The matter of the right of defense extends to the defense of one's own body and also the act gives the right of self-defense not against any illicit act that has been committed or attempted, the right arises only when the fact constitutes a crime and the right arises only after the commission of the crime. The object of the right of private defense does not only extend to the human body or person, but also to property. The scope of private defense emerges from article 96, which clearly states that nothing is a crime if committed in the exercise of the right to private defence. This right is not limited to one's own body and can also extend to the protection of the body of others. The scope of protection of the human body is restricted to the crimes listed in Chapter XVI of the Criminal Code. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayThis means that the right of private defense arises only when a crime is committed and can be exercised in defense of that crime. Furthermore, the question that arises concerns the legal position of the attacker (against whom the right of private defense was exercised). Article 98 then continues by guaranteeing that the right of private defense can also be exercised against those attackers whose acts have been excused under the penal code. The question that must then arise concerns the legal situation in which the person against whom the right of private defense is exercised has a valid defense and, consequently, would not be legally considered to have committed a crime at all. Therefore, Article 98 adds meaning to and complements Article 97 and ensures that the exercise of private defense against persons or acts exempted under Article 84 is also valid under the law. But the crimes are not just limited to Chapter XVI of the Code, it also recognizes the local law or interpretation of any special law that defines crime against the human body. In the case of Pancham v. Emperor it was discussed that the application Private defense is justified even in the case where the person is forced to be taken to a different location to exploit his services and manpower. A wife has the right to private defense in case of marital rape[7], since such intercourse is against her body and against consent. Any use of force against the human body must be consensual, as was discussed in Emperor v. Babulal.[8] In this factual scenario, a vaccinator attempted to vaccinate the defendant's child against his will. The accused (father of the child) and some of his relatives intervened and attacked the vaccinator and this act was considered perfectly justified as it was against the will of the person. Even a person who was not directly affected by the attack could exercise the right of private defense. In the case where the plaintiff raised his fist at the defendant and took a step forward, threatening to hit him, it was held that there was fear of threat and that the defendant had the right of self-defense. defense against the body of others extends to:Right to defend the body of others: A person has the right of private defense not only to defend his own body, but also extends to that of others.[11] In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Niranjan Singh[12], it was held that if an incident relating to the death of several persons is integrated and cannot be divided into parts, the accused will be entitled to the same right of private defense in respect of each individual death. The accrual of the right starts from the moment in which there is a fear of a threat or a reasonable fear that serious damage may be caused. It is also pertinent to note that in England to use the right of private defense to protect.