What is IPC Section 106?
IPC Section 106 is the final provision of Chapter IV of the Indian Penal Code, "Of the Right of Private Defence." Sections 96 and 100 establish that a person facing an assault reasonably causing apprehension of death may, in defending their body, cause the death of the assailant if necessary. Section 106 extends that principle to a specific and difficult scenario: where the defender is so situated that the right cannot be effectually exercised without running the risk of unintentionally harming an innocent bystander.
This is not a general licence for reckless or indiscriminate force. It applies only where (i) the underlying assault reasonably causes apprehension of death, and (ii) there is genuinely no way to exercise the right of defence without risking harm to someone not involved in the attack. The classic illustration given in the Code itself is of a person attacked by a murderous mob who cannot fire in self-defence without risking harm to children mingled in the crowd — the law recognises that, in such extreme and unavoidable circumstances, the defender is not obliged to forgo defending their own life merely because doing so carries an incidental risk to a bystander.
Important Update: IPC to BNS Transition
With effect from 1 July 2024, the Indian Penal Code has been replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 for offences committed on or after that date. Section 106 IPC now corresponds to Section 44 of the BNS, which is a verbatim reproduction of the same principle. FIRs and cases registered before 1 July 2024 continue to be governed by the IPC; incidents after that date fall under the BNS. If you are unsure which law applies to your case, it is best to get this confirmed by a lawyer.
Legal Provision — Text of Section 106 IPC
This provision must be read together with Section 100 (which sets out when the right of private defence of the body extends to causing death), Section 102 (commencement and continuance of that right), and Section 105 (burden of proof under the Evidence Act). It is a narrow, fact-specific extension of the general right of private defence of the body, and does not apply to defence of property, nor does it excuse harm to a bystander where a safer or less drastic means of defence was genuinely available.
Nature & Classification of Section 106
| Nature of Provision | General Exception — extends the right of private defence of the body (Ss. 96/97/100) to cover unavoidable, incidental risk to an innocent bystander |
|---|---|
| Applies To | Defence of the body only — this provision does not extend to defence of property |
| Triggering Condition | An assault that reasonably causes apprehension of death to the defender (the text of Section 106 is specifically tied to apprehension of death, not lesser harm) |
| Core Requirement | The defender must be so situated that the right cannot be effectually exercised without risk of harm to an innocent person — i.e., no safer, effective alternative existed |
| What It Does Not Excuse | Deliberately targeting an innocent bystander, using more force than necessary against the actual aggressor, or causing harm to a bystander where a less risky method of defence was available |
| Who Must Raise/Prove It | The accused, either by leading evidence or by pointing to material already in the prosecution's own evidence |
| Standard of Proof | Preponderance of probabilities under Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Section 109 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) |
| BNS 2023 Equivalent | Section 44 (verbatim reproduction) |
Like the other provisions in Chapter IV, Section 106 excuses conduct rather than punishing it, so it carries no independent "punishment," "cognizability," or "bailability." In practice, it is raised as a defence where a person is charged with causing hurt or death to a bystander during a genuine act of self-defence against a deadly attack — most commonly in the context of a mob, riot, or crowd situation, where the aggressor and bystanders are physically intermingled.
Key Ingredients / Conditions for Section 106 to Apply
Courts examine the following conditions before upholding a Section 106 plea:
An assault reasonably causing apprehension of death
The underlying attack on the defender must be of a nature that reasonably causes apprehension of death — a lesser threat does not attract this specific provision.
No effectual way to defend without risking the bystander
The defender must genuinely have no practical alternative — for instance, firing into a crowd where the aggressor and innocent persons are physically intermingled, with no way to isolate the threat.
The harm to the innocent person is incidental, not intended
The force must be directed at repelling the actual assailant(s); any harm to the bystander must be an unintended, collateral consequence of a genuinely defensive act — not a deliberate act against the bystander.
Necessity and proportionality still apply
The general restrictions on private defence — no more harm than necessary, and no time to seek help from public authorities — continue to govern the overall exercise of the right, including the force used against the aggressor.
Genuine, immediate danger — not a manufactured or exaggerated situation
Courts scrutinise whether the danger was real, immediate, and severe enough to justify a response carrying risk to a bystander, rather than being used to excuse reckless or indiscriminate conduct after the fact.
What Should You Do — If You Defended Against a Deadly Assault, or If a Bystander Was Harmed
Section 106 situations typically arise out of chaotic, fast-moving events — a riot, an armed mob, or a violent confrontation where the person under attack and innocent bystanders are physically close together. One side claims the harm to the bystander was an unavoidable consequence of lawful self-defence against a deadly threat; the other side — the bystander or their family — disputes that the danger was real, or that there was truly no safer alternative. What you should do depends on which side of that dispute you are on.
If You Defended Yourself and a Bystander Was Harmed
- Report the incident to the police immediately — do not flee, and do not attempt to alter or conceal what happened.
- Preserve evidence of the deadly nature of the assault you faced — the presence, size, and conduct of the mob or attackers, any weapons involved, and the immediacy of the threat.
- Document why no safer alternative existed — for instance, the physical layout of the scene, how closely the bystander was intermingled with the attackers, and the absence of time to seek help.
- Identify independent witnesses who can confirm the deadly nature of the threat and that any harm to the bystander was unintended and unavoidable.
- Do not make detailed statements to the police without a lawyer present; consult a criminal lawyer immediately to plan how the Section 106 defence, read with Sections 96, 100, and 102, will be established.
- Be prepared to show that your response, while carrying risk to the bystander, was not disproportionate to the deadly threat you faced.
If You or a Family Member Was the Injured Bystander
- File a written complaint or FIR promptly, describing exactly what happened, including where the bystander was positioned relative to the alleged attackers.
- Preserve CCTV footage, photographs, and any recordings that show whether a genuine deadly assault was actually taking place at the time.
- Identify independent eyewitnesses, especially where it is disputed whether there was truly no safer way to respond to the threat.
- If the bystander was not, in fact, intermingled with any attacking group, or if the alleged "deadly assault" is disputed altogether, highlight this — Section 106 only applies where the danger and the unavoidability of the risk are both genuinely established.
- Where the force used appears to have been disproportionate, indiscriminate, or continued after the danger had passed, this can defeat the defence and support a case for excessive or unjustified force.
- Engage a criminal lawyer to assist with the complaint and to respond effectively if a Section 106 plea is raised during investigation or trial.
Genuine Necessity vs Recklessness — The Core Distinction
Section 106 is meant for situations of genuine, life-threatening necessity — not as a shield for careless or excessive use of force in circumstances where a bystander happened to be nearby. Courts assess whether the assault the defender faced truly caused a reasonable apprehension of death, whether the response was proportionate to that threat, and whether the risk to the innocent person was genuinely unavoidable rather than the result of carelessness, panic disconnected from a real threat, or a deliberate choice to use a more dangerous method than necessary. Where these conditions are met, the incidental harm to the bystander does not defeat the defence; where they are not, the defender may face liability just as in any other case of excessive or misdirected force.
How a Section 106 Plea Plays Out in a Criminal Case
Registration of the Case
Since harm has come to a bystander, the police register an FIR under the relevant offence (such as hurt, grievous hurt, culpable homicide, or murder), depending on the outcome. The Section 106 plea is raised as an answer to that charge.
Investigation
Investigators reconstruct the sequence of events — the nature of the attack, the positions of the aggressor(s) and the bystander, whether any safer alternative existed, and the immediacy of the threat — through witness statements, forensic evidence, and any available footage.
Raising the Plea
The accused can raise the plea at the earliest stage — during police questioning, in a statement under Section 313 CrPC (now Section 351 BNSS) at trial, or from material already present in the prosecution's own evidence.
Trial and Burden of Proof
Under Section 105 of the Evidence Act (now Section 109 BSA), the burden of proving the plea rests on the accused, discharged by showing a preponderance of probabilities — a lower standard than the prosecution's burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Outcome
If the court accepts that the underlying assault reasonably caused apprehension of death and that no safer means of defence existed, the accused is acquitted for the harm caused to the bystander. If the danger or the unavoidability of the risk is not established, the accused may face liability for the harm caused, assessed on the ordinary principles applicable to that offence.
Important / Related Cases on the Principle in Section 106
Section 106 is rarely the sole basis of reported litigation on its own — its fact pattern (a deadly assault where the defender and bystanders are physically intermingled) is uncommon, and it is almost always argued together with the general body-defence provisions. The following judgments deal with closely related principles that shape how a Section 106 plea would be assessed. This is general legal information for awareness — always have a lawyer verify how a precedent applies to your specific facts.
Amjad Khan v. The State, AIR 1952 SC 165
During a communal riot, a mob approached the appellant's shop, having already looted a neighbouring shop and caused deaths elsewhere. The appellant fired two shots into the crowd, killing one person and injuring three others. The Supreme Court held he had a right of private defence extending to causing death, since he reasonably apprehended death or grievous hurt and had no time to seek help from the authorities.
Yogendra Morarji v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1980 SC 660
The Supreme Court held that a person exercising the right of private defence in good faith is not expected to weigh "in golden scales" the exact amount of force necessary, but also clarified that the right does not extend to disproportionate or excessive responses once the genuine threat has been assessed.
Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab (2010)
The Supreme Court laid down detailed guidelines on the right of private defence, restoring an acquittal where the accused fired in response to an imminent threat of death or grievous hurt, emphasising that the law does not expect a person under mortal threat to modulate their defence with mathematical precision.