This Article has been written by J.AKSHAYA from The Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, School of Excellence in Law, Chennai

INTRODUCTION:

Accident is an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury. Nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune, without any criminal intention and knowledge of doing a lawful act in a lawful manner. The concept Accident is covered under General exceptions of IPC. Section 80 covers accident. A crime arises only when both mens rea and actus reus is present. Under general exceptions where offence can be treated as non-offence and it is an exception to general defences. This article elaborates on the concept of accident under section 80 which comes under the general exceptions in IPC.

GENERAL DEFENCES UNDER IPC:

General defences under IPC are classified into two acts namely;

1. Excusable Acts
2. Justifiable Acts

Excusable Acts:

These are the exception to general defences when there is lack of mens rea and actus reus. Excusable Acts include;

1. Mistake of fact ( section 76 and 79)
2. Accident ( section 80)
3. Infancy ( section 82 and 83)
4. Insanity (section 84)
5. Intoxication (section 84 and 86)

Justifiable Acts:

Justifiable acts are those which are legally justifiable by law and they include:

1. Judicial Acts (section 77 and 78)
2. Necessity (section 81)
3. Consent (section 87-92)
4. Communication (section 93)
5. Duress (section 94)
6. Trifle acts (section 95)
7. Private defence (section 96-106)

Section 80 of Indian Penal Code:

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 doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution.

For example: A is having an axe and cutting a wood accidently he cuts a man who is standing nearby. Here if there was no want of proper caution on the part of A, his act is excusable and not an offence.

This section exempts the doer of an innocent act or lawful act in an innocent or lawful manner and without any criminal intention or knowledge from any unforeseen evil result that may ensure from accident or misfortune.

Accident;

An effect is said to be accidental when the act by which it is caused is not done with the intention of causing it and when its occurrence as a consequence of such act is not so probable that a person of ordinary prudence ought, under the circumstances in which it is done, to take reasonable precautions against it. An accident is something that happens out of ordinary course of things. The idea is something unexpected in accident.

In the famous case of R vs. Clarke, a woman was charged with theft from the super market. Her defence was that she has taken the goods in a state of absent of mindedness resulting from depression. Accepting medical evidence, her mental condition and her conduct in her house, the defence was accepted.

Example: The accused fired a shot at his assailant who escaped but four other persons were injured and one of them unfortunately expired, it was held that the accused was not liable for the fatal injury to an innocent person as his case fell within the scope of section 80 read with section 96 and 100 of IPC.

ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF SECTION 80 OF IPC:

1. Act should be done by accident.
2. Act should be done without any intention and knowledge.
3. Act done by lawful means in a lawful manner.
4. With proper care and caution.
5. Act should be done by accident and misfortune:

The act done without any knowledge and it is purely an accident or misfortune. Not an intentional or planned act. This is the first and foremost essential element of an accident.

Important case law:

Sate of Government vs . Rangaswamy (1952).

This is the most important case related to an act done by an accident under section 80 of IPC. In this case the accused went to the forest to kill a hyena with the good intention to protect the people and it was a rainy day. He aimed and shot hyena where he heard sound from the other direction. Then he saw that it was a person and not hyena. Where he pleaded that he acted only in a bona-fide way and in good impression to protect the people from attack of hyena. The court also accepted the contention made by the accused and upheld that the accused entitled to benefits made under section 80 of IPC.

Act done without any intention and knowledge:

An act done without any criminal intention and knowledge only then it comes under general exception of IPC.

Important case law:

Tunda vs. State (1950);

This is the most important case for the act done without any intention and knowledge:

In this case the accused Tunda and deceased were close friends. Both are good wrestlers. While wrestling the deceased got injury in the head and resulted in death. This is solely an accident without pre-planned or any criminal intention. In addition to that, the court held that there is an implied consent of the deceased that he has to take any risk arisen out of wrestling. So the court held that the accused is not liable for the offence done and he is protected under section 80 ‘accident’.

Act done by lawful means in a lawful manner:

An act should be legal and it should not be illegal. The act done with proper care and caution in a lawful means by lawful manner it also constitutes an important ingredient of an accident.

Important case law:

Jageshwar vs. Emperor:

This case is based on the principle that when the act is done by a unlawful manner by lawful means and it will not be protected under section 80 of the Indian Penal Code. In this case there was a fight between husband and wife. Wife is pregnant where husband bet his wife and also accidently hits a child nearby and the child was dead. In this the accused contented that it was solely an accident. But the court held that even though the death of the child is accident is by accident but the act was not lawful in a lawful manner by lawful means.

With proper care and caution:

Acts done with proper care and caution without any intention of committing an offence will be protected under section 80 of IPC.

Important case law:

Bupendra Sinha Choudasama vs. State of Gujarat:

This case is based on the principle that when an act was done deliberately and without proper care and caution, it will not come under section 80 of IPC.

In this case, the appellant Bhupendra Sinha , an armed constable of special reserved police fired the shot at his superior head constable and it resulted in death. Both were posted in the same platoon at Khumpla Dam. Then the accused pleaded that he was doing his patrolling duty. The Supreme Court held that the act done by the accused reflects the utter lack of proper care and caution and hence he cannot claim benefits under section 80 of IPC.

BURDEN OF PROOF:

The burdens of proof under section 80 of the Indian Penal Code lies on accuse. It is on the accused to prove that his case fall under the exception provided under this section 80. Under section 105 of the Evidence Act 1872, the burden of proof lies on the person who claims. This section says that whoever desires any court to give judgement as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exists. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies upon the person.

On the other hand, under section 105 of Indian Evidence Act, 1873, where the accused claims in order for him to get benefits of any general exceptions of chapter 4 of IPC, the burden of proof is upon him. It is the duty on him to prove that his case falls within the exception provided under the general exception.

Landmark Case:

K. M. Nanawathi vs. State of Maharashtra AIR (1961) SCC 605;

In this case it was held that the burden of proof for availing a defence lies upon the accused. The accused needs to satisfy the court that he has no mens rea while committing an offence.

EXCEPTION TO AN ACCIDENT:

WHEN THE ACT IS NOT PROTECTED UNDER SECTION 80:

Example:

• 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 of IPC.
• Requesting rent repayment is a legal act but threatening him with a gun to pay rent is not lawful and if there is an accident due to the gun and if the renter gets hurt defence under this section cannot be claimed.
• An owner of a bore well 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 pit. Therefore accident caused due to negligence is not excusable.
• Contributory negligence cannot be a defence to a criminal charge under the exception of an accident.
• In R vs. Walker; 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 other person is negligent.
• In Sukhdev Singh vs. State of Delhi; the accused pleaded that while doing lawful act, he accidentally committed murder of the deceased. But the evidence showed that he used a gun and fired shots at the accused. Hence the Supreme Court held that it was not a case of an accident and cannot be protected.
• In Dr. Saroja Patel vs. State of Maharashtra, The court said that the 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.

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.

CONCLUSION:

Indian Penal Code deals with crimes and punishments. Though a person commits an offence he is not held liable and so he is so protected under general exceptions under IPC. It is just because the offence is not absolute, they have certain exceptions. These exceptions are provided under Chapter 1V of Indian Penal Code. Through this chapter the law protects the person who has committed an offence without mens rea and actus reas.

In order for an accused to avail benefit under section 80 of the Indian Penal Code, the proof of criminal intention or knowledge is of high significance and necessary. The court shall view the case in the absence of certain circumstances, making it as a part of section 105 of Indian Evidence Act, 1882. The act must be done in a lawful way in a lawful manner by lawful means with proper caution and care if so the accused can be acquitted by the court of law. This article discusses the important concepts under section 80 of the Indian Penal Code.

REFERENCE:

1. K.D Gaur, The Indian Penal Code, Universal Law Publishing, 4^th edn 2014
2. Dr. V. Krishnamachari, Law of Evidence, Narender Gogia & Company, 8^th edn.. 2019
3. Hemnath More, Defence of accident: section 80 of IPC, April 20,2023
4. Accident as a general exception available at: https://www.writinglaw.com/hhj (Last visited on 11/12/2023)
5. Fahad, Indian Penal Code ,1860 ,May 20 ,2023
6. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/hup (Last visited on 12/12/2023)