 for the society at large will continue. And in that pursuit, though, we know that everyone will be busy on 1st of January, but we thought, as they say, that good things start with good momentum. And what better way could we start an ear with a resource person with not only taking his sessions in the judicial academy in down south in Tamil Nadu, but at the same time, his sessions not only on the study circle TSE Chennai, which are doing well and who are the knowledge partners with Beyond Law CLC, that his sessions on the YouTube are also extremely doing well because Mr. Sundar Mohan, a renowned advocate, takes his sessions with a simplicity of form, and that's why they are being latched up very well globally, public at large. Since it's a new year, we won't take much time. We would request Mr. Sundar Mohan to share his insights. And at the same time, we are thankful to the study circle TSE Chennai to spreading the word of knowledge and being a knowledge partner along with us. Over to you, Mr. Sundar Mohan. Good evening, everyone. Wish you all a very happy and a prosperous new year. Nice to see you all in a new year day. Thanks for joining us. We are going to talk about general exceptions today. We have had the first session about two months ago. I remember to have discussed up to sections 92 under chapter 4 of the Indian Penal Code. Today, we'll be discussing the remaining provisions in that chapter. We will start with the provisions relating to a right of private defense. This is the most important exception in my view for all the exceptions that are provided in the Penal Code. And this deals with the right of private defense. There are about 11 provisions which deal with this right alone out of the 31 provisions in that chapter. As we will deal with those provisions first, and then we will deal with the remaining provisions, namely 93, 94, and 95 of the Penal Code. Now, the right of private defense is discussed from sections 96 to 106. There are about 11 provisions, as I said earlier. What is this right of private defense? Now, as you all know, if it falls within any of these exceptions, it is not an offense. Even if the ingredients of the offense are made out, if you are able to bring your case within the exceptions, the offense is not made off. That is what gentle exceptions mean. Now, under this 11 provisions, the right of private defense is discussed, and what is this right? Now, as the name suggests, it is a preventive right, and not a punitive right. That's the first principle that we must understand. It is a preventive right. That is, you can exercise the right to private defense, which may extend even to causing death or harm, such as grieve a cert to another person, provided certain conditions are formed, that which are described in the Penal Code are formed. So it is a preventive right and not a punitive right. As you all know, no individual has got the right to punish another person, even if the other person is the wrong doer. It is the state which has got the power to punish. Now, the state temporarily hands over that right to the individual in certain circumstances. It is a temporary handing over of that right under certain circumstances, and that is the right of private defense, because the state cannot, 24 bar 7, protect your body and your property. They have the power to punish a person if wrong is done to you, but they don't have enough resources to protect your body or the person's, anyone else's body in which you are interested or the property of yours or anyone else's property in which you are interested, 24 bar 7. Therefore, it is a temporary handing over of that right to you, and that right comes with certain restrictions and certain rules. In order to exercise that right, you will have to follow some rules. And these rules are what is provided, are what are provided under this 11 provisions, maybe 96 to 106. Now, these 11 provisions talk about to what extent and how and in what manner this right can be exercise. That's about what these 11 provisions say. There are about seven or eight rules which are very important, which are laid down in these provisions. And I will spell out those principles or rules and then we will discuss each rule elaborately a little later. Now, the first rule is it extends to defense, defend not only one's body, but also another person's body that is in so far as offenses against human body where there's an offense against human body is committed or likely to be committed. You have a right to protect yourself from that attack of not only protect your body, but also another person's body. The same rule says that you have a right to defend your removal property and removal property from certain offenses such as theft, robbery, criminal trespass, housebreaking, et cetera. And again, it extends to another person's property as well. You have a right to protect another person's property as well. So this is the first rule. Now, the second rule is you have a right to even cause the death of another person in certain circumstances while defending your body or your property or anyone else's body or property. So the right extends even to causing death of another person. So what would have been otherwise murder or cultural homicide is not an offense if the act is committed in accordance with the rules under these provisions. So that is the second rule. The third rule is in certain other circumstances it extends to causing harm other than causing death while defending your property and body. So this is the third rule. So first is it extends to protecting your body. It is for protecting your body and property one. And for that, you have right even to cause death of another person. And in certain other circumstances, you have a right to cause other types of harm which is short of death. Now, this is the third, fourth rule is, fourth rule talks about in what cases you cannot exercise this right. The where a public servant acts in good faith and there is no threat of causing death or grievance hurt from him by him. You have no right of private defense as against his acts. Even if it is illegal. Supposing he does it in good faith, you have no right to cause harm to him. This right of private defense does not extend to those acts. So this is very, very important provision. And you will find this is explained in section 99 of the penal code. And in most of the provisions between 96 to 106, you will find that all these rights of private defense is subject to the limitation mentioned in section 99. So that is a very important provision that you have to bear in mind. Where there's a public servant attempting to cause harm which is not death. Even if a public servant attempts to cause death or there's an apprehension of death likely to be caused by the public servant, then the private defense right extends to that act also. But it does not extend where the public servant in good faith does any act, which does not create an apprehension of death or cause a grievance hurt, then his right is protected and you have no right of private defense. This is the fourth rule. Then the fifth rule is the right does not cannot be exercised when there is enough time to take recourse to public authorities. That is when you have, if you have, as I'm going to read some of the provisions, this will, you can understand this rule better. For example, if you see under section 96, the right to defend one's property extends to only certain property offenses, not to other property offenses such as cheating, forgery, et cetera, where you have a right to take recourse to public authorities. So where you have enough time to take recourse to public authorities, this right shall not be exercised. Again, this reiterates that original principle that I said that this is preventive in nature. This right is preventive and not punitive. So the moment the threat of danger to your life or property is gone, your right ceases, right of private defense ceases. You have to take recourse only to public authorities. So when you have enough time to take recourse to public authorities, this right does not, cannot be exercised. So that is the fifth rule. Sixth is supposing while exercising your right of private defense. There is a chance of harming an innocent person and there is no way that you can avoid that harm, that your right extends to causing harm to that innocent person also. This is also again a very important right. Supposing there is one person attacking you and while defending your body, you have to attack the person who's attacking you and in the process an innocent person or passerby is likely to be hurt or harm is likely to be caused to him, even then your right of private defense is preserved. So that is another important rule that it extends to causing harm to innocent person provided this right as against the aggressor is exercised in the proper manner and there is no way that you can prevent the aggressor without harming the innocent person. That also, that condition also has to be fulfilled. That is rule number six, all right. Now, this right is, this right of private defense is available only if the other person commits an offense, that we all know, or other person commits an offense of causing harm such as death and grievance, et cetera. Or other types of offenses, you can cause the minimum harm or the harm that is just enough to prevent that attack on you. Now, if it is an act committed by a person who is intoxicated or a person who is of unsound mind, then it is not an offense. As you also saw that if it is intoxication, which is not voluntary, which is not voluntarily taken, which is administered by somebody else and if he commits an offense, it is not an offense, which falls within the general exception. Again, if a person who is insane commits an offense, then also he is protected by general exception, section 84. Now, therefore, the acts committed by those persons are not offenses, but yet you have a right of private defense because the principle is, whether it is by a sane person or an insane person, or whether it is by a sober person or intoxicated person, the harm that is likely to be caused to you, you have a right to prevent that or defend yourself as against those acts. So, you have a right to cause harm to an intoxicated person or an insane person as well. That right extends to them also. Now, that is the seventh rule. The eighth rule is under sections 102 and 105, the exact time, as I told you, it is the state has temporarily given that right to you to defend yourself. Otherwise, it is the duty of the state to protect your body and property, but that temporary right is given. Therefore, they wanted to restrict it by time. So, the time as to when this right commences and as to when this right ends is provided in sections 102 and 105. So, it is limited by time. This right to exercise private differences is limited by time. So, that is the eighth rule. Now, let's see these rules one by one as to where these rules are provided under the penal code. Now, the first rule, as I told you, is that you have a right to defend your body, other person's body as well as right to defend your property as well as other person's property from certain offenses. This rule is provided in section 96. Let's see 96 now, or 97, I'm sorry. This rule is provided in 97. Every person has a right subject to the restrictions contained in section 99. So, this is what I told you in the preface that this restrictions that is contained in 99 relates to harm caused by the public servant. And you have no right of private defense as against those acts of the public servant. Provided it is not an act which is likely to cause death or universal. So, you will find this provision 99 refer to in all the provisions. So, let me read this again. Every person has a right subject to restrictions contained in section 99 to defend his own body and the body of any other person against any offense affecting the human body. So, if there's no restriction, it relates to protection as against any offense affecting the human body. So, when there is an attack on the human body, you have a right to private defense, whether it is, and there's no distinction with regard to the nature of the offense. Whatever offense is committed against human body, you have a right to have a private defense, right of private defense, all right. Secondly, it is for the property. You have to read it from the first. Every person has a right subject to restrictions contained in section 99 to defend the property, whether movable or immobile of himself or any other person against any act which is an offense falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass. Now, you see here, they have made only four types of offenses against which you can exercise the right of private defense and it can be for protecting both your movable or immobile property. Why is it restricted to these four offenses where you don't have enough time to take recourse to public authorities? There are many other property offenses they are not mentioned here. Simply because you have time to take recourse to public authorities. For example, if it is an offense of cheating, it is an offense of forgery, you have enough time to take recourse to public authorities and therefore, it is not brought within this right. So the right extends only to theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass. The theft, we all know it is a, there is a immediate removal of your property. There's a movement of the property from your possession to the possession of the offender. Robbery again, it involves injury, it involves harm to the body with the ingredients of theft. Then we have mischief where damage is caused to the property, which you have a right to protect or criminal trespass, which is again, these are offenses where you cannot wait for the public authorities to come and help you or defend your property. Therefore, they have given this right only to these offenses. All right, now this is so far as 9th set. Now the second rule deals with, I'm not going by the same order. So I'm going by the rules that I've just mentioned. The second rule mentions about that this right extends to causing death in certain circumstances. Now, so far as when you have to defend your property and when we have to defend your body, the rules are slightly different. So where you have to defend your body, that right extends to causing death in certain circumstances, which is mentioned in section 100. The right of private, I'll read section 100 now. The right of private defense of the body extends under the restrictions mentioned in the last preceding section to the voluntary causing of death of any other or any other harm to the assailant if the offense which occasions the exercise of the right to be of any of the descriptions here and after enumerated namely, such an assault as maybe reasonably cause a apprehension that the death will otherwise be the consequence of such assault. For example, if A assaults you and death is the probable consequence of such assault, you have a right to cause the death of that A who is attempting to assault you. Secondly, such an assault or as maybe reasonably cause the apprehension that the grievous hurt will be otherwise be the consequence of such assault. So it need not necessarily cause an apprehension of death but it can cause an apprehension of causing devious hurt to yourself even then you have a right to cause the death of the other person. So this is the second clause of section where you can exercise the right to cause death of another person. And thirdly, where does an assault with the intention of committing rape? Now, as we saw, it extends to not only the woman who is appraining the commission of rape but also any other person who can protect her right. So an assault with the intention of committing rape can also the right extends to causing the death of the person. And the fourthly is an assault with the intention of gratifying unnaturalness. So this is grouped along with rape. Now, and fifthly, an assault with the intention of kidnapping or abducting. This is also taken very seriously. See now under first clause, it is a direct harm to cause death. Then the second clause deals with grievous hurt. Third is rape and fourth is unnaturalness. And fifth is also equally important where there is a threat of kidnapping or abducting, you have a right to kill that person. Then sixthly, an assault with the intention of wrongfully confining a person under circumstances which may reasonably cause him to operate that he will be unable to have recourse to public authorities for his life. Now, where there's a wrongful confinement and you have an opportunity to take recourse to public authorities, then this right does not, cannot be exercised. But only when you have the apprehension that you will be unable to take recourse to public authorities, only then you can exercise this right under clause 60. So therefore, this again is a reiteration of principle that is only a preventive right and not a punitive one. Seventhly, this is an amendment, an act of throwing or administering acid or attempt to throw administrative which may reasonably cause the apprehension that we will otherwise be the consequence of such an act. So where there's a threat of acid attack, you have a right to cause the death of the person who is attempting to do that. So these are the seven ways where, or the seven types of offenses where this right of causing death can be exercised. All right, now what if you exercise, what if you exercise that act if there is no such threat? Supposing you wrongly exercise the right to private defense and cause the death of another person, what is the consequence? The consequence is provided in section 300 exceptions. So it will amount to culpable homicide, not amounting to murder. If you exceed the right of private defense, let me, let us quickly read those provisions also. If you see exception two, off to section 300, exception two to section 300 is two minutes, two minutes. Now see, exception two. Yeah, culpable homicide is not murder. If the offender in exercise in good faith of the right of private defense of person or property exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom is exercising such right of defense without premeditation and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defense. Now, if these two conditions are satisfied, it will amount to culpable homicide, not amounting to murder. Otherwise, if the intention to do harm is more than what is necessary for such a defense, it may even amount to murder. So this is where the distinction is made, where it exceeds private defense, the right of private defense. And if it is done without any intention of causing, doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of defense, then it will fall within exception two. So if you see the punishment provided for culpable homicide, not amounting to murder, you will find in section 304 that there is no minimum sentence provided. Unlike murder where the minimum sentence, there are only two sentences, life and death. Here under culpable homicide, not amounting to murder, you will see that there's no minimum sentence provided and it says under the first clause where it is done with intention, imprisonment for either description which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable. And the second clause where it is done with knowledge, it says within the imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years. So invariably where a right of private defense is exercised, the act is done with the knowledge and not done with intention because if the stranger comes and attacks you, you have no intention to normally kill him. But you have knowledge that is likely to be killed if you exercise that right of private defense. Assuming that you have exceeded your right of private defense, it is all within the second clause where it is done with the knowledge. So for that, you see, there's no minimum sentence provided and that is why description is given to the courts so far as punishments are concerned. So even if it exceeds, the court will have description to decide as to what is the sentence of imprisonment to be given. So it can even be as less as imprisonment till the raising of the court. Supposing therefore the courts have said, while you are under attack, you cannot weigh with golden scales as to whether this is right of private defense which can extend to causing death or to cause harm. So at that stage, you are likely to sometimes exceed your right, exceed or do more than what is actually necessary. Even that the law protects and gives the wide description of court in a particular facts and circumstances, they can always reduce the sentence under section 304, part two where it is always done with knowledge. It is not, you don't intend to actually cause death, but in a given case, supposing A does with intention and does it in a punitive manner, then he is liable for murder. So that is why these distinctions are sort to be given. Let's go back to section 103, coming back to rule number two where in what cases you can exercise the right of causing death. We are now dealt with where there's a harm to human body and in what kinds of offenses you can cause death. Now, where it relates to defending your property that is dealt with under section 103. I'll read 103. The right of private defense of property extents under the restrictions mentioned in 99, again, we saw the restrictions in 99, to the voluntary passing of death of any other harm to the wrongdoer, if the offense, the committing of which or the attempting to commit which occasions exercise the right to be an offense of any of the descriptions here and after any related namely robbery, house breaking by night, mischief by fire committed on any building tent or which which building are used as human delim or as a base for custody of the property, theft, mischief or house trespass under such circumstances as maybe reasonably cause apprehension that death or grievance will be the consequence if such right of private defense is not exercise. Now you see, we just saw in 96, there are four types of offenses for which you can defend your property, that is we saw theft, we saw robbery, criminal trespass and mischief. Now a slight modification, the aggravated forms are provided in this section for which you can exercise the right to cause death. Now you can't cause death of another person when there's a simple case of theft. Now theft must be accompanied with an apprehension that death or grievance will be the consequence if such private defense is not exercise. Now only then if the theft or mischief or house trespass is accompanied with that apprehension, that is when then accompanied with an apprehension of causing harm to the human body, can you exercise that right of private defense? So see the subtle distinction. Now you can exercise private defense when there is a case of simple case of theft but you can't cause death, that is the distinction that I'm trying to make. You have a right to cause death only if there is an aggravated form of these property offenses. For example, robberies are aggravated form of theft where a harm to the body is caused, then house breaking by night, there is an alarm, there is a threat that a person when he breaks by night is likely to cause harm to the body. Therefore, that is brought in this provision. And the third is where mischief that by fire, when the mischief is caused by fire. There are many kinds of, many ways by which mischief can be caused but mischief by fire committed on any building tent or vessel which building tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling. So there's a likely to cause harm to the human body where there's a mischief is caused by fire, mischief is by fire and the two are human dwelling which is happens to be human dwelling, then there's a likely to be harm to the human body. So that is the reason why you have a right to exercise cause death. And the second category is or as a place for custody of property that some property which is valuable is kept. Therefore, you have a right to cause death of that person. So these aggravated forms of those property offenses which are mentioned in 97 is provided in 103 where you can exercise right of private defense, right to cause death of another person. So it does not extend to all kinds of property offenses that we saw in 97 itself. So even in those property offenses only the aggravated forms are provided in section 103 where you can exercise right to cause death. So this is the second rule where these are the circumstances under which you can cause death of another person. So that is a section 100 deals with offenses where the offenses start that start to be committed against human body and 103 where the offenses for the protection of is passed against the property. All right. Now the third rule deals with where you can cause harm. This rule is dealt with in section 101 and 104. 101 deals with offenses against human body and 104 deals with offenses against the property. Now let's see what 101 says. If the offense be not of any of the descriptions enumerated in the last preceding section namely a section 100, the right of private defense or property does not extend to the voluntary causing of death to the assailant, but does extend under the restrictions maintained in 99 to the voluntary causing to the offense, any harm other than the death. So you have a right to cause any harm other than death if it does not fall within any of these clauses or the seven offenses mentioned in section 100. So the right extends only to causing harm. You cannot cause death. So if you cause death, then court will have to see whether it is done in good faith and whether it will fall under exception three to section 302 300 and so on. Now, when can you extend this right of causing harm in case of property offenses? That is mentioned in section 104. Let me read 104. If the offense, the committing of which or the attempting to commit which occasions the exercise of the right of private defense be theft, mischief or tremendous plus, not of any of the descriptions of the generated last decision section, that right does not extend to voluntary causing death but extends subject to restrictions in 99 to the voluntary causing to the wrong doer of any harm other than death. So if it does, if it is not the aggravated forms of the offense, then you can only cause harm which is short of death under section 104, where there's a attempt to commit offenses against the property. So this is this turdo. Now, we were talking about, we saw that in all these provisions, section 99 is mentioned. So 99 refers to elaborate the fourth rule where the fourth rule says where this right cannot be exercised. If it is an act done by a public servant, this right cannot be exercised. Well, let me, let us read now 99. There is no right of private defense against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or reverse hurt, if done or attempted to be done by a public servant acting in good faith under this color of his office, though that act may not be strictly justifiable by law. There is no right of private defense against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or grievance. Give us a, if done or attempted to be done by the direction of a public servant acting in good faith under the color of his office, though that direction may not be strictly justifiable by law. Now, you see there are two things that we'll have to understand from this provision. One is if a public servant does an act which causes the apprehension of death or reverse hurt, then this right of private defense is available. Even as against a public servant, supposing a police officer creates an impression or there is an apprehension of that his act may cause death to you, you have a right of private defense. So the act gives that kind of right, the state gives that kind of right to you in order to protect your life. Now, therefore, if there is a, but it must reasonably cause the apprehension that death or grievance hurt is likely to be caused by that act of the public servant. If that is there, even as against a public servant, you have a right of private defense which may extend to even causing death. But you would not have this right where the public servant does not create this apprehension, does not cause the apprehension of death or grievance but he causes apprehension of some other harm other than death or grievance hurt, then you have no right of private defense as against a public servant who is acting in good faith under the color of his office or under whose authority another person is acting. Supposing another person is acting under the authority of the public servant, even as against him, you don't have any right of private defense just as you don't have it in the case of a public servant. So, for the second class to apply, the public servant must have authorized another person to act on his behalf and that must have been done in good faith. So, these are the two circumstances where you cannot exercise the right of private. That is why we have been seeing this in every provision. In every provision we say, we saw that this right is subject to the right mentioned in or the restrictions mentioned in 99. So, these are the restrictions mentioned in 99. Now, this is the fourth rule. Now, the fifth rule is again found in the same class. That is the class three in section 99, which says there is no right of private defenses in cases in which there is time to have recourse to protection of public authorities. Now, this is the bolden rule which runs through all these provisions. In fact, fundamentally, as I said, this is a preventive right and not a preventive right and therefore, where there's a right, where there's enough time to have recourse to protection of public authorities, you shall not exercise your right. For example, if there is an attack on your body and the attacker runs away, you have no right to chase him and attack him. It is only, again, it is only to prevent you. You can prevent this attack and any act done by you after the attacker retraces the steps or runs away that is not a private defense. Many gentlemen who are on the Supreme Court have clearly dealt with those kinds of cases and held that this will not come within the right of private defense. So it extends only when there's time to have recourse to the protection of public authority, you have no, you cannot exercise this right. So that is the fifth rule. Now, we were talking about causing harm to an innocent person. That is the sixth rule. It extends even causing harm to an innocent person provided he's unable to exercise the right without causing harm to that person. So this is provided in section 106. Now, even the exercise of right of private defense against assault, which reasonably causes the apprehension of death, the defender be so situated that he cannot effectively exercise that right without the risk of harm to an innocent person. He's right of private defense extends to running off that risk also. So he can even cause harm to the innocent person. This is what this provision says. Now, let's see the illustration. A is attacked by a mob who attempts to murder him. He cannot effectively exercise the right of private defense without firing on the mob and he cannot fire without risk of harming young children who are mingled with the mob. A commits no offense if by so firing he harms any of the children. This is the additional right that is provided under section 106 where you don't have to actually, if you are not able to identify the person who is attacking you and in order to defend yourself, you have a right to attack the innocent persons also where you cannot really identify the attacker alone and attack them alone. Now, this is the sixth rule. Now, the seventh rule is it is also protects you from acts done by persons of unsowned mind or who are intoxicated. Now, this is provided in the section 98. When an act which would otherwise be a certain offense is not that offense by reason of the youth, the want of maturity of understanding the unsoundness of mind or intoxication of the person doing the act or by reason of any misconception on the part of that person. Every person has the same right of private defense against that act, which you would have if the act were that offense. Now, why did they make this clear? Because one should not take the stand saying that, no, no, these people have not really committed offense because of their unsoundness of mind or intoxication or because of the age and therefore you have no right of private defense. The ultimate idea of this private defense is protect your body. Whether it is by a person who is sane, who is a person who is doing mensria or without mensria, you have a right to protect because ultimately the idea is to protect your body or property. So that's right is provided in the section 98. Now, this is the seventh rule. Now, eighth rule is this is a very important and very interesting rule. It says as to when this right will come us and when it will end. That is why there are many authorities or judgments of the Ondrum Supreme Court on the High Court which deals with these provisions. These provisions we say as to when it comes us and when it ends. Now, so far as defending our body is concerned, the commencement and this ending is provided in section 102. 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 offense. Those offenses may not have been committed and it continues as long as such apprehension or danger to the body continues. Oh, this is a very tricky provision. Now, when does this apprehension really arise? When the attacker supposing he points out a gun, can you call it as an apprehension? So these are matters which have to be decided on a case-to-case basis or it depends on the facts and circumstances of each case as to when this person can be said to have a reasonable apprehension of danger to his body or his property and the right commences as soon as that reasonable apprehension is entertained. That is the commencement of right and it ends the moment the apprehension of danger to the body is the apprehension is not there. The moment that apprehension is done or it is not there, it ends. Therefore, this is a question of fact as to when it commences and as to when it ended. Like I said, in one case, an attack was made on the family. There was dispute between two families who which owned the neighboring plots. A family comes and attacks B family and runs away. Now, B family chases A family and attacks them and kills one of the persons in A family, A family. So that is not a private difference is what the honorable Supreme Court says. It says that you had enough time to take recourse to public authorities. You went and chased, you had committed this act after that apprehension was no longer there. That apprehension of danger was no longer there and you had committed that act. So this commencement and ending of that apprehension is a very important time period during which this right is given to you. This is so far as body is concerned. So far as property is concerned is provided in section 105. So for each of these different types of property offenses the commencement and ending has been provided in a different manner. This is also interesting really. The right of, I'll read from section 105. The right of private difference of property commences when a reasonable apprehension of danger to property commences. The right of private difference of property against theft continues till the offenders as effected as retreat with the property or either the assistance of public authorities obtained or the property has been recovered. So the right of private difference against theft continues till the offenders as effected as retreat with the property or supposing he has abandoned is attempt to take over the property or attempt to commit theft, then it ceases or either the assistance of public authorities is obtained, then also it ceases or the property has been recovered. So these are the three or the three circumstances in which they say it ends and commences at that period. So far as right of private difference of property against robbery continues as long as the offender causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or harmful lessen. So long as the fear of incident death or incident art or incident persons lessen. This is very similar to offense against body because robbery involves harm to the body. So you will see that similar wordings are provided in section 102. The right of private difference of property against criminal trespass or mischief continues as long as offender continues in the commission of the criminal trespass or mischief. So again, as long as the trespass or mischief continues that right can be explained. The fourth link, the right of private difference of property against housebreaking by night continues as long as the house trespass has been begun by such housebreaking continues. So again, where housebreaking continues as long as that housebreaking continues, you have to, you have the right to exercise right of private difference to protect your property. So these are the eight rules that are now enumerated in these particular 11 provisions. We were, of course, after the class, if you have any queries, we'll discuss about that. So basically these are the eight rules. Now the eight rules are fundamentally it is a, to sum up fundamentally it is a preventive right and not a punitive right. And this is a right conferred on you by the state temporarily to protect your own body and property that is because they can't protect it 24 by seven all the time. Now the rules relating to it are that you have a right to protect not only your body, but someone else's body, not only a right to protect your property, someone else's property can be both immobile and mobile as the first rule. Second rule, in certain circumstances where the offenses are grave in nature, you have a right to cause death. For example, if the offenses where the, you are prend death, you are prend the grievous act, you are prend rape, you are prend unnatural lust, you are prend the threat of unnatural lust, you are prend the kidnapping, abducting, asset attack, et cetera, you have a right to cause death. Where this, if it falls with, it doesn't fall with any other offenses, you have a right to cause harm so far as body offenses are concerned. And so far as property offenses are concerned, where it is linked to harm to body, you have a right to cause death. For example, robbery is linked to harm, it's a property offense which is, not only causes harm to the property, but also to the body, that you have a right to cause death. Then where there's offense of theft, criminal trespass or mischief, when there's a apprehension of death or grievous act, you have a right to cause death. And in the case of other cases, there are a couple of other instances where you can cause death, so far property offenses are concerned. This is the third rule. And the fourth rule is, where you cannot exercise your right, where the apprehension is, where the attack or the assault is by a public servant who acts in good faith, you have no right of private defense provided he does not cause apprehension of death or grievous act. So that's the fourth rule, where you cannot exercise the right of private defense. And the fifth rule is, where you have a right to take recourse to public authorities, you shall not exercise this right. That's the fifth important rule. And the sixth rule is, it can extend to causing harm to an innocent person, where the causing of harm to the innocent person is unavoidable, where you are for the purpose of defending your own body or property. It can extend even to causing harm to an innocent person. Sixth is, even it extends to even offenses committed by, even though technically they are not offenses, they are acts committed by the innocent persons of one's own mind, intoxicated persons, persons of underage who would not be otherwise an offense who will fall within general exception. Even for those acts, you have a right to protect yourself. And the eighth important rule is, this is not a permanent right, it only as it is but a specific time period. This starts at a particular time and ends at a particular time. Though so that particular time is provided in section 102 for body offenses, 105 for the property offenses. So these are the rules that one has to bear in mind to understand this right of private defense. So with this, we will now deal with the three other provisions, which we did not deal in the last session. That is, we'll go backwards. We start with 95 first, 95. So this principle is based on the Romal Law principle of the minimalist curate lex, that the law does not take cognizance of trivial things. The section 95 is based on bounded on that principle. So let me read 95 and explain that principle a little more. Nothing is an offense by reason that it causes or that it is intended to cause or that it is known to be likely to cause any harm. If that harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm. So these are very important lines that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm. Now, if it is now where an ordinary person, person of ordinary sense and temper is likely to complain, then it will not fall within section 95. So they wanted to protect only those acts which would not be complained by persons with ordinary sense and temper. Now, that is a very interesting example given where supposing you are walking on a crowded seat and you tread upon the toes of another person, then you would normally not complain or you clash against another person, you would not normally complain. But an eccentric person may come in. So it is to protect against those eccentric complaints of those eccentric persons that this exception is provided. That nothing is an offense by reasons that it causes or that it is intended to cause likely it won't likely to be caused any harm if that harm is so slight that no person or an instance and temper would complain of such harm. I'll just give you two, three, I will not read those citations where the courts found that in two cases, the court found that it was a slight harm and therefore this exception could be invoked. Those are 2012, 12 ACC, 748, that you would find NK Elias was state of Kerala. Then Vida Manisis versus Yusuf Ali Khan, Ajay Ibram Khan, A.R. 1966, Supreme Court, 1773. And in Rupan, Bajaj versus Kanwar, in that case they said it is not a trivial offense and the person was started to be prosecuted. 1995, 6 ACC, 1094, just for your reference, I'm not gonna read those just. So this is about slightly causing slight harm. Now let's go to, before we go to 94, let's see 93, 93 is easy to understand. No communication made in good faith is an offense by reason of any harm to the person to whom it is made, if it is made for the benefit of that person. Supposing a surgeon says that this surgery could cause harm to you, likely to cause danger to your life. In that case, and if the person hearing it dies, so out of that communication, if he dies, those are communications that are protected. Supposing communications is made in good faith to in order to warn the patient, for example, mostly it applies to, that's why the illustration you find a surgeon communicating to a patient. So these are communications that are made in good faith and which is likely to cause some shock and therefore an offense and harm to the person who's hearing it, those communications are protected. So this is very easy to understand. Normally it applies only to surgeons or it can even apply to lawyers. Supposing the lawyer tells the client that you know you have a big case and something happens. So those communication also can be protected in section 93. Now 94 is interesting. So this is again found under the principle that if an act is not violently caused by a person, it cannot be called as his act. So therefore he cannot be punished. This is the principle on which this section 94 is founded. So the fundamental principle in lawyers that if a person does not act voluntarily and it acts under compulsion, under some threats, then it cannot be called as his act. But then section 94 does not make all kinds of compulsions as an excuse. The compulsions should be of such a nature that is mentioned in section 94. Let us see what are those compulsions that are protected and for which a person can commit an offense and still get away with it within the meaning of within this exception. Now let me read section 94, except murder and offenses against a state punishable with death. Nothing is an offense which is done by a person who is compelled to do it by threats which at the time of doing it, reasonably cause the apprehension that instant death to that person will otherwise be the consequence. Provided the person doing that did not have his own accord or from the reasonable apprehension of harm to himself, short of instant death plays himself in the situation by which he became subject matter of such constraint. For example, A is a carpenter. Let us say A is a carpenter and you find that explanation 2 is better. It elicits this situation better. A person seized by a gang of dacoits and forced by threat of instant death to do a thing which is an offense by law. For example, a smith compelled to take his tools and to force the door of the house for the dacoits to enter present. He is entered to benefit of this expression. So, he is under threat of death and he is asked to break open the door and in that case he is protected. So, this is an exception which is provided where an act is done by him under compulsion. Now, the other proviso that 95 talks about is provided that if the person voluntarily joins the creates or puts himself in that position where he is compelled to do an act but though, sorry, you see the expression one explains that better, a person who of his own accord or by reason of threat of being beaten joins a gang of dacoits knowing that character is not enter to the benefit of this exception on the ground of his having been compelled by his associates to do anything that is an offense by law. Supposing he voluntarily joins that group and then he can't take the stand that they compelled me to do this act and therefore I did this time becoming a member of that gang. So, that is the proviso that is provided in 94. So, again, it is like saying he voluntarily intoxicated and intoxicated by without his knowledge. It's like that. So, supposing he is compelled to do an act by an external agency then he is protected on section external group or gang of dacoits then he is protected in the 690. So, with this we will, I don't want to take much of your time. I know it's a new as day and let's talk with this and if there is any questions I am open to answer them. Thank you so much. Swikas? Yeah, Sundarji, I am just getting my video on somehow my post has switched off my video also. I don't want to detail them for long. No, no, I understand. I will just check out because there is no question of the thing or the chat box. I am just checking it out on the YouTube. We have only got three comments. One is saying thank you and two are saying it was an awful session. Yeah. So, thank you, Mr. Sundar. Thank you so much. It was a session as usual, spot on. It was the nuances which we normally talk of but we sometimes miss it. But the final points, I will just ask you to share the judgment so that people can have a hangover with it. And now we will be having a session on third with Justice Roshan Dalvi. Do stay connected with us on short skills with legal perspective, a former judge of the Bombay High Court coupled with Dr. Hari Shethi, a famous psychiatrist. Do stay connected with us. Everyone stay safe, stay blessed and we only hope that the new year brings and cherishes good memories forever and everyone who is in the profession does much better than their own expectations. Thank you. Stay safe, stay blessed. Jai Hind. Thank you, Sundar.