Discuss the nature and scope of right of Private defence of property along with limitations if any, on the exercise of such right.

Nature of Right of Private Defence of Property

The right of private defence of property, as defined in Section 97 of the IPC, arises when a person is reasonably apprehensive that their property is under imminent threat of unlawful interference. This interference can take the form of theft, robbery, criminal trespass, or any other act that causes or is likely to cause damage to the property. The core principle is that the force used in private defence must be reasonable and proportionate to the threat perceived.

Scope of Right of Private Defence of Property

• Commencement of Right: The right commences when a reasonable apprehension of unlawful interference exists, even before the actual interference begins.
• Extent of Force: Section 99 of the IPC details the extent of force permissible. Generally, only as much force as is necessary to repel the unlawful interference is allowed. The use of force resulting in death is generally prohibited, except in specific circumstances (discussed below).
• Types of Property: The right extends to all kinds of property – movable, immovable, and even intangible property rights.
• Who can Exercise: The owner of the property, or a person lawfully in possession of it, or someone authorized by the owner, can exercise this right.

Limitations on the Exercise of Right of Private Defence of Property

1. Imminent Threat

The threat must be imminent. A past threat or a future, uncertain threat does not justify the exercise of this right. The danger must be immediate and present.

2. Reasonable Apprehension

The apprehension of danger must be reasonable. A mere suspicion is not enough. The individual must have a genuine and justifiable belief that their property is at risk.

3. Proportionality of Force

The force used must be proportionate to the threat. Excessive force is not permissible. For example, using deadly force to protect a minor theft would be considered disproportionate.

4. Duty to Retreat (Where Possible)

Unlike the right to private defence of the person, there is no general duty to retreat when exercising the right to private defence of property. However, if retreat is possible without endangering oneself or others, it is advisable to do so.

5. Restrictions on Causing Death

Section 99(2) of the IPC severely restricts the use of force causing death. Death is only justifiable if the offender:

• Is committing an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
• Is committing an offence involving causing grievous hurt.
• Is committing an offence against property, and the person defending reasonably believes that death will result from such offence.

6. No Right to Recover Property

The right of private defence does not extend to recovering property already stolen. Once the property is taken, the right to private defence ceases, and the individual must rely on the criminal justice system to recover it.

Illustrative Examples

Consider a scenario where a thief is attempting to steal a television from a house. The homeowner can use reasonable force to prevent the theft, such as restraining the thief or raising an alarm. However, they cannot shoot the thief unless the thief attempts to cause grievous hurt or is committing an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment.

Aspect	Private Defence of Person	Private Defence of Property
Scope	Broader, allows for more force	Narrower, more restrictions on force
Duty to Retreat	Generally, no duty to retreat	No general duty, but advisable if possible
Use of Deadly Force	Permissible in wider circumstances	Highly restricted, specific conditions apply