Question

PRINCIPLE: 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.
FACTS: 'X', under the influence of madness, attempts to kill 'Y'.

• A. 'Y 'has the right private defence against 'X'
• B. 'Y' does not have the right of private defence against 'X'
• C. 'Y' has the right of private defence against 'X', only of 'X is not under the infuence of madness
• D. 'X' as the right of private defence against 'Y'

Answer 1

The correct option is A 'Y 'has the right private defence against 'X'

Y has the right of private defense against X. Even though the act of attempt of X to kill Y is not an offence as done under the influence of madness i.e. unsoundness of mind.

But according to the principle in question Y has the same right of private defence available to itself as if the act of X were an offence.

Therefore, even if the act of X was not an offence, it has no effect on the right of Y to defend himself.

Therefore, option A is the correct answer.

Section 76-106 of Indian Penal Code talks about General exceptions to an offence,