When an act, which would otherwise be a certain offence, is not that offence, by reason of the youth, the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind or the intoxication of the person doing that act, or by reason of any misconception on the part of that person, every person has the same right of private defence against that act which he would have if the act were that offence.
Illustrations
(a) Z, under the influence of madness, attempts to kill A; Z is guilty of no offence. But A has the same right of private defence which he would have if Z were sane.
(b) A enters by night a house which he is legally entitled to enter Z, in good faith, taking A for a house-breaker, attacks A. Here Z, by attacking A under this misconception, commits no offence. But A has the same right of private defence against Z, which he would have if Z were not acting under that misconception.
IPC Section 98: Simplified Explanation
IPC Section 98 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) addresses the right of private defence in situations involving the risk of harm from individuals who, because of certain conditions, are incapable of discerning the nature of their actions or understanding that their actions are wrong. Specifically, this section applies to acts of defence against individuals who are:
- Of unsound mind
- Intoxicated
- Under the influence of misconception
This section effectively recognises that a person exercising the right of private defence is not expected to assess the aggressor’s mental state or intentions beyond their immediate actions. If someone poses a threat due to their actions, regardless of their mental capacity or state, the person threatened has the right to defend themselves or others.
Here’s a breakdown of the critical points of IPC Section 98:
- Broad Application: The right of private defence applies irrespective of the aggressor’s cognitive state. This means that the law allows individuals to defend themselves or others against threats posed by those who might not be fully aware of their actions due to mental health issues, intoxication, or a misunderstanding of the situation.
- Nature of the Threat: This section implies that the justification for using force in self-defence is based on the nature of the threat rather than the aggressor’s perceived guilt or intention. The criterion for exercising self-defence is the imminent harm that the action could potentially cause, not the mental state of the person causing the harm.
- Limitations and Conditions: Despite acknowledging the right to defend against such individuals, the law also implies that the use of force must still be reasonable and proportional to the threat posed. The defences available under Sections 96 to 106, which outline the scope and limits of the right to private defence, would still apply, ensuring that the response is not excessive.
- Protection for Vulnerable Individuals: By specifying conditions such as unsoundness of mind and intoxication, Section 98 also indirectly acknowledges the vulnerability of these individuals to pose threats unwittingly. It aims to balance the right to self-defence with a nuanced understanding of the complexities involved when the aggressor is unaware of their actions.
- Legal and Ethical Considerations: This provision underscores the legal system’s attempt to navigate the ethical and practical challenges of self-defence scenarios involving individuals who may not be fully responsible for their actions. It recognises the need for self-preservation while also considering the conditions of those who might inadvertently become aggressors.
IPC Section 98 of the IPC, therefore, expands the right of private defence to include situations involving aggressors who are not fully cognizant of their actions. This ensures that the law protects those under threat while also acknowledging the complexities of human behaviour and mental health.
