Indian Penal Code Section 96 defines private defence. It also clearly states that in a free fight, no right of private defence is available to either party and each individual is responsible for his own acts.
This of course, is a justifiable answer. One who enters in a free fight is entirely aware of his actions, he is entirely known to the fact that he could seriously get hurt, he also knows that there could be so many consequences following his actions including physical damage, mental damage and legal consequences. Despite this, if someone chooses to enter into a free fight, then both the parties are not subject to any legal remedies whatsoever.
Therefore, though it is said that “Nothing is an offence, which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence”, this does not apply to free fights. If this was the case, it may sometimes happen that a person enters into a free fight, and is careless because he relies on the remedy of private defence justifying his actions. To avoid this, the remedy is not provided. Although a certain person doesn’t enter into a free fight wilfully, but nonetheless, he intentionally and knowingly makes the decision for himself of entering into it, which makes it a wrong.
But again, as we see in law many a times, the decision of the Court depends on the background and the fact that “necessity knows no law”. Therefore, the final decision whether it is a private defence or not rests with the Court. A famous example to explain this scenario would be of the case- Kamparsare vs Putappa. In this case, a boy was raising a cloud of dust on the streets. This passer-by chased the boy down the street and gave him a beating. The Court gave held that this was a case of private defence.