Is the 'Exception under Sec 96 IPC - Private Defence of the body' an Overly Broad Provision?

Sec 96 says that nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence of body or of property, unless it is done without the honest belief of necessity. But the problem is, who decides what is 'necessary' in such a situation? The Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan (2018) 13 SCC 174 has held that 'necessity' is a relative term and varies from case to case. But is this not a recipe for abuse? Can we truly say that a person who has used 'reasonable force' to defend his property will not be convicted if a Magistrate disagrees with the 'honest belief of necessity'?

What are your views on this? Can Sec 96 IPC be termed as an overly broad provision?