RIGHT OF SELF DEFENSE IN PRESENT LEGAL SYSTEM OF PAKISTAN  The right of private defense is an inalienable right that is provided by law to every. Law permits person to fight and stand on the ground. The right of self-defense must foster in the citizens of every free country. When a person is attacked he should not run from the ground. His action will be justified in the eye kkkof law if he holds the ground and counter-attack the assailants. While using the right of private defense, the injury which is inflicted must not out of proportion to the injury which was inflicted. The Right of self defense would arise where danger to person or property is imminent and would remain available as long as such danger exist. Right of self-defense can be used as a shield to ward off an unwarranted attack to person or property but it cannot be used as an opportuity for provoking the attack, meaning thereby that it is to be exercised as preventive measure and not for launching attack.When specific plea of self-defense is raised, the onus to prove the same lay upon the party claiming the plea of self defense. The Pakistan Penal Code 1860 contains the whole law on self-defense in sections 96 to 106. According to PPC “nothing is an offense which is done in the exercise of defense”. it is further provided that “If a person while defending his person or property commits a murder or grievous hurt, the law shall not hold him liable or guilty unless it is proved that the person while defending himself used excessive power. It means that while defending one own self or property, force can be used or applied by a prudent mind. The defence of property arises in cases of theft, extortion, dacoity, house breaking etc” . This code does not define the right but it explains the extent, limitation, and conditions under which this right can be used. The whole law can be summarized in the following way;1. This right is available for the defense of a person and for his property.2. This right can be exercised not only to protect one’s own person or property but also to protect any other person’s body or property.3. Acts of persons of unsound mind also come under this right. This meanif there is an apprehension that the act of unsound mind can cause gresvious hurt then the person can exercisse this right against him.4. Acts done by public servants in the exercise of their duty are not subject to this right.5. There is no right of private defense when there is a time to recourse to the public authorities.6. The person does not have the right to extend more harm than necessary. 7. When there is an apprehension of death, rape or unnatural offense, the person in danger can cause the death of that person showing threat.8. In private defense, any harm other than death can be caused.10. The right to defend the body starts when the threat arises and continues until the danger nullifies.11. During the robbery, housebreaking by night, mischief by fire death, anyone can cause death under this right.These sections, in fact, justify a crime committed in self-defense. But this right is circumscribed by limitations and exceptions contained in the code. While calculating the quantum of private defense there are some circumstances that should be considered for reaching a correct conclusion;a. Helpless physical state of the accusedb. Position of the victim and accusedc. The mental and physical capacity of the victim and accusedd. Actual physical contact and action demonstrated during the occurrencee. Apprehension of dangerf. Whether adoption of lesser means of defense was possibleg. Background of both the partiesh. Offense or defense offered by each partyEven if all these circumstances are taken into account still facts of each case differ. There can be various shades of the Right of private defense. Self-defense or private defense is a countermeasure that involves defending oneself, one's Property, or the well-being of another from Harm. The use of the Right of self-defense as a legal justification for the use of Force in times of danger is available in many Jurisdictions, but the interpretation varies widely. Such right was granted by almost all nations of the worlds in same way as embodied in PPC, to protect and promoted equality and justice in the society, with consideration to strengthen the wellbeing of the people to apply rational mind in difficult situation to protect their life and property form assault of the transgressor subject to some restriction that the law imposes. Pakistan has a common law system. According to this type of administration of justice, accused is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty. In such circumstances, it is burden upon prosecution to prove its case against the accused. But in certain situations, the burden of proving guilt of the accused shift towards accused and the law makes the accused responsible to prove his innocence. This type of situation arises when accused after commission of offence taken a ground as a defense for the unlawful act done. It is called plea of defense. There are various grounds available to the accused in Pakistani Statutory law i.e Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The Pakistani Apex Courts while recognizing the plea of Self Defense provided certain guide lines for the trial courts so as to avoid any mistake of judgments since it is the core principle of administration of justice that accused should not be convicted if there is a minute doubt on part of the prosecution. There are various well celebrated judgments of the superior courts so as to reach on a final conclusion that how accused can take benefit of the plea of self-defense and in what circumstances the option of self-defense cannot be look into consideration. In the case of Amjad Khan v. The State, a communal riot broke out it in Katni between some Sindhi refugee residents and the local Muslims. The shops of the accused and- his brother was very Near to each other. Their residences were also close by. The mob approached the accused’s locality and looted the shop of the accused’s brother. On hearing the alarming news through is mother and finding the crowd beating the doors of the accused’s shop with them at this, the accused fired at thus crowd through whole in the wall of his dwelling house near the shop which resulted in the death of one Sindhi and injury -to -three other Sind his as well. On these facts the Supreme Court held that the accused had reasonable grounds for apprehending that either death or -grievous hurt would be caused to himself or his family. The circumstances in which he was placed were quite sufficient to give him a right of private defence of the body even to the extent of causing death. Right of private defence was allowed as a right for self-protection to every citizen however it is misused by many people by treating it as a pretext of committing any crime or offence. It is a right granted for defence and not for retaliation and may not be used as a measure of taking revenge. The right of private defence cannot be utilized in circumstances where the actions of the other party are lawful, no matter how much of a nuisance they may be. Since the cases of self-defence is not a civil trial and the decision here is capable of affecting the life and liberty of person, the court takes a very strict view. It is also pertinent to note that since the penal code is the only statute which would justify an act of aggression and even killing of another individual by a person, courts have sought to regulate its use in an effort to prevent the misuse of this right by unscrupulous individuals who provoke an individual into an act of aggression and then use that as an excuse for murder. For instance, if the accused were aggressors, then it would be nondefense to say that they used their gun only after their co-aggressors had been injured by those resisting the aggression. It is a right for the purposes of defence and not retribution and may not be used as a retaliatory measure. The Penal Code, 1860 has built-in safeguards to avoid providing a license to murder, the Code has failed to account for the situation whereby an attack may be provoked as pretense for killing. The Apex Court expressly stated that the right of private defence “is available in the face of imminent peril to those who act in good faith and in no case can be conceded to a person who stage manages a situation wherein the right can be used as a shield to justify an act of aggression, it was further asserted that “while providing for the right of private defence, the Penal Code has surely not devised a mechanism whereby an attack may be provoked as a pretense for killing.” The court also noted that the right of private defence is available only against an offence under the Penal Code, 1860. It can be stated that although the right of private defence stands as an effective tool to combat any uncontrollable situation thereby safeguarding one’s life. However, it is often evident from various cases and evidences that in numerous times, the right is used as an excuse for the performance of crime targeting person or property. Following are some examples where the in the case of Muhammad Yousaf Vs State, accused tried to use the right of self-defence to justify his wrongful acts and the Court rejected the plea of accused: Also in case of Mashal Khan Vs the State, policeman trying to arrest accused illegally, accused shot dead the policeman chasing him. The court held, accused entitled to use force to avoid illegal arrest but shooting the policeman dead amounts to exceeding the right under section 304 (1) and sentenced to 5 years. To sum up the above discussion ,it is crystal clear that the right embodied in private defence is a sine qua nonwith rationality , reasonability and utilizations of ordinary level of prudence to curtail the aggressive acts of others that a person realize to inflicted upon him. The courts at the time of decision may take into consideration the circumstances of the case, the eminent danger to life or property apprehended by the person who takes the plea of right of self-defense and the gravity of the force used by the accused. Therefore, the burden to prove exercise of this right is upon the accused to prove his innocence. Prosecution will not be barred to prove case against the accused. The investigation of such cases shall be obtained with due care and diligence so as to maintain the administration of justice. In most of the circumstances, this right is exercised by the local police. The law provides that when an accused is charge with an offence carries capital punishment i.e death punishment or life imprisonment and the accused resist his lawful arrest or there is apprehension that he will escape from the lawful custody, the local police can use force for his arrest and they can use it as a valid ground for their exemption if the accused met death during the course of his arrest. However, in most of the time it is termed as extra judicial killings.