Question

X, under the influence of madness, attempts to kill Y.

• A. X has committed the offence of murder
• B. Y has no right of private defense as X is insane
• C. Y has right of private defense which he would have if X were sane
• D. All statements are correct.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

The Correct Option is (C): Y has right of private defense which he would have if X were sane.

Answer 2

This question applies Section 98 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with the right of private defence against an act that would otherwise be an offence but is not one only because the person doing it lacks the maturity, understanding, sound mind, or intoxication-free state needed for criminal responsibility.

1. X has committed the offence of murder: Because X is acting under the influence of madness, X lacks the mental element required for murder under Section 300 IPC, and would instead fall under the unsoundness of mind exception in Section 84 IPC, so this option mischaracterises X's own liability.
2. Y has no right of private defense as X is insane: This is precisely what Section 98 IPC rules out. The section makes clear that the victim's right of private defence does not disappear merely because the attacker is, by reason of unsoundness of mind, immature age, or a similar condition, not legally capable of committing an offence.
3. Y has right of private defense which he would have if X were sane: This is the exact rule in Section 98 IPC: every person has the same right of private defence against an act which would be an offence if done by a person of sound mind, even though the actual doer is incapable, by reason of unsoundness of mind, of being guilty of an offence.
4. All statements are correct: This cannot be right because it includes option (b), which directly contradicts Section 98 IPC's protection of Y's right of private defence.

Section 98 IPC exists precisely so that a victim is not left defenceless simply because his attacker cannot be criminally punished due to insanity, so Y retains the same right of private defence he would have had against a sane attacker.

So the correct answer is Y has right of private defense which he would have if X were sane.