Section 98 - Right of private defense against the act of a person of unsound mind, etc. | Indian Penal Code, 1860 vs The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 | LawFinder

Indian Penal Code, 1860

98. Right of private defense against the act of a person of unsound mind, etc.

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 defense 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 defense 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 defense against Z, which he would have if Z were not acting under that misconception.

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

36. Right of private defence against act of a person of unsound mind, etc.

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.