JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA, NEW DELHI

FACULTY OF LAW

SESSION: 2018-2023

SUBJECT: INDIAN PENAL CODE II

TOPIC: ACCIDENT (SECTION 80)

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

Dr. SAMIA KHAN MA’AM SHAYAN ZAFAR

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IVth SEMESTER(R)

ROLL NO.:57

STUDENT ID: 20182859

INDEX
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
 INTRODUCTION
 ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF ACCIDENT
 ACCIDENT OR MISFORTUNE
 ABSENCE OF CRIMINAL INTENTION OR KNOWLEDGE
 A LAWFUL ACT IN A LAWFUL MANNER BY LAWFUL MEANS
 PROPER CARE AND CAUTION
 BURDEN OF PROOF
 CONCLUSION
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The success and final outcome of this assignment required a lot of guidance and assistance from
many people and I extremely fortunate to have got this along the completion of my assignment
work. Whatever I have done is only due to such guidance and assistance and I could not forget to
thank them. I respect and thank Dr. Samia Khan Ma’am Indian Penal Code II teacher for giving
me an opportunity to do this assignment and providing me all support and guidance which made
me complete this assignment on time. I am extremely grateful to her for providing such a nice
support and guidance in this pandemic situation. Thank you Ma’am for your support without
your help and guidance it was impossible to bring up this assignment.

----SHAYAN ZAFAR

INTRODUCTION
"Accident", a word which is used in everyday life to indicate a course of events over which a
person had no control over and which could not be avoided despite due diligence and care.
Section 80 talks about accident as a general exception and which can lead to avoidance of
criminal punishment and liability if established fully before a court of law. Law does not intend
to punish a man of the things over which he could possibly have no control over. Actus non facit
reum nisi mens sit rea only works as a reminder that criminal law in order to punish seeks some
kind of guilty mental element to punish a person. This implies that a person when does not intend
and cannot even contemplate occurrence of a certain course of events, cannot be held responsible
for the happening of that event1.

With this defense a person can escape criminal liability where such act of person occurs as a
result of accident. Such act must be devoid of intention. Law does not intend to punish a man of
the things over which he could possibly have no control. Section 80 of IPC deals accident as a
general defense.

Section 80 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines an Accident in doing a lawful act as:

Nothing is an offence which is done by an 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.

An accident must be unintentional and unexpected. It implies to happening which cannot be

predicted by a prudent man. According to Section 80, any act done without criminal intent or
with knowledge with proper care and precaution while doing a lawful act in a lawful manner
with lawful means, will constitute as an accident. However, if there is no connection between the
harm and the act, then there may be no liability for the harm caused.

ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF ACCIDENT

1
P.S.A PILLAI, The Indian Penal Code, Lexis Nexis
Section 80 exempts a person from liability if the act is done accidentally, by misfortune, without any
criminal intention or knowledge and the accident occurs while doing a lawful act in a lawful manner and
by lawful means, wherein due care and caution is exercised. It exempts the doer of an innocent or lawful
act in an innocent and lawful manner from any unforeseen result that may ensue from accident or
misfortune. An accident or misfortune will operate as an exonerating factor, if it is shown that: first, the
act was a mere accident or misfortune; secondly, the act was not accompanied by any criminal intention
or knowledge; thirdly, it was an outcome of lawful act done in a lawful manner by lawful means, and
fourthly, it was done with proper care and caution 2. If either of these elements are wanting the act will not
be excused on the ground of accident. The defense of 'accident' in the Penal Code is equivalent to
'inadvertence without culpability.

The essential ingredients for an act or misfortune to operate as a mitigating factor are:

1. The act was a pure accident or misfortune,

2. It was not caused by any criminal intention or knowledge3,

3. It was the consequence of lawful actions carried out by lawful means,

4. It was carried out with due care and caution.

Accident or Misfortune

2
Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code,(LexisNexis India,34 th ed.).
3
P.S Atchuthen Pillai, Criminal Law,(LexisNexis, Gurgaon,14 th ed,2019).
The word 'accident' is derived from the Latin word accidere, signifying 'fall upon, befall, happen,
chance'. The idea of something fortuitous and unexpected is involved in the word 'accident'. To
bring an act within the meaning of the term 'accident' used in s 80, an essential requirement is
that the happening must be one to which human fault does not contribute. It does not mean a
mere chance. It rather means an unintentional, an unexpected act. It implies the idea of
something not only unintended but something which was so little expected that it came as a
surprise. An injury caused is neither willful nor negligent. It is something that happens out of the
ordinary course of things. 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 precaution against it. It is the effect of an act which is accidental and not
the act which caused that effect4.

The term 'misfortune' means the same thing as an accident plus that it was as unwelcome as it
was unexpected. It is only an accident with attendant evil consequences. Both the words
'accident' and 'misfortune' are used in the sense of implying the injury to another. But the
difference between the two lies in the fact that an accident involves only injury to another, while
misfortune causes injury as much to the one as to another unconnected with the act. Accident and
misfortune, thus, means not just the happening of the unexpected or unintended event, but it also
means that such unexpected or unintended act resulted in injury to another.

In State of Orissa v. Khora Ghasi 5, in this case, the accused killed the victim by shooting an
arrow with the bona fide belief that he was shooting a bear that entered into the fields to destroy
his crops, the death was said to be accident.

Absence of Criminal Intention or Knowledge

4
K.D Gaur, The Indian Penal Code,(Universal, 6 th ed.).
5
(1978) Cr LJ 1305
 For the application of this section, it is essential to establish that the act was done without any
'criminal intention or knowledge'. In other words, it must be without mens rea or guilty mind. An
act that was intended by or known to the doer cannot obviously be an accident.

Thus, injuries caused due to accidents in games and sports are covered by this section. The
Allahabad High Court, in Tunda v Rex , dealt with a case where two friends, who were fond of
wrestling participated in a wrestling match. One of them sustained injuries which resulted in his
death. The other person was charged under section 304A, 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, and the case fell within section 80 and 87, IPC.

In State Government of Madhya Pradesh v Rangaswamy, the accused fired at an object from a
distance of 152 feet. To his horror, he found that he had shot at a human being. The accused
pleaded that he was under the bona fide impression that the object fired at was a hyena that he
saw the previous day. At the time of shooting, it was raining and hence he did not expect a man
to be present at the place in question. It was held that the act of causing death was purely an
accident and the accused was protected under s 806.

In State of Orissa v Khora Ghasi, the accused was watching his maize field in the night. He
heard some noise inside his field, and thinking that a bear had entered into the maize field, shot
an arrow in the direction from where the said noise was heard. The arrow hit the deceased who
had stealthily entered the maize field of the accused to commit theft of maize. The deceased died
as a result of the injury caused by the arrow. The Orissa High Court quoted with approval, the
decision of the Lahore High Court. The Orissa High Court upheld the acquittal of the accused.

In Atmendra v State of Karnataka, the accused had fired at the deceased. The accused pleaded
that it was an accident, as the reaper swung by the deceased at the accused struck the gun.
However, no reaper was found at the place of occurrence. Further, the evidence of the ballistic
experts ruled that the firing took place from a short distance. There was also evidence that there
was a dispute between the accused and the deceased. The Supreme Court held that the act of the

6
Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code,(LexisNexis India,34 th ed.).
accused was intentional and not accidental. He was convicted under s 302 and sentenced to life
imprisonment.

In Girish Saikia v State of Assam, the accused was attacked by his brother in the night when he
was asleep. The brother attempted to strangulate and punch the accused. The two brothers started
scuffling and rolled out of the room. The accused got hold of a bamboo and tried to strike his
brother. But suddenly their father intervened and the bamboo blow aimed at the brother
accidentally fell on the head of the father. The father succumbed to the injuries and died. The
Guwahati High Court held that the accused had committed no offence as the case was covered by
(the exception in) s 80 and acquitted him.

In Sukhdev Singh v Delhi State (Govt of NCT of Delhi), relying upon the facts on record
disclosing that the accused, during the scuffle, had deliberately shot the deceased, the Supreme
Court declined to give benefit of s 80 to the accused-appellant as his act was not accidental7.

A Lawful Act in a Lawful Manner by Lawful Means

7
P.S Atchuthen Pillai, Criminal Law,(LexisNexis ,Gurgaon,14 th ed.,2019).
To avail of the protection under s 80, an act should be an accident, done without any criminal
intention and such an act should also be a lawful act, done in a lawful manner, by lawful means.
If an act is not lawful or is not done in a lawful manner by lawful means, this section will have
no application. If a blow is aimed at an individual unlawfully and it strikes another and kills him,
the accused cannot be protected under s 80. Where a mother was angry with her child and took a
small iron bar used as a poker and threw it at him which accidentally hit another child who had
entered the room and as a consequence the child died, the court held that the woman was guilty,
although she had no intention of killing the child, as her act was an improper mode of correcting
her child.

Shankar Narayan Bhadolkar v. State of Maharashtra 8, this case elucidates the principle that
when an act is done deliberately and without proper care and caution, it will not be given the
benefit of accident. A host who unlocks his pistol, loads it with cartridges and ends up shooting
one of the invitees to a dinner from a close range is certainly an act where proper care and
caution was thrown out of the window. This instance also highlights the problem of "celebratory
firing" in marriages, in these cases too, a person will not be given the benefit of accident as firing
bullets while attendees are present is certainly not an act done with proper care and caution as
there is always the risk of bullet hitting one of the attendees.

Proper Care and Caution

8
AIR 2004 SC 1966
The accidental act should not only be without any criminal intention and a lawful act, but the
said lawful act should also have been exercised with 'proper care and caution'. What is expected
is not the utmost care, but sufficient care that a prudent and reasonable man would consider
adequate, in the circumstances of the case. One of the primordial requirements of s 80 is that the
act must have been done 'with proper care and caution' and the amount of care and
circumspection taken by an accused must be one taken by a prudent and reasonable man in the
circumstances of a particular case. If an act is done without proper care and caution, an accused,
therefore, is not entitled to the benefit of s 80.

In Bhupendrasinh A Chudasama v State of Gujarat, the accused constable, along with the head
constable, was on patrol duty at a dam site, which was in danger on account of heavy rainfall.
The accused took the plea that he saw a fire and hence fired. The accused shot at close range
without knowing the identity of his target. The Supreme Court held that the act was done without
any care and caution. His conviction for murder was upheld and he was sentenced to life
imprisonment.

In Sita Ram v State of Rajasthan, the accused was digging the earth with a spade. The deceased
came to collect the mud. The spade hit the deceased on the head and he succumbed to the
injuries. The accused pleaded that it was an accident. The Rajasthan High Court held that the
accused was aware that other workers would come and pick up the mud. The accused did not
take proper care and caution and acted negligently. He was convicted under s 304A, IPC.

In Shankar Narayan Bhadolkar v State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court refused to give
benefit of s 80 to a person who picked up a gun, unlocked it, loaded it with cartridges and shot
dead, from a close range, one of the invitees for dinner at his place. It held that act of the accused
was without proper care and caution, and deliberate.

Burden of Proof
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 the case of K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, it had been held that the burden of proof
for availing a defense lies upon the accused. The accused needs to satisfy the court that their
existed no mens rea.

CONCLUSION
Crime rate in India has been considerably increasing from year to year and the convictions rate
hard become very low and that too the courts have been awarding very megre punishments by
using their vide discretionary powers. There are more chances to get lenient punishment by the
proved offenders due to lose frame work of the legislature in fixing the punishment for several
offences in the Code. There is more probability to apply the personally favored brain and
individual opinion of the judicial officers while confirming the sentence to the offenders, due to
wide discretion available in the present sentencing jurisprudence. So that, there are more chances
to escape for the accused from the clutches of the law. Already Indian Criminal Justice System is
working on the motto of “hundred criminals can be escaped, but one innocent should not be
punished”. So in cases of accidents when it is unintentional and all sort of precautionary
measures have been taken by the person then he has the general defense under Section 80 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
SR. NO. TITLE AUTHOR

1. THE INDIAN PENAL CODE C.S.A PILLAI

2. THE INDIAN PENAL CODE K.D GAUR
3. THE INDIAN PENAL CODE RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL