BNS Section 36: Right of Private Defense Against a Person with Mental Illness

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 mental illness 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 mental illness, 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.

Example:
Amit, a person of unsound mind tries to murder Vijay. Vijay blocks the attack and defends himself by hitting Amit. Here, Vijay is justified in defending himself as if amit was of sound mind. 

Key Points on BNS-36 (Private Defence Even When the Act is Not Criminally Responsible)

BNS-36 explains that the right of private defence still applies even if the person committing the act is not criminally responsible due to certain factors like youth, immaturity, mental illness, intoxication, or misconception. In these situations, even if the act is not legally considered a crime, the right to defend oneself remains valid, as if it were an offence.

1. Acts Done Due to Youth or Lack of Maturity

• If a person commits an act that would normally be a crime but is excused due to their youth or lack of understanding, others still have the right to defend themselves as if it were an actual crime.
• Example: A young child accidentally causes harm while playing. Even though the child might not be criminally responsible, others have the right to defend themselves from the harm.

2. Mental Illness or Intoxication

• The same rule applies when the person committing the act is mentally ill or intoxicated. Even though they may not be held criminally responsible because of their condition, others still have the right to defend themselves as if the act were a crime.
• Example: A person who is intoxicated or suffers from mental illness harms another. While they might not be criminally liable, the victim can still defend themselves.

3. Acts Done Under Misconception

• If a person commits an act based on a misconception of fact (a mistaken belief about the situation), they might not be considered criminally responsible. However, the person being harmed still has the right to defend themselves.
• Example: If someone mistakenly believes they are defending themselves and harms another person in the process, the victim still has the right to defend against the mistaken act.

Important Definitions:

• Youth or Immaturity: Refers to individuals who are too young or mentally undeveloped to understand the consequences of their actions.
• Mental Illness: Conditions affecting a person’s cognitive abilities, leading them to act in ways that might typically be considered criminal.
• Intoxication: When a person’s ability to understand or control their actions is impaired due to alcohol or drugs.
• Misconception: A mistaken belief about a situation that leads to an act that would otherwise be illegal.

Conclusion:

BNS-36 ensures that the right of private defence is preserved, even when the person committing the act is not criminally responsible due to factors like age, mental state, intoxication, or misconception. This allows people to defend themselves and others from harm, regardless of whether the perpetrator is legally liable for their actions.

Final Thought:

This section reinforces the idea that the right to protect oneself is fundamental and applies in situations where harm might still occur, even if the person causing the harm is not fully accountable under the law.