Law and You > Criminal Laws > Indian Penal Code > Defense of Accident: Section 80 of IPC
To constitute a crime, the act must consist mens rea and actus rea, where mens rea is a guilty mind and actus rea is the guilty act. Chapter IV of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is based on the absence of a mens rea. Excusable defesces are those defenses that the accused can take, even though the wrongful act took place, but there existed no criminal intent. In this article, we shall study the excusable defense of ‘Accident” under Section 80 of IPC.
The word accident is derived from the Latin verb accidere, signifying “fall upon, befall, happen, chance.” On this basis of this meaning ‘accident’ may be defined as some sudden and unexpected event taking place without expectation, upon the instant, rather than something that continues, progresses or develops; something happening by chance; something unforeseen, unexpected, unusual, extraordinary, or phenomenal, taking place not according to the usual course of things or events, out of the range of ordinary calculations; that which exists or occurs abnormally, or an uncommon occurrence.
The word ‘accident can be used for denoting a calamity, casualty, catastrophe, disaster, an undesirable or unfortunate happening; any unexpected personal injury resulting from any unlooked-for mishap or occurrence; any unpleasant or unfortunate occurrence that causes injury, loss, suffering, or death; some untoward occurrence aside from the usual course of events.
Section 80 of IPC exempts a person from criminal liability if, the act must have been done without any criminal intention or knowledge; the act alleged to have been done against the accused must be lawful; the act must have been done in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution.
Section 80 of IPC:
Accident in doing a lawful act:
Nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune, and without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution.
Illustration:
A is at work with a hatchet; the head flies off and kills a man who is standing by. Here if there was no want of proper caution on the part of a, his act is excusable and not an offence.
Essentials of Section 80 of IPC:
The act done by the accused,
- must have been done without any criminal intention or knowledge;
- must be lawful;
- Must have been done in lawful manner;
- Must have been done in lawful means;
- There is no want of proper caution on part of accused
Other Examples:
- In a game of cricket batsman hits a ball, which strikes a man on the head and he dies. Such death is an accident and batsman has not committed an offence.
- A shoots at an owl sitting on a bush with an intention to kill it but kills B who was behind the bush. A commits no offence.
- A takes up a gun, and without examining whether it is loaded or not points it in sport at B, and pulls trigger. B dies. It is not accident because proper caution is not taken by A. A is guilty of culpable homicide.
- A shoots at a bird in B’s house in order to steal it, and kills B. A is liable, as his act was not lawful as stealing a bird is not a lawful act.
The section specifically mentions that a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means. If an act is lawful but done it through unlawful manner the section doesn’t have any application. Further the section emphasis act must be done with proper care and caution. What is expected is not utmost care, but sufficient care that a prudent and reasonable man would consider adequate, in the circumstances of cases
Examples:
- A firecracker worker working with Gun powder knows that it can cause explosion and must take precaution against it. If it causes an explosion and kills a third person, he cannot claim defence of this section because the outcome was expected even though not intended.
- If a car explodes killing a person, it is an accident because a person on average prudence does not expect a car to explode and so he cannot be expected to take precautions against it.
- A prepares a dish for B and puts poison in it so as to kill B. However, C comes and eats the dish and dies. The death of C was indeed an accident because it was not expected by A, but the act that caused the accident was done with a criminal intention. Thus, A cannot claim protection under Section 80.
- Requesting rent payment from a renter is a lawful act but threatening him with a gun to pay rent is not lawful manner and if there is an accident due to the gun and if the renter gets hurt or killed, defence under this section cannot be claimed.
- A owner of a borewell must fence the hole to prevent children falling into it because any person with average prudence can anticipate that a child could fall into an open borewell. An accident caused due to negligence is not excusable.
Thus to bring an act within the meaning of the term accident used in section 80, an essential requirement is that the happening of the incident cannot be attributed to human fault. It is something that happens out of an ordinary course of things.
In order for an accused to avail the benefit under S. 80, proof of no criminal intention or knowledge is of high significance and necessary. The court shall view the case in the absence of certain circumstances, making it a part of S. 105 of the Evidence Act.
In K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1962 SC 605 case, it had been held that the burden of proof for availing a defence lies upon the accused. The accused needs to satisfy the court that there existed no mens rea.
In Tunda v. Rex, AIR 1950 All 95 case, appellant Tunda and deceased Munshi were friends and fond of wrestling, participated in a wrestling match and Munshi suffered an injury which resulted in his death. Tunda was charged under Section 304 A IPC. The High Court held that when both agreed to wrestle with each other, there was an implied consent on the part of each to suffer accidental injuries. In the absence of any proof of foul play, it was held that the act was accidental and unintentional. The section specifically mentions that a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means. If an act is lawful but done through unlawful manner the section doesn’t have any application. Further, the section emphasis act must be done with proper care and caution. What is expected is not utmost care, but sufficient care that a prudent and reasonable man would consider adequate.
The illustration under Section 87, Penal Code is relevant for the purposes of this case. It runs as follows: “A and Z agree to fence with each other for amusement. This agreement implies the consent of each to suffer any harm which in the course of such fencing, may be caused without foul play; and if A, while playing fairly, hurts Z, A commits no offence.”
In State of Orissa v. KhoraGhasi,1978 Cri.LJ 1305 case, the accused killed the victim by shooting an arrow with the bona fide belief that he was shooting a bear who had entered his field to destroy his crops. The Orissa Divisional Bench of High court acquitted the accused under Section 80 of IPC.
In Jagesher v. Emperor, AIR 1924 Oudh 228 case, the accused was beating a person with his fist. The latter’s wife intervened with two-month-old baby on her shoulder. The accused hit the woman also the blow struck the child on the head and the child died from the effects of the blow. The accused was held liable, even though the child was hit by accident. The reason is that the accused was not doing a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means.
In Bhupendrasinh A. Chudasama V. State Of Gujarat, 1998 Cri.LJ 57 (S.C.) case, the appellant, who was an armed constable shot his superior, the head constable which resulted in his death. Both the persons were posted in the same platoon at Khampala Dam which was in danger on account of heavy rainfall. One evening, the accused noted the victim walking near the tower of the dam at which he aimed his rifle at short range and shot the victim. The accused pleaded he was doing his patrolling duty. The Supreme Court refused to give the accused the benefit under S. 80 as the act was not committed with proper care and caution and he was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Contributory negligence cannot be a defence to a criminal charge under the exception of an accident.
In R v. Walker, 1 C and P 330 case, the accused was driving a horse buggy without any reins, the victim was walking on the road intoxicated. The accused called out to the victim twice to get him out of the way but the victim did not comply due to his state. The victim was run over by the horse and killed. The accused was held for manslaughter as it was his duty to drive the buggy with proper care and caution even if the other person is negligent.
In Sukhdev Singh v. State of Delhi, Appeal (Crl.) 54 of 2003 case, the accused pleaded that while doing a lawful act, he accidentally committed the murder of the deceased. But the evidence showed that the accused during the course of the scuffle deliberately used a gun and fired shots at the deceased. Hence, the Supreme Court held that it was not a case of an accident covered under Section 80.
In Dr Saroja Patil v. State of Maharashtra, CRI.APP. 2502.2005
case, The Court said that medical negligence under criminal law is that act which is done or failed to be done by any medical practitioner. To prosecute under medical negligence, it has to be proved that in the given facts and circumstances no medical professional in his ordinary senses and prudence would have done or failed to do so. Moreover, the criminal liability cannot be laid unless the negligence was so obvious and of such a high degree that it would be culpable by applying the settled norms.
Conclusion:
In order for an accused to avail the benefit under S. 80, proof of no criminal intention or knowledge is of high significance and necessary. The court shall view the case in the absence of certain circumstances, making it a part of S. 105 of the Evidence Act. The act must be lawful; the act must have been done in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution. In such a case, the accused may be acquitted by the Court.