CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I. INTRODUCTION

II. DEFINITIONS

III. HISTORY AND ELEMENTS OF

NECESSITY AS A DEFENCE

IV. SUPREME COURT GUIDELINES FOR

RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE
FOR CITIZENS

V. CONCLUSION

BIBIOGRAPHY

I. INTRODUCTION
There are certain events when the accused can claim that they have not committed that crime
even though they have consciously, intentionally and deliberately violated a provision of
criminal law or statute. They can contend that they have not committed a crime even if they
accept that acted in the specific manner that is not allowed by law and that they possessed the
mens rea for the same.

The most simple example for the same is that the Supreme Court (Rhode Island, USA) ruled
that a dispatch driver (as a member of the US naval reserve force), when carrying out his duty
upon the instruction of senior officers, does not have to be compliant to the speed laws of the
state while he is on his way to deliver an urgent message. In this specific case, the principle
of public necessity was followed and as the court contended that ignorance of the principle in
real cases will highlight the society’s failure to adhere to laws and statutes when a military
does not exist. Thus, the application of the defence of necessity is upheld1. In the above-
mentioned example, the defendant i.e. the driver confessed to have knowingly gone beyond
the speed limit but when the circumstances of the case where looked at, it was deemed that
the act of the driver was justified due to ‘necessity’.

Similarly, it should be noted that act via conduct are justified if there were necessary and
reasonable to avert greater harm which may have been the consequence from that conduct.
Therefore, the necessity and justifiability of such conduct does not depend on other factors
like morality and the what is advised by the penal law of the place which defines and
stipulates the offence, either in the aspect of general applicability or with respect to specific
cases and circumstances.

While Sir Walter Scott thought it not a matter of surprise that few rules existed about
necessity because, ‘necessity creates the law; it supersedes rules; and whatever is reasonable
and just in such circumstances is likewise legal’, Sir James Stephen thought the ‘defence so
vague that judges could lay down any rule they thought expedient’2.

II. DEFINITION

1
Edward B. Arnolds and Norman F. Garland, The Defense of Necessity in Criminal Law: The Right to Choose
the Lesser Evil, 65 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 289 (1975). Available at:
https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/vol65/iss3/2
2
Arnolds, Edward B., and Norman F. Garland. “The Defense of Necessity in Criminal Law: The Right to
Choose the Lesser Evil.” The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), vol. 65, no. 3, 1974, pp. 289–
301. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1142600. Accessed 11 Sept. 2020.
From the beginning, it is imperative to differentiate the defence of necessity from other
similar defences to avoid overlapping. Glanville Williams, Professor of English Law at the
University of Cambridge, defines necessity as “by necessity is meant the assertion that
conduct promotes some value higher than the value of literal compliance with the law3”.
Often Courts also employ the term justification as an explanation and synonym of necessity
but essentially ‘justification’ is a wider and more generic and expansive term as it includes
other things besides necessity like the self-defence, defence of others and the defence of own
property and others property.

Justification is not to provide an excuse, it is an event or situation which exists in reality and
which render an injurious conduct, proper and legitimate. Excuse, on the other hand, would
be the event which excuses the accused from criminal liability even when the accused’s act
was not justified. Mistake and coercion would be examples of excuses. The explanation for
the defence of justification is a person should not be punished for an unlawful act which
prevented more evil than what it caused. Thus, a justifiable wrong can be forgiven for
averting a bigger, more harmful crisis.

It is essential to point out that if a person commits an unlawful act under unlawful threats or
compulsion of some sort or coercion, the general rule applicable is that any type of well-
founded fear of death or serious injury to life is a defence but is not the same as necessity.
The fact that free will did not exist, and that the act was undertaken or performed due a
compulsion with no avenues of deterrence when what is being threatened seems to be far
more than the consequent harm that would be suffered if the crime or act would not be
committed or done.

According to philosopher, Michael Gorr, “Extreme pacifists aside, virtually everyone agrees
that it is sometimes morally permissible to engage in what Glanville Williams has termed
“private  defence”, i.e., to inflict serious (even lethal) harm upon another person in order to
protect oneself or  some innocent third party from suffering the same4”.

The basic principle underlying the doctrine of the right of private defence is that when an
individual or his property is faced with a danger and immediate aid from the State machinery

3
Arnolds, Edward B., and Norman F. Garland. “The Defense of Necessity in Criminal Law: The Right to
Choose the Lesser Evil.” The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), vol. 65, no. 3, 1974, pp. 289–
301. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1142600. Accessed 11 Sept. 2020.
4
Arnolds, Edward B., and Norman F. Garland. “The Defense of Necessity in Criminal Law: The Right to
Choose the Lesser Evil.” The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), vol. 65, no. 3, 1974, pp. 289–
301. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1142600. Accessed 11 Sept. 2020.
is not readily available, that individual is entitled to protect himself and his property. The
right of private defence is available only to one who is suddenly confronted with the
necessity of averting an impending danger not of self-creation. That being so, the necessary
corollary is that the violence which the citizen defending himself or his property is entitled to
use must not be unduly disproportionate to the injury which is sought to be averted or which
is reasonably apprehended and should not exceed its legitimate purpose.

Under the English Law, necessity is what arises when the accused is forced by circumstances
to disobey or break the law. However, the general rule is that ‘necessity’ is not a defence
against a criminal charge. In India, Chapter IV of the Indian Penal Code 1860 provides two
types of defences for criminal acts where there is no criminal intent: excusable and justifiable
defence, that are excusable and justifiable in certain circumstances, respectively, by law.

Necessity, under Section 81: “nothing is an offence merely by reason of its being done
with the knowledge that it is likely to cause harm, if it be done without any criminal
intention to cause harm, and in good faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other
harm to person or property”5.

Absence of intention, however, is the initial factor that need to exist from this defence to be
applicable. Another essential, here, is that the purpose for the violating acts should be to
avoid harm.Further, necessity, can be categorised into public and private necessity. While
public necessity takes into account the prevention of public harm or threat to public harm,
private necessity focusses upon harm or threat upon individuals. The burden to proof for
proving the existence of necessary circumstances lies on the accused or defendant and the
absence of mens rea is assumed.

Section 99 of the Indian Penal Code states the limits upon the exercise of right to private
defence and the extent of the same is absolute necessity. It cannot be exercised at the mere
cause of defending a type aggressive behaviour.

Firstly, reasonable apprehension of danger needs to exist that made the defendant act. So, an
offence must be committed or threatened to be committed or attempted to be committed
against the person who has exercised the right of private defence. The degree of injury

5
Section 81, Indian Penal Code 1860.
actually caused is immaterial but there should, definitely, be a reasonable apprehension of
danger to life or property of oneself or life of property of others.

The application of the golden scales is not essential or expected when the threat or
apprehension of grievous injury is real and immediate. Thus, the person’s first survival
instinct and how he behaves immediately when faced with a dire situation and his spur of the
moment reaction does not require him to weigh in what instrument he should use to defend
himself or what degree of force should be exerted. 6

III. HISTORY AND ELEMENTS OF

NECESSITY AS A DEFENCE
The doctrine of necessity is a valid defence although it is believed the law of necessity is not
developed in Anglo-American jurisprudence. There have been frequent failures on part of the
judges to elaborate upon the doctrine in light of its principles in relevant cases.

6
Available At: https://indialawyers.wordpress.com/2010/01/17/supreme-court-lays-down-guidelines-for-right-
of-private-defence-for-citizens/.
In England, in first instance of the mention of the principle of necessity was in 1551, with the
case of Reninger v. Fagossa7, where it was pointed out that while a man may violate the
provisions of law and yet not actually break the law as those provisions are violated to avoid
greater inconvenience, due to necessity or compulsion. Cases prior to that mostly consisted
of the general principles of necessity where defence was used when an act was committed to
save a life or put out a fire and this was extended to prisoners also who attempted to break out
of prison by setting it on fire. Even in modern England, the doctrine was upheld and used as a
justification for abortion in 1939, the King’s Bench ruled on the necessity of saving the
mother’s life was a defence to abortion.

In the United States of America as well, the early federal cases accept the principle of
necessity as a defence. In United States v. Ashton8, the sailors were charged with mutiny and
their actions were considered to be justified (their refusal to obey the captain's orders) on the
grounds that the ship was not seaworthy. The court held that even if the ship were
unseaworthy, their conduct was not criminal in nature.

In Korematsu v. United States9, the Supreme Court held that all persons of Japanese descent
could be excluded from their homes and communities by military fiat because ‘the power to
protect must be commensurate with the threatened danger’. There was an order that necessity
will excuse high treason, parricide, murder, or any other of the higher crimes.10 A number of
state cases held that any act which is necessary, or reasonably appears to be necessary, a
person may destroy property to prevent the spread of fire 11or disease12.

With the passage of time, three essential elements of the defence of necessity came to be
observed:

(a) the act charged was done to avoid a significant evil;

(b) there was no other adequate means of escape; and

(c) the remedy was not disproportionate to the evil to be avoided. Not just actual peril, but a
well-founded belief in impending peril is sufficient to raise the defence.
7
Reninger v. Fagossa, 6 [1551] 1 Plowd. 1, 75 Eng. Rep. 1.
8
United States v. Ashton, 9 24 F. Cas. 873 (No. 14,470) (C.C.D. Mass. 1834).
9
Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944)
10
Arnolds, Edward B., and Norman F. Garland. “The Defense of Necessity in Criminal Law: The Right to
Choose the Lesser Evil.” The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), vol. 65, no. 3, 1974, pp. 289–
301. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1142600. Accessed 11 Sept. 2020.
11
Surocco v. Geary, 3 Cal. 69 (1853).
12
Seavy v. Preble, 64 Me. 120 (1874)
Instances where the defence would fail or has failed are:

(a) When liquor is used as a heart medicine, does not justify drinking it near a church
because one could stay home or get another medicine.
(b) Economic necessity is no defence to stealing because the State provides another
alternative through welfare.
(c) Bad conditions of premises do not justify escape from prison because there is the
alternative of proceeding through proper channels.
(d) Time of war does not justify trying a civilian before a military tribunal because he
could be tried in accordance with law at a later time.
(e) In a prosecution for the destruction of intoxicating liquors, it is not a defence that such
intoxicants constitute a public nuisance because official agencies exist for dealing
with public nuisances.

Two main consideration in pleas of necessity are:

(a) Factual determination i.e. whether or not the situation or circumstances alleged by the
accused exist in reality and did he/she have any other legally mandated recourse
available at that point in time.
(b) Determination of value: check whether the alternative action opted by the accused
was in actuality the lesser evil of the situation presented before him. 13

The most famous and the most important cases pertaining to the doctrine are:

(i) United States v. Holmes

In the following case, subsequent to a shipwreck of an American ship by the name of William
Brown, the crew members threw fourteen passengers off, in order to decrease the total weight
of a sinking lifeboat. They (members of the crew) were tried for manslaughter and the
defendant’s plea rested on the principle of necessity.

13
Arnolds, Edward B., and Norman F. Garland. “The Defense of Necessity in Criminal Law: The Right to
Choose the Lesser Evil.” The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), vol. 65, no. 3, 1974, pp. 289–
301. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1142600. Accessed 11 Sept. 2020.
Judge Baldwin, firstly, instructed to the jury that providing a, advantageous interpretation to
evidence for reducing the degree of nature of offence is different from justifying the act.
Feelings of empathy may sway the jury’s decision concerning mitigation, yet, only the
doctrine of necessity can appease the excusable nature of justice in the country. In the event
where necessity is a valid defence, the criminal law pass over in silence as the law is created
to meet but the ordinary exigencies of life.

However, Judge Baldwin also restricted the defence when he said that a case does not
become a case of necessity until all avenues of self-preservation have been exhausted. The
danger must be immediate, overpoweringly dangerous and thus leaving no other alternative
recourse that either sacrificing one’s own life or take another person’s life. He noted that a
person is not bound to save the life of another by sacrificing himself, in the event that the
safety of only one is possible.

Therefore, he concluded that when the law of necessity is applicable and properly exercised,
the taking of someone else’s life is divested of illegality. He added that the passengers must
be favoured over the crew members (not essential to running of the lifeboat) and that due
consideration must have been given to choose who would be thrown overboard. The evidence
suggested that the selection basis was arbitrary and thus the jury, after deliberating for
16nhours, declared the defendant guilty and they were sentenced to six months of
imprisonment with solitary confinement, hard labour and fined 20 dollars14.

(ii) Regina v. Dudley and Stephens

In this path breaking case, three men and a cabin boy had escaped from a shipwreck
(Mignonette) in a boat. After twenty days at sea and eighteen without food, the men killed the
cabin boy and ate his flesh. They were rescued by another ship, four days later. They were
tried for murder an convicted, when they arrived in England. They appealed the issue of
necessity.

14
United States v. Holmes, 18 U.S. 412 (1820)
Lord Coleridge, taking cognizance of Holmes case, denied the recognition of the defence of
necessity. The accused served a six-month sentence.

Although, legal commentators have argued that it is better for some to live than for all to die.
However, the issue of cannibalism was involved in the English case and thus raised the
question whether self-preference was proper. Dudley case was an example of the disastrous
consequence of the utilitarian concept of ‘necessity’

The cases of Holmes and Dudley highlight that the defence of necessity requires a choice of
values.15

IV. SUPREME COURT GUIDELINES FOR

RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE
FOR CITIZENS

These guidelines were laid down in the case of Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab16, Criminal
Appeal 1057 of 2002. The provisions concerned are Section 96 and 97 of the Indian Penal
Code that stipulate that a person has the right to protect his own body, body of other persons
as well as his property and property of other persons.

15
(1884) 14 QBD 273 DC.
16
Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab, Criminal Appeal 1057 of 2002.
Section 100 of the IPC holds that the right to private defence of the body includes voluntary
causing death or grievous harm to the assailant. This right can be exercised under the
following circumstances:

(a) Assault that reasonably causes apprehension of death.

(b) Assault that causes reasonable apprehension of grievous hurt.
(c) Assault with the intention of causing rape.
(d) Assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust.
(e) Assault with the intention of kidnapping or abducting.
(f) Assault with the intention of wrongfully confinement and the victim believes that
he/she has no other recourse to reach out to public authorities17.

Hence, this section justifies the killing of an assailant in the event of apprehension of an
atrocious crime as stated above.

In law, however, the act of causing death of the attacker need to justified in court as
simply as an explanation that he/she was faced with assault and there is not formula to
determine whether or not the apprehension was reasonable or not. The use of weapon,
with respect to, manner and nature of assault can be taken into account in reference to the
circumstances while evaluating whether or not the apprehension and fear was valid.

It has been laid down in several cases that when a person is exercising his right of private
defence, it is not possible for him/her to weigh the force with which the right should be
exercised.

Section 99 of the IPC holds that injury inflicted by a person, upon the assailant, in exercise of
his right to private defence when he is threatened, should be equivalent with the injury with
which he was threatened. However, it is difficult to expect a person to weigh ‘the golden
scales’ as to what degree of force should be allowed for him to qualify as a bona fide
defender. The Courts have opined that it is extremely unrealistic to expect a person, while he
is under assault, to evaluate, adjust and balance his defence. 18

a) It was observed in Robert B. Brown v. United States of America (1921)19 that a person
fearing his life cannot be expected to modulate his self defence and plan it step-by-step

17
Section 100, Indian Penal Code, 1860.
18
Available at: https://indialawyers.wordpress.com/2010/01/17/supreme-court-lays-down-guidelines-for-right-
of-private-defence-for-citizens/.
19
Robert B. Brown v. United States of America (1921) 256 US 335.
 or tier-by-tier. J. Holmes famously said, “detached reflection cannot be demanded in
the presence of an uplifted knife”.
b) In Laxman Sahu v. State of Orissa20, the Court observed that it is needless to point out
in this connection that the right of private defence is available only to one who is
suddenly confronted with immediate necessity of averting an impending danger not of
his creation.
c) The Court in Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab21, ruled that an accused who has taken the
plea for self-defence does not need to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. However, if
circumstances warrant that he had a reasonable apprehension that death or grievous
hurt was likely to be caused to him by the deceased or their companions, then if he had
acted in the right of self-defence, he would be doing so lawfully.
d) In Puran Singh & Others v. The State of Punjab22, this court observed that in the
following circumstances right of private defence can be exercised: -
i. There is no sufficient time for recourse to the public authorities
ii. There must be a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt to the person or
danger to the property concerned.
iii. More harm than necessary should not have been   caused.
e) The Court in Kashmiri Lal & Others v. State of Punjab23, this court held that “a person
who is unlawfully attacked has every right to counteract and attack upon his assailant
and cause such injury as may be necessary to ward off the apprehended danger or
threat”.
f) The Supreme Court has laid down in Ram Pat & Ors v. State Of Haryana24 and Butta
Singh v. The State of Punjab 25, that a person who is apprehending death or bodily
injury cannot weigh in golden scales on the spur of the moment and in the heat of
circumstances, the number of injuries required to disarm the assailants who were
armed with weapons. In moments of excitement and disturbed equilibrium it is often
difficult to expect the parties to preserve composure and use exactly only so much
force in retaliation commensurate with the danger apprehended to him where assault is

20
Laxman Sahu v. State of Orissa 1986 (1) Supp SCC 555.
21
Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1993 SC 970 .
22
Puran Singh & Others v. The State of Punjab (1975) 4 SCC 518 
23
Kashmiri Lal & Others v. State of Punjab (1996) 10 SCC 471.
24
Ram Pat & Ors vs State of Haryana, Cri. Appeal no. 581 OF 2007.
25
Butta Singh v. The State of Punjab , AIR 1991 SC 1316.
 imminent by use of force. All circumstances are required to be viewed with
pragmatism and any hyper technical approach should be avoided.
g) In Satya Narain Yadav v. Gajanand & Anr., 26the Court held that ‘the means and the
force a threatened person adopts at the spur of the moment to ward off the danger and
to save himself or his property cannot be weighed in golden scales. It is neither
possible nor prudent to lay down abstract parameters which can be applied to
determine as to whether the means and force adopted by the threatened person was
proper or not. Answer to such a question depends upon host of factors like the
prevailing circumstances at the spot, his feelings at the relevant time; the confusion
and the excitement depending on the nature of assault on him etc. Nonetheless, the
exercise of the right of private defence can never be vindictive or malicious. It would
be repugnant to the very concept of private defence’.
h) The SC held in Puran Singh & Ors vs State of Punjab27, that it was not possible for the
appellants to weigh their blows in golden scales in order to assault the prosecution
party. As held by us this was a case where the appellants were fully entitled to the
exercise of the right of self-defence of their property and the means which a threatened
person adopts of the force which he uses should not be weighed in golden scales.

Commentators have often argued on the factor or necessity of private defence altogether.
In Raghavan Achari v. State of Kerala28, the court observed that “No court expects the
citizens not to defend themselves especially when they have already suffered grievous
injuries”.

Thus, the principles can be deduced from the cases:

(a) Self-preservation is a basic human instinct and is recognised by the criminal

jurisprudence of most countries which allow the right of private defence in reasonable
limits.

26
Satya Narain Yadav v. Gajanand & Anr. [2008 (10) SCALE 728],
27
Puran Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab,1975 AIR 1674.
28
Raghavan Achari v. State of Kerala 1993 Supp. (1)SCC 719 .
 (b) The right is only available to those who are confronted with the necessity of
immediate threat and the compulsion to avert that imminent threat but not of self-
creation.
(c) Mere reasonable apprehension of danger is adequate, it is not necessary that the
assailant should actually commit an offence to the right to arise. The defendant should
reasonably believe that an offence has been contemplated and is likely to be
committed.
(d) The right of private defence begins as soon as a reasonable apprehension or fear starts
and continues till the duration of the same.
(e) It is highly unrealistic to expect a person under assault to modulate his defence step
by step with any arithmetical exactitude. Although, the force used by the accused
ought not to be wholly disproportionate or much greater than necessary for protection
of the person or property29.

V. CONCLUSION
During the prosecution of these cases, though, the question of values of the community and
the jury’s discretion often arise (in countries where the jury system is still prevalent). In
several cases in the US, many cases are not even prosecuted (possession of marijuana was a
felony or an unenforced law on contraceptives) and dismissed an action for declaratory
judgment to avoid controversy. The government seeks to avoid cases which may bring into
conflict the values of the community and the technicality of law. In the case of private
defence, they want to prevent cases of breaking and entering against a person who tried to
save a baby from a burning building. The prosecutorial discretion is, however, a poor system
of check as governments are very arbitrary and politically driven and hence, in those cases
the technicality of law may be used to harass a political rival for whose conduct the
29
Available at: https://indialawyers.wordpress.com/2010/01/17/supreme-court-lays-down-guidelines-for-right-
of-private-defence-for-citizens/.
community does not essentially see as criminal. In places where jury trials are still prevalent,
human frailty often plays a role that the jury will not convict if they empathize with the
accused or if they view themselves of being capable of committing the same or similar act.

A US Court held that an essential element of the defence of necessity is that there should be
reasonable anticipation of a direct relationship between the otherwise criminal act and the
avoidance of harm and that the act of the accused should have had a significant effect on the
said evils that he wanted to prevent for example, instances of damage to public property
during protests is not justified under necessity.

The Draft of a new federal law of the US Criminal Code had contained a Section 608, tilted
‘Conduct which Avoids Greater Harm’ by the Commission on Reform of Federal Criminal
Laws which embodied the doctrine of necessity. The Commission sought to codify the
defence because it made no sense to punish persons who have acted to avoid great harm, even
if they have 'broken a law' to do so’. It included the general cases like speeding in order to
reach a hospital in an emergency or destroying a house to stop a forest fire as well as extreme
cases, such as killing some persons to save a greater number.

The Final Proposed Code deleted this section and instead added Section 601 which stated,
“Except as otherwise provided, justification or excuse under this chapter is a defence’ as they
didn’t want to cancel out the current rules. Section 601 did not contain the emergency
measures to avoid greater injury30.

While some commentators feel the criminal codes should recognise that avoidance of harm is
a privilege of the citizen, opposers believe that case by case discretion is more important.

The first instinct is to survive, no matter what the situation maybe. This instinct to protect
oneself and others is not morally wrong and hence the person’s act is justified to an extent if
the act was done solely to save himself/herself or other loved ones from a reasonably greater

30
Arnolds, Edward B., and Norman F. Garland. “The Defense of Necessity in Criminal Law: The Right to
Choose the Lesser Evil.” The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), vol. 65, no. 3, 1974, pp. 289–
301. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1142600. Accessed 13 Sept. 2020.
harm. Also, when a person’s life is at stake, a lot of the other alternatives and recourses are
not the first instinct of humans.31

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Cotton, Michele. “The Necessity Defense and the Moral Limits of Law.” New
Criminal Law Review: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal, vol. 18, no. 1,
2015, pp. 35–70. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/nclr.2015.18.1.35. Accessed
12 Sept. 2020.

2. Arnolds, Edward B., and Norman F. Garland. “The Defense of Necessity in Criminal
Law: The Right to Choose the Lesser Evil.” The Journal of Criminal Law and
Criminology (1973-), vol. 65, no. 3, 1974, pp. 289–301. JSTOR,
www.jstor.org/stable/1142600. Accessed 13 Sept. 2020.
3. Criminal Law-Extended Right of Private Defence under Section 100 of the Indian
Penal Code, Journal of the Indian Law Institute, vol. 2, no. 1, 1959, pp. 134-
xxii. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/43952787. Accessed 22 Aug. 2020.
31
Cotton, Michele. “The Necessity Defense and the Moral Limits of Law.” New Criminal Law Review: An
International and Interdisciplinary Journal, vol. 18, no. 1, 2015, pp. 35–70. JSTOR,
www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/nclr.2015.18.1.35. Accessed 12 Sept. 2020.
4.  Giulio Q. Battaglini, Function of Private Defense in the Repression of Crime, 2
J.Am. Inst. Crim. L. & Criminology 370 (May 1911 to March 1912). Available
at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1102&co ntext=jclc.
5. KD Gaur, Textbook on the Indian Penal Code, Universal Law Publishing – An
Imprint of Lexis Nexis (1 October 2016).
6. A. J. Ashworth, Self-Defence and the Right to Life, The Cambridge Law Journal,
vol34, no. 2, 1975, pp. 28-307. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/4505858. Accessed 22
Aug. 2020.
7. Pandey, P.K., Right to Private Defence in India (2017). Vol. 16, 2017 Law Exam
Times (ISSN 2319-9121) 23-31., Available at:
SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3502727 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3502727