Section 103 of IPC – “When the right of Private Defence of Property Extends to Causing Death.”
Image Source: prudentgroove.files.wordpress.com
The right of private defence of property extends under Section 103 to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the wrongdoer, of the offence the committing of which or attempting to commit which occasions the exercise of the right, be an offence of any of the following description: (i) robbery (ii) house-breaking by night; (iii) mischief by fire committed on any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or as a place for custody of property; (iv) theft, mischief or house trespass under such circumstances as may reasonably cause apprehension that death or grievous hurt will be the consequence if such right of private defence is not exercised.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
A person employed to guard the property of his employer is protected if he, in the exercise of the right of private defence, caused the death of a person, with a reasonable apprehension that the person whom he killed was about to commit one of the offences mentioned in this section or to attempt to commit one of those offences.
A person whose duty it is to guard a public building is in the same position as a person employed to guard a private building. The mere fact that the property to be guarded by him is public property does not give him an extended right. Therefore, a police constable on guard duty at a magazine or other public building is not authorised to fire at a person on a simple reason that the latter does not answer his challenge.
But where it was found that : (1) the land was in the possession of the ^accused persons; (2) paddy crop had been grown by the accused persons and the same was ready for harvesting; (3) the deceased and their people were the aggressors; (4) the two deceased persons and their men had trespassed into the property and were about to harvest the paddy; (5) theft and mischief were either being committed or threatened to be committed; (6) when accosted they wanted to forcibly commit the offence of theft and mischief.
In Subramani v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court held that in exercise of right of private defence only such force may be used as may be necessary. But it is equally well settled that at a time when a person is faced with imminent peril of life and limb of himself or other, he is not expected to weigh in golden scales the precise force needed to repel the danger. Reasonable force may be used in defence of property. But would not in general, be reasonable to kill in defence of property alone.