind and others without criminal capacity, and Section 99 sets the limits of the right.

Discuss in Forum

In which of the following cases, the right to private defence extends to causing death ?

A.House-breaking
B.House-breaking by night
C.House-trespass
D.Mischief

Exam Year(s)

MH SET - 2024, SET Exam - 2024,

Answer: B

The right extends to causing death in house-breaking by night.

Section 103 IPC lists the offences against property for which private defence may extend to causing death: robbery, house-breaking by night, mischief by fire to a dwelling or building used for custody of property, and theft, mischief or house-trespass that causes reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt.

House-breaking by day, simple house-trespass and ordinary mischief are not on the list unless they carry that apprehension of death or grievous hurt.

Discuss in Forum

The right of private defence is :

A.Defensive Right
B.Punitive Right
C.Retributive Right
D.Remedial Right

Exam Year(s)

MH SET - 2025, SET Exam - 2025,

Answer: A

The right of private defence is a defensive right.

Sections 96 to 106 of the IPC allow a person to protect his own or another's body and property against an unlawful attack. The right is preventive: it exists only to repel the danger, lasts only as long as the danger, and may not inflict more harm than necessary (Section 99).

It is not punitive or retributive, because it gives no licence to punish or take revenge on the attacker once the danger has passed. Nor is it remedial, since it prevents harm rather than compensating for harm already done.

Discuss in Forum

Assertion (A) : Private defense can justify causing death even in situations where the danger is not immediate.
Reason (R) : Private defense is meant to prevent harm, not retaliate.

A.Both (A) and (R) are true, and (R) is the correct explanation of (A)
B.Both (A) and (R) are true, but (R) is not the correct explanation of (A)
C.Both (A) and (R) are false
D.(A) is false, and (R) is true

Exam Year(s)

Tripura Public Service Commission - 2025,

Answer: D

The answer is (A) is false, and (R) is true.

Private defence (Sections 34 to 44 of the BNS) is a right to protect, not to punish. It begins only when there is a reasonable apprehension of danger and lasts only as long as that apprehension does. Causing death is justified only against the grave and imminent dangers listed in the law, such as an assault reasonably causing fear of death or grievous hurt.

So the assertion that it can justify death where the danger is not immediate is false, while the reason, that private defence is meant to prevent harm rather than to retaliate, is a correct statement of the principle.

Discuss in Forum

Sunita sees a man trying to snatch her bag. She hits him with her elbow and runs. The man later files an FIR claiming assault. Which defense will Sunita most likely claim under IPC/BNS ?

A.Mistake of fact
B.Necessity
C.Private defence
D.Accident

Exam Year(s)

Tripura Public Service Commission - 2025,

Answer: C

Sunita will claim Private defence.

The BNS gives every person the right to defend their own property against theft and robbery, and their body against assault. Hitting a man who is trying to snatch her bag, with only the force needed to stop him, falls within the right of private defence, so no offence is committed.

Mistake of fact applies when someone acts on a wrong belief about the facts, necessity when harm is caused to avoid a greater harm to others, and accident when harm happens by chance in a lawful act. Sunita acted deliberately to protect herself.

Discuss in Forum

The right of private defence of property extends to causing of death when the offence apprehended is

A.theft
B.robbery
C.mischief
D.house trespass

Exam Year(s)

Tripura Public Service Commission - 2019,

Answer: B

The right extends to causing death when the offence apprehended is robbery.

Section 103 IPC extends the right of private defence of property to voluntarily causing death against robbery, house-breaking by night, mischief by fire on a building used as a dwelling or for keeping property, and theft, mischief or house-trespass committed in circumstances that reasonably cause apprehension of death or grievous hurt.

Robbery qualifies on its own. Simple theft, mischief and house trespass do so only in those aggravated circumstances, which the options do not mention, so the key takes robbery.

Discuss in Forum

The act of causing death to a person who has committed or attempted to commit house breaking by night is known as ______.

A.Marginal excess of right to private defence.
B.Purported exercise of right of self defence.
C.Murder
D.No detached objectivity would be possible to weigh the culpability.

Exam Year(s)

UGC NET - 2013,

Answer: B

The key takes the act as a purported exercise of the right of self defence.

The right of private defence extends to causing death in defence against house-breaking by night, but only while the danger lasts. Where the intruder has already committed the house-breaking, the person causing the death is not acting in defence at that moment, and his act is a purported exercise of the right.

It is not a marginal excess of the right, since there is no right in operation at that point, and the question does not call it murder in the key. The last option is not a description of the act.

Discuss in Forum

There is no right of private defence against an act done, by any person under the direction of a public servant but is subjected to fulfillment of certain condition like

A.the act must be done in good faith.
B.the direction was not strictly justifiable by law.
C.The directed act has not been generated reasonable apprehension of death.
D.All of the above.

Exam Year(s)

UGC NET - 2013,

Answer: D

Under Section 99 of the Indian Penal Code, there is no right of private defence against an act done by a public servant acting in good faith under colour of office, even if the direction is not strictly justifiable by law, provided it does not cause reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt. The conditions given in A, B and C all belong to this protection, so all of the above is correct. The protection is for the public servant who acts in good faith under colour of his office, and it is lost if the person has reasonable ground to fear death or grievous hurt from the act.

Discuss in Forum

10.

Assertion (A) : The right of private defence does not depend upon the actual criminality of the aggressor but on the wrongful character of the act attempted.

Reason (R) : Even if an act is treated as offence the right of private defence arises against the author despite his personal incapacity.

A.(A) is correct principle because (R) is the right reason.
B.(A) is untenable under law while (R) is the justifiable cause.
C.(A) is the law on an unlawful act while (R) results without mens rea.
D.(A) is not true while (R) is false.

Exam Year(s)

UGC NET - 2014,

Answer: A

The assertion is a correct principle and the reason is the right one for it. Under sections 97 and 98 of the Indian Penal Code, the right of private defence depends on the wrongful character of the act attempted and not on the criminality of the aggressor. It is available against the act of a person of unsound mind, a child or one acting under a mistake, who is not criminally responsible.

The second and fourth options call the assertion untenable or false, which is wrong, and the third option is not a statement of the law. The first option is the answer.

Discuss in Forum

Loading…

Right of Private Defence Questions and Answers

Topics

Other Subjects

About Us

Right of Private Defence Questions and Answers

Topics

Other Subjects

About Us

Stay informed about all important Dates & Notifications