When the right of private defence ends and retaliation begins

Every law student learns that the Indian Penal Code gives every person the right of private defence. But the harder and more exam-relevant question is: where does that right stop? Pramod Mahto vs State of Bihar (1989) answers that question with striking clarity. The Supreme Court held that the right of private defence extends only to protect the body from an ongoing threat. It does not extend to retaliate, settle scores, or inflict harm beyond what is immediately necessary. Proportionality in the use of force is not optional. It is the very core of the right.

Facts of the case

The incident at the heart of this case arose out of a confrontation between two groups in Bihar. The accused, Pramod Mahto, along with others, was involved in a physical altercation with the deceased and members of his group. During the course of the fight, the accused caused injuries that proved fatal. The accused was charged under the Indian Penal Code for the causing of death.

At trial and before the High Court, the accused claimed the right of private defence of the body. The argument was that they were acting to protect themselves from an attack by the other group and that the force used was a necessary response to the threat they faced. The conviction was upheld by the lower courts, and the matter came before the Supreme Court on the question of whether the accused had genuinely exercised the right of private defence or whether they had gone beyond it and crossed into the territory of retaliation.

This factual matrix made the case a perfect vehicle for the Supreme Court to revisit and restate the true scope and limits of the right of private defence under Sections 96 to 106 of the IPC, particularly the critical requirement of proportionality in the use of force.

Issue before the court

1. Whether the accused could successfully claim the right of private defence of the body to justify the force they had used, and

2.Whether that force was proportionate to the threat they actually faced at the time of the incident.

3.What point the right of private defence ends. Does it end when the threat ends? Does it permit some degree of pursuit or follow-up force? And critically, does it allow a person to inflict harm in the nature of retaliation or revenge, even if the original provocation was genuine?

 4. Whether the accused had exceeded the right of private defence within the meaning of Section 37 BNS 2023, which expressly sets out the acts against which there is no right of private defence.

Arguments before the court

Accused :

The defence argued that the accused were the victims of an unprovoked attack by the other group. They had every right to protect their bodies from the assault they were facing. The force used was, according to the defence, a direct and necessary response to the threat posed. The accused did not act with any premeditated intent to cause death. They simply exercised the private defence right that the law expressly confers on every individual to protect their own body. The death that resulted was an unfortunate but legally protected consequence of exercising that right under Section 100 IPC.
 

Read Also: M/s Ascent Ventures & Ors vs State of Maharashtra 2026
 

State of Bihar

The prosecution's case was that whatever threat the accused may have originally faced, the force they used went far beyond what was necessary to repel it. The injuries inflicted on the deceased showed that the accused had moved from defence into aggression. The right of private defence is not a licence to attack. It is a shield, not a sword. Once the immediate danger to the body was neutralised or had passed, continuing to inflict force amounted to retaliation, not defence. The accused had clearly exceeded the right of private defence and were rightly convicted by the lower courts.

Analysis of the court

The Supreme Court began by restating the foundational principle behind the right of private defence. The law recognises that every individual has the instinct and the right to protect their own body when faced with an imminent threat. The IPC, through Sections 96 to 106, gives legal recognition to this right. However, the court was firm that this recognition comes with strict conditions, the most important of which is proportionality in the use of force.

The court turned to Section 99 IPC, which is often underread by students but is absolutely central to understanding the limits of private defence. Section 99 makes it clear that the right of private defence does not extend to inflicting more harm than is necessary for the purpose of defence. This is the statutory expression of the proportionality requirement. A person defending themselves cannot use unlimited force. The force used must match the nature and degree of the threat faced.

The court drew a sharp and important distinction between the right to protect the body and the impulse to retaliate. These are fundamentally different things. The right of private defence is activated by an ongoing or imminent threat to the body. The moment that threat is over, or the moment the force used goes beyond what is needed to repel it, the legal right ends. What continues after that point is not defence. It is assault, and the law treats it accordingly.

Applying this framework to the facts, the court found that the accused had gone beyond protecting their bodies. The nature of the injuries, the manner in which they were inflicted, and the circumstances of the confrontation indicated that the accused had crossed the line from defence into retaliation. They were no longer warding off an attack. They were responding to it with disproportionate force, which is precisely what the law does not permit.

The court also addressed the timing element of private defence. The right exists only as long as the threat exists. It does not permit a person to pursue the aggressor once the immediate danger has passed and inflict further harm in the name of self-protection. Any force used after the threat has ceased is simply aggression, regardless of who struck the first blow.

Concluding remark

Pramod Mahto vs State of Bihar (1989) teaches one of the most practically important lessons in criminal law. The right of private defence is a genuine and valuable legal protection. But it is bounded by reason, necessity, and above all, proportionality in use of force. The moment a person uses that right as a cover for retaliation, the protection disappears.

For law students, this case is a reminder to always ask two questions when analysing a private defence problem: first, was there an actual and imminent threat to the body at the time force was used? Second, was the force used proportionate to that threat? If either answer is no, the right of private defence is not available. That two-question test will serve you well in exams and in practice.

Frequently asked questions

1. What does the right of private defence of the body ?

Under Sections 96 and 97 of the IPC, every person has the right to defend their own body or the body of another person against any offence affecting the human body. This right to protect the body is available against any act that reasonably causes apprehension of death or grievous hurt, or other offences like assault. However, it comes with strict conditions, the most important being proportionality in the use of force.

2. What is the key principle established in Pramod Mahto vs State of Bihar (1989)?

The Supreme Court established that the private defence right extends only to protect the body from an imminent threat. It does not permit retaliation or the infliction of force beyond what is necessary to repel the attack. Proportionality in use of force is a mandatory legal requirement, not a matter of judgment for the accused.

 

3. What is Section 37 BNS and why is it important for private defence?

Section 99 IPC sets out the acts against which there is no right of private defence. Crucially, it also states that the right does not extend to inflicting more harm than is necessary. This section is the statutory foundation of the proportionality requirement and is the most important limiting provision in the entire private defence framework under the IPC.

4. How is private defence different from retaliation?

Private defence is a response to an ongoing or imminent threat to the body. It is defensive in nature and ends when the threat ends. Retaliation is a response to a past attack, aimed at harming the aggressor after the immediate danger has passed. The law protects the former and punishes the latter. This distinction is central to the ruling in Pramod Mahto.

5. What does proportionality in use of force mean in the context of private defence?

Proportionality means that the force used to defend the body must not exceed what is reasonably necessary to repel the threat. If someone pushes you, you cannot shoot them and claim private defence. The response must match the nature and degree of the threat. Disproportionate force takes the act outside the protection of private defence and makes the person liable under criminal law.

Strong case law understanding is essential for effective judiciary preparation online coaching. With structured guidance, expert mentorship, and regular practice, aspirants can build clarity on legal concepts and improve answer-writing skills. The right judiciary preparation online coaching helps you stay consistent, exam-focused, and confident throughout your preparation journey.