Question

Z, under the influence of madness, attempts to kill X. Is Z guilty of an offence. Has X the same right of private defence which he would have if Z were sane?

• A. Z has not committed any offence and X has the same right of private defence as if Z were sane.
• B. As per Section 98 of IPC, X has committed an offence and no right of private defence to X
• C. Z has committed an offence for not using his mind
• D. None above

Hint:

Remember: The right of private defence is available against the *act*, not the *offender*. Under Section 98 IPC, you can defend yourself against an attack from someone who is legally incapable of committing a crime (like a child or an insane person), just as you would against a sane adult.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

This question is directly answered by the principles in the IPC.
Z's Guilt: Under Section 84 of the IPC, an act done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law, is not an offence. So, Z is not guilty.
X's Right of Private Defence: Section 98 of the IPC is crucial here. It states that the right of private defence is available against an act which would otherwise be an offence, even if the person doing the act is not criminally liable due to youth, want of maturity, or unsoundness of mind.
Therefore, even though Z has not committed an offence due to insanity, X has the same right of private defence against Z's attack as he would have if Z were sane. The question's options are slightly misphrased, but (a) captures the correct legal outcome.