About this topic
The right of private defence is dealt with in Sections 34 to 44 of the B.N.S. These eleven Sections close Chapter 3, the chapter on General Exceptions. They explain when a person who uses force to protect a body or property is protected by the law, and when the same force becomes a crime.
Three problems to keep in mind
In each of the following problems a person used force. The law stands behind two of them but not the third. The problems are solved at the end of these notes, after the law has been studied.
Problem 1 – The nurse at the bus stop. At two in the morning in Bhopal, Zoya, a nurse, has just finished her night shift and is walking to the bus stop. A stranger grabs her wrist and starts dragging her towards a car whose back door is open. She pulls a pair of surgical scissors from her bag and drives them deep into his forearm. He survives, but with a serious wound.
Problem 2 – The hotel lobby. In a hotel lobby in Kochi, a guest suddenly pulls out a kitchen knife and rushes at the receptionist. Another guest, Farhan, who knows neither of them, swings a heavy fire extinguisher and fractures the attacker's skull. Later, doctors find that the attacker suffers from a severe mental illness and had no idea what he was doing.
Problem 3 – The mango orchard. At sunset, in a village near Patiala, a retired soldier named Aadil sees two teenagers plucking mangoes in his orchard. They carry nothing but a cloth bag. When he shouts, they start running. He fires his licensed gun, and one boy dies.
The idea behind the right: the emergency chain
Every passenger train has an emergency chain. Any passenger may pull it, but only in a real emergency, and pulling it without good cause is itself punishable. Private defence works in much the same way.
- The State cannot post a police officer beside every citizen, so the law gives every person an emergency power to stop an unlawful attack.
- The power is for emergencies only. It exists to stop danger, never to punish the wrongdoer or to settle old scores.
- At the same time, the law does not demand cowardice.
Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab (2010): Held: the Supreme Court said, "The law does not require a law-abiding citizen to behave like a coward when confronted with an imminent unlawful aggression." Principle: the law does not demand cowardice from a person facing imminent unlawful aggression; the right exists to stop that danger.
Section 34: Things done in private defence
Section 34 is the foundation of the whole subject. Its heading is "Things done in private defence."
"Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence."
The words of Section 34 are very strong. The law does not say that an act done in private defence is forgiven, or punished lightly. It says that the act is not an offence at all. A lawful defender stands on the same footing as a person who has done nothing wrong.
The five questions
The whole subject can be learnt through five questions. Every Section in this group answers one of them.
- What may I protect? – Section 35.
- Against whom may I act? – Sections 36 and 37(1)(a) and (b).
- When may I act? – Sections 37(1)(c), 40 and 43.
- How far may I go? – Sections 38, 39, 41, 42 and 37(2).
- Who else might get hurt? – Section 44.
What may be protected: Section 35
Section 35 carries the heading "Right of private defence of body and of property." It reads:
"Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in section 37, to defend–
(a) his own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body;
(b) 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."
Defence of the body: "any offence affecting the human body"
This phrase is wide. It covers not only killing and hurt, but also:
- criminal force,
- wrongful restraint,
- wrongful confinement, and
- kidnapping.
If someone tries to lock Prince inside a storeroom, Prince's right of private defence arises even though nobody has raised a weapon, because wrongful confinement is an offence affecting the human body.
Two further features of Section 35
- "Any other person" – no family tie is needed. A passer-by may protect a complete stranger, just as Farhan did in the hotel lobby.
- Property can be defended only against four offences and their attempts: theft, robbery, mischief and criminal trespass.
A neighbour posts an insulting message about Neha in a residents' group online, or a builder breaks a promise in a sale agreement with her. Neha has been wronged, but no right of private defence arises, because neither act is theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass. Her remedy lies in the courts.
Body: defended against any offence affecting the human body. Property (movable or immovable): defended only against theft, robbery, mischief and criminal trespass, or attempts to commit them. In both cases the right extends to one's own body or property and to that of any other person.
Against whom the right may be exercised
Normally the answer is obvious: the right is exercised against the person committing the offence. Two special situations need attention: an attacker who is legally innocent, and a public servant.
Section 36: Attacker who is legally innocent
The attacker in the Kochi hotel lobby, because of severe mental illness, committed no offence at all. The question is whether Farhan therefore loses the right. Section 36 settles this. Its heading is "Right of private defence against act of a person of unsound mind, etc." It reads:
"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."
The law looks at the danger, not at the guilt of the attacker. The earlier exceptions in Chapter 3 protect young children, persons of unsound mind, persons intoxicated without their knowledge or against their will, and persons acting under a mistake of fact. They shield those persons from punishment, but they never oblige the victim to stand still.
The B.N.S. gives two illustrations to Section 36:
Illustration (a): "Z, a person of unsound mind, 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."
Illustration (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."
Section 37(1)(a) and (b): Acts of public servants
There is one class of persons against whom the right is sharply limited: public servants. Section 37 carries the heading "Acts against which there is no right of private defence." Sub-section (1) begins, "There is no right of private defence–"
"(a) against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that act, may not be strictly justifiable by law;
(b) against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that direction may not be strictly justifiable by law;"
The right is therefore excluded against a public servant (or a person acting by his direction) when all of these conditions are present:
- the act does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or grievous hurt;
- the public servant acts in good faith;
- he acts under colour of his office, that is, in the apparent exercise of his official power;
- this is so even though the act or direction may not be strictly justifiable by law.
Meaning of "good faith": Section 2(11)
"Good faith" carries a special meaning here. Section 2(11) of the B.N.S. says:
"Nothing is said to be done or believed in 'good faith' which is done or believed without due care and attention."
An official who acts recklessly, without due care and attention, is not acting in good faith. The restriction in Section 37(1)(a) and (b) then no longer stands in the citizen's way.
A municipal team arrives to pull down an illegal shed. The demolition order has a clerical mistake in the plot number, so the action may not be strictly justifiable by law. The owner, Prince, starts throwing bricks at the officials. He has no right of private defence. The officials are acting in good faith and under colour of their office, and nothing they are doing threatens death or grievous hurt. Prince must take his complaint to court.
Change one fact: if an official starts beating Prince on the head with an iron rod, the apprehension of grievous hurt arises, and the right of private defence returns.
The two Explanations to Section 37
The citizen is protected further by two Explanations.
Explanation 1: "A person is not deprived of the right of private defence against an act done, or attempted to be done, by a public servant, as such, unless he knows or has reason to believe, that the person doing the act is such public servant."
Explanation 2: "A person is not deprived of the right of private defence against an act done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant, unless he knows, or has reason to believe, that the person doing the act is acting by such direction, or unless such person states the authority under which he acts, or if he has authority in writing, unless he produces such authority, if demanded."
A private tow-truck operator hired by the traffic police starts hooking up Hansa's car. If she asks for his written authority, he must show it, unless it is already obvious that he is acting on official direction, for instance because a traffic constable is standing beside him giving instructions.
Openness is the price the law demands before it takes away the citizen's right. The restriction in Section 37(1)(a) and (b) applies only if:
- against a public servant: the citizen knows or has reason to believe that the person is a public servant (Explanation 1);
- against a person acting by a public servant's direction: the citizen knows or has reason to believe that the person is acting by such direction, or the person states the authority under which he acts, or, if he has written authority, produces it when demanded (Explanation 2).
When the right may be exercised
Section 37(1)(c): Time to seek protection of the public authorities
The first rule is a gate that shuts the right completely. Section 37(1)(c) says there is no right of private defence:
"in cases in which there is time to have recourse to the protection of the public authorities."
In a land quarrel, a neighbour sends Hansa a written message that next Sunday he will bring labourers to dig a boundary trench through her field. Hansa has a whole week. She cannot gather men with sticks and wait for the neighbour. She must approach the police or the court.
The right is meant for moments when help cannot arrive in time, not for planned battles.
Section 40: Commencement and continuance of the right of private defence of body
"The right of private defence of the body commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit the offence though the offence may not have been committed; and it continues as long as such apprehension of danger to the body continues."
Reasonable apprehension
- Apprehension means a fear or expectation that harm is coming.
- Reasonable means that the fear must be one that a sensible person would share in the same situation.
- The fear need not turn out to be correct.
On a dark lane, a man rushes at Renu swinging something that flashes like a blade. Her fear is reasonable even if the object later proves to be a steel torch.
Two lessons from Section 40
- There is no need to wait for the first blow. The right begins with the attempt or threat.
- The right lives exactly as long as the danger lives. Once the danger is over, further force is not defence but revenge.
In a road-rage quarrel, a man lifts an iron rod above Prince's head. The danger has already arrived, and so has Prince's right. If the man then throws the rod into the gutter, raises both hands and walks back to his car, the danger is over. Striking him now is not defence. It is revenge.
Section 43: Commencement and continuance of the right of private defence of property
For property, the duration of the right depends on the offence, so Section 43 gives separate rules.
| Clause | Offence | Rule |
|---|---|---|
| (a) | All offences against property (commencement) | The right "commences when a reasonable apprehension of danger to the property commences". |
| (b) | Theft | The right "against theft continues till the offender has effected his retreat with the property or either the assistance of the public authorities is obtained, or the property has been recovered". |
| (c) | Robbery | The right "against robbery continues as long as the offender causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint or as long as the fear of instant death or of instant hurt or of instant personal restraint continues". |
| (d) | Criminal trespass or mischief | The right "against criminal trespass or mischief continues as long as the offender continues in the commission of criminal trespass or mischief". |
| (e) | House-breaking after sunset and before sunrise | The right "against house-breaking after sunset and before sunrise continues as long as the house-trespass which has been begun by such house-breaking continues." |
Snatching, under Section 304 of the B.N.S., is itself a form of theft. To effect his retreat means that the offender has reached safety with the property.
A snatcher on a scooter grabs Zoya's phone and speeds away. If she gives chase and catches him at the next traffic signal, her right is still alive, because he has not yet effected his retreat with the phone. But if she spots him at a tea stall a week later, the right is over. Now it is a matter for the police.
How far the right extends: the two-step ladder
This question matters most in practice. The B.N.S. answers it with a ladder of two steps, built once for the body and once for property.
- The higher step allows even the voluntary causing of death.
- The lower step allows any harm except death.
| Step | Body | Property |
|---|---|---|
| Higher step: death or any other harm | Section 38 (seven descriptions of grave assault, including acid attacks) | Section 41 (robbery, night house-breaking, mischief by fire or explosive on a dwelling or store, and dangerous theft, mischief or house-trespass) |
| Lower step: any harm other than death | Section 39 (every other offence affecting the body) | Section 42 (theft, mischief or criminal trespass not covered by Section 41) |
| Ceiling over both steps | Section 37(2): no more harm than is necessary for the purpose of defence | Section 37(2): no more harm than is necessary for the purpose of defence |
Section 38: When the right of private defence of body extends to causing death
"The right of private defence of the body extends, under the restrictions specified in section 37, to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the assailant, if the offence which occasions the exercise of the right be of any of the descriptions hereinafter enumerated, namely:–
(a) such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that death will otherwise be the consequence of such assault;
(b) such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault;
(c) an assault with the intention of committing rape;
(d) an assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust;
(e) an assault with the intention of kidnapping or abducting;
(f) an assault with the intention of wrongfully confining a person, under circumstances which may reasonably cause him to apprehend that he will be unable to have recourse to the public authorities for his release;
(g) an act of throwing or administering acid or an attempt to throw or administer acid which may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such act."
Grievous hurt for clause (b): Section 116
Section 116 of the B.N.S. lists eight kinds of grievous hurt, including:
- permanent loss of sight of either eye or hearing of either ear;
- permanent disfiguration of the head or face;
- fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth;
- any hurt that endangers life, or keeps the sufferer in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow ordinary pursuits, for fifteen days.
The logic behind the list
- Each clause describes a threat so grave that the law refuses to make the victim gamble.
- Life, bodily safety, sexual dignity and personal liberty are all covered.
- Clause (d) reaches grave sexual assaults that fall outside the statutory definition of rape.
- Clause (g), on acid attacks, was added to the law of private defence in 2013, and the B.N.S. carries it forward.
- Zoya, in Problem 1, was facing clause (e): an assault with the intention of abducting her.
Section 39: When the right of private defence of body extends to causing any harm other than death
"If the offence be not of any of the descriptions specified in section 38, the right of private defence of the body does not extend to the voluntary causing of death to the assailant, but does extend, under the restrictions specified in section 37, to the voluntary causing to the assailant of any harm other than death."
Section 41: When the right of private defence of property extends to causing death
Property follows the same two-step design.
"The right of private defence of property extends, under the restrictions specified in section 37, to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the wrong-doer, if the offence, the committing of which, or the attempting to commit which, occasions the exercise of the right, be an offence of any of the descriptions hereinafter enumerated, namely:–
(a) robbery;
(b) house-breaking after sunset and before sunrise;
(c) mischief by fire or any explosive substance committed on any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or as a place for the custody of property;
(d) 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."
The reason for each item
- Robbery is theft or extortion accompanied by violence or the fear of instant death, hurt or wrongful restraint, so a threat to the body is already built into it.
- House-breaking means house-trespass committed through an unusual or forced entry, such as a hole made in a wall, a window, or a lock that is opened. When it happens after sunset and before sunrise, it strikes at the place where people sleep, at the hour when they are least able to protect themselves.
- Mischief by fire or explosive: fire set to a hut with a family asleep inside, or to a warehouse full of cotton bales, can spread beyond anyone's control.
Read clause (d) of Section 41 carefully. Theft by itself never justifies killing. It does so only when the circumstances threaten death or grievous hurt.
A cattle thief at night points a country-made pistol at the farmer who tries to stop him. The theft is now committed in circumstances that reasonably cause apprehension of death or grievous hurt, so Section 41(d) applies.
Section 42: When the right of private defence of property extends to causing any harm other than death
"If the offence, the committing of which, or the attempting to commit which occasions the exercise of the right of private defence, be theft, mischief, or criminal trespass, not of any of the descriptions specified in section 41, that right does not extend to the voluntary causing of death, but does extend, subject to the restrictions specified in section 37, to the voluntary causing to the wrong-doer of any harm other than death."
Section 37(2): The ceiling over the entire ladder
Even on the higher step, the defender is not free to cause unlimited harm. Section 37(2) reads:
"The right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence."
Yet the courts are realistic about human fear. In Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab (2010), the Supreme Court said it is difficult to expect a person exercising this right in good faith to weigh "with golden scales" what maximum amount of force is necessary.
Necessity of force is judged from the position of a reasonable person caught in that moment, not by a calm observer studying it later.
Exceeding the right: two Supreme Court decisions
Two decisions of the Supreme Court show exactly where the line falls.
Munney Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh (28 August 1970)
Munney Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1970): On the night of 1 October 1965, the village of Berkhedi in Madhya Pradesh was celebrating Durga Utsav, and a drama was to be staged. Rewati Singh, a volunteer, stopped Munney Khan and Zulfikar, who were brothers, from walking through the area reserved for women, and a brief scuffle followed. Later that night, according to the Sessions Judge, Rewati Singh picked a quarrel with Zulfikar, threw him to the ground, sat on his chest and rained down fist blows. Munney Khan first tried to stop this with fists. When that failed, he stabbed Rewati Singh in the back with a knife, and Rewati Singh died.
Lower courts: The trial court convicted Munney Khan of murder and imposed imprisonment for life. The High Court dismissed the appeal summarily.
Issue: The defence version, that a knife swung by another man had struck Rewati Singh by accident, had been disbelieved. The real question before the Supreme Court was the nature of the offence.
Held (Justice Bhargava): Rewati Singh was the aggressor, so a right to defend Zulfikar's body had arisen. But it was "a very limited one". Since only fist blows were being given, the right stood on the lower step: death could not be caused, and the force could not exceed the minimum needed. "The use of the knife itself was in excess of the right of private defence and it became much more excessive when the blow with the knife was given on a vital part of the body". The murder conviction was set aside. Munney Khan was convicted instead under Section 304 Part I of the IPC, for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, with seven years of rigorous imprisonment.
Justice Dua (concurring):
- The Sections on private defence "have all to be read together" to grasp the scope and limits of the right.
- The right "is essentially a defensive right circumscribed by the statute, available only when the circumstances clearly justify it".
- "It should not be allowed to be pleaded or availed of as a pretext for a vindictive, aggressive or retributive purpose."
- Because even strangers hold this right, courts must make sure nobody uses it as an excuse to take sides in a quarrel.
- Where two parties fight freely and the first aggressor is unknown, it may be dangerous to give either side the right.
- A lawful act of defence gives the aggressor no right of private defence in return.
Principle: Where the attack is only with fist blows, the right stays on the lower step; the use of a knife itself exceeds the right, and a knife blow on a vital part of the body exceeds it even more.
Sheikh Rafiq v. State of Maharashtra (10 November 1978)
Sheikh Rafiq v. State of Maharashtra (1978): Rafiq and others had a land dispute with a man named Mannu, and Rafiq had threatened Mannu's son, Nasir. Afraid to move alone, Nasir took a man named Kadir along to the fields. Rafiq and some companions met them, and a quarrel broke out. Rafiq aimed a pen-knife at Nasir but missed, and then stabbed Kadir in the left side of the chest. Kadir, who was carrying a stick, struck Rafiq several times with it.
Lower courts: The Sessions Judge convicted Rafiq of murder and of attempt to murder, and the High Court upheld both convictions.
Argument: Kadir had attacked first, so this was at worst a case of exceeding private defence. Everything turned on the order of the blows.
Held: The medical evidence showed that the knife had pierced the heart with such violence that Kadir fell at once. Kadir could not have kept swinging the stick after such a wound, so the stick blows must have come first. Therefore Rafiq had a right of private defence. But having regard to the "nature and violence of the blows suffered and apprehended", the appellant "exceeded that right when he stabbed Kadir in the heart". The murder conviction was replaced by one under Section 304 Part I, with five years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of 2,500 rupees, to be paid as compensation to the deceased's dependent father. The sentence for attempt to murder was reduced from seven years to five, both sentences running concurrently.
Principle: The order of blows decides who had the right of private defence; but a defender who had the right still exceeds it when the force used goes beyond what the blows suffered and apprehended justified.
Both cases teach one rule: a genuine right of defence existed, but the defender climbed higher on the ladder than the danger allowed.
Exceeding the right today: Exception 2 to Section 101
Today, such a case falls under Exception 2 to Section 101 of the B.N.S., the Section that defines murder. It reads:
"Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation, and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defence."
Elements of Exception 2:
- exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person or property;
- the offender exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising the right;
- without premeditation; and
- without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of defence.
| Point | Provision applied in the two cases (IPC) | Provision today (B.N.S.) |
|---|---|---|
| Culpable homicide not amounting to murder | Section 304 Part I | Section 105 |
| Attempt to murder | Section 307 (in Rafiq's case) | Section 109 |
A defender who exceeds the right in good faith, without premeditation and without intending more harm than necessary, is punished under Section 105 for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, instead of under Section 103 for murder.
Who else might get hurt: Section 44
Sometimes the only way to survive a deadly attack puts bystanders at risk. Section 44 carries the heading "Right of private defence against deadly assault when there is risk of harm to innocent person." It reads:
"If in the exercise of the right of private defence against an assault which reasonably causes the apprehension of death, the defender be so situated that he cannot effectually exercise that right without risk of harm to an innocent person, his right of private defence extends to the running of that risk."
Illustration to Section 44: "A is attacked by a mob who attempt to murder him. He cannot effectually exercise his right of private defence without firing on the mob, and he cannot fire without risk of harming young children who are mingled with the mob. A commits no offence if by so firing he harms any of the children."
Three limits built into Section 44
- The assault must reasonably threaten death, not merely hurt.
- The defender must have no effective way to defend without that risk.
- The Section covers only the running of a risk, never a deliberate attack on an innocent person.
A bank guard returns fire at armed robbers who are shooting at him. He may be protected if a stray bullet wounds a customer. But nothing in Section 44 would let him aim at that customer.
Private defence in court: Section 108 of the B.S.A.
Section 108 of the B.S.A. places the burden of proving a General Exception on the accused:
"When a person is accused of any offence, the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the General Exceptions in the [B.N.S.] or within any special exception or proviso contained in any other part of the said Sanhita, or in any law defining the offence, is upon him, and the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances."
Standard of proof
- The accused does not carry the heavy load that the prosecution carries. The plea need not be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
- It is enough to show a preponderance of probabilities, which means that the plea is more likely true than not.
- Even if the accused never raises the plea, the court may consider it when it arises from the material on record.
| Point | Prosecution | Accused pleading private defence |
|---|---|---|
| Standard of proof | Beyond reasonable doubt | Preponderance of probabilities (more likely true than not) |
What judges examine in practice
- who began the attack;
- the weapons on each side;
- the injuries on both sides;
- how much time passed between the threat and the response.
The three problems solved
Problem 1 – Zoya. Zoya faced an assault with the intention of abducting her, which is Section 38(e). Her right stood on the higher step, and a deep wound to the forearm was well within what the danger demanded. She committed no offence.
Problem 2 – Farhan. Farhan defended a stranger, which Section 35 expressly allows. The attacker's mental illness made no difference, because Section 36 gives the same right against such a person. A knife rushing at the receptionist reasonably threatened death, so Section 38(a) applied. Unless the force went clearly beyond what that moment required, Farhan is protected.
Problem 3 – Aadil. Aadil is the one who falls outside. The boys were committing theft, with nothing that threatened death or grievous hurt, so his right stood only on the lower step under Section 42. Firing at running teenagers was neither permitted nor necessary. He will face a homicide charge, and he will find it very hard even to claim Exception 2 to Section 101, because that needs good faith and no intention of doing more harm than necessary.
Quick revision
In every problem on private defence, ask the five questions:
- What am I protecting? Body against any offence affecting the human body; property against theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass and their attempts (Section 35).
- Against whom am I acting? The same right exists against a child, a person of unsound mind, an intoxicated person or a person under a misconception (Section 36); it is sharply limited against a public servant acting in good faith under colour of office (Section 37(1)(a) and (b)).
- Is this the right moment? No right if there is time to seek the public authorities (Section 37(1)(c)); the right begins with a reasonable apprehension and lasts as long as the danger (Sections 40 and 43).
- How far may I go? Higher step allows death (Sections 38 and 41); lower step allows any harm except death (Sections 39 and 42); never more harm than necessary (Section 37(2)); exceeding the right in good faith falls under Exception 2 to Section 101.
- Who else could be hurt? Against a deadly assault, the right extends to running a risk of harm to an innocent person (Section 44).
