BNS Section 36: Right of private defence against act of a person of unsound mind, etc (formerly IPC 98)
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 · in force from 1 July 2024
BNS 36: Right of private defence against act of a person of unsound mind, etc
From 1 July 2024
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.
Illustrations.
(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.
(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.
What it replaced in the IPC
BNS 36 ← IPC 98 · Right of private defence against the act of a person of unsound mind, etcChanged
BPR&D's comparison records a change. Read what changed before relying on the old wording.
What changed, per BPR&D: In Illustrations, words “under the influence of madness” are replaced by “a person of unsound mind”.
Printed in both official correspondence tables (BPR&D and NCRB).
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.
Illustrations
(a) Z, under the influence of madness, 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.
(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.
Which one applies
An offence is governed by the law in force when it was committed. An offence committed before 1 July 2024 is charged and punished under the IPC; one committed on or after that date, under the BNS. Section 358 of the BNS, which repeals the IPC, preserves every liability and proceeding already incurred under it.
Read BNS section 358 →Judgments decided under IPC 98
They remain the law on IPC 98. Where the provision changed in the move, read what changed before relying on one for an offence after 1 July 2024.
Sources
- Correspondence Table and Comparison Summary of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 to the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Bureau of Police Research & Development, Ministry of Home Affairs, page 6.
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: bare Act with Corresponding Section Table, National Crime Records Bureau (Sankalan), page 27.
- The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860), as amended, India Code, Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice.
BPR&D is the Bureau of Police Research & Development (Ministry of Home Affairs); NCRB the National Crime Records Bureau. Their correspondence tables are training aids, not law. This page is general information, not legal advice on any case; the bare Acts as published by the Government of India are the authority.