Accident and Necessity

Ankita Mohanty

The article discusses the Accident and Necessity. Some people are
immune from the criminal law operation. Chapter IV of the IPC, entitled
‘General Exceptions,’ which contains sections 76 to 106, exempts certain
citizens from criminal liability. Acts done by accident or misfortune or
because of necessity are justifiable acts and ultimately exempt an
individual from criminal liability.

I. Introduction to Section 80
Section 80 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: 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.

https://www.legalbites.in/accident-and-necessity/ 22/04/20, 1:36 PM

Page 1 of 8
 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.”

II. Nature & Scope of Section 80 IPC, 1860

Section 80 exempts a person from liability if the act is committed
unintentionally, by mistake, without any criminal purpose or
understanding and the accident occurs while performing a lawful act in
a legal manner and by legal means in which proper care and prudence
are exercised. It exempts the perpetrator from any unforeseen result
that may arise from an accident of an innocent or lawful act in an
innocent and lawful manner.

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 knowledge,
3. It was the consequence of lawful actions carried out by lawful
means,
4. It was carried out with due care and caution.

1. The act was an Accident or Misfortune

An essential requirement in order to bring an act within the meaning of

the term ‘ accident’ used in s 80 is that the event must be one to which
human responsibility does not make a contribution. It’s not just an
occasion.

It means an accidental, unforeseen act. It implies the idea of something

https://www.legalbites.in/accident-and-necessity/ 22/04/20, 1:36 PM

Page 2 of 8
 that was not only unintended but so little expected that it came as a
surprise. The incident is not intentional or reckless. It’s something from
the usual course of things that occurs.

An outcome is said to be unintentional if the act by which it is induced is

not performed with the intention of causing it, and if its incidence as a
consequence of such act is not so possible that a person of ordinary
prudence would take reasonable care against it in the circumstances in
which it is done.

The word ‘ misfortune ‘ is the same as an accident and it is as unwanted

as unexpected. It’s just an incident with bad consequences as a result.
Accident and misfortune thus mean not only the occurrence of an
unintentional or unexpected incident but also that these unintended or
unexpected events have caused injury to another.

2. The Accident was not caused by any criminal

intention or knowledge

The establishment of the act without any “criminal intention or

knowledge” is essential. This must be with no mens rea or guilty mind, in
other words. An act which the doer intended or knew could obviously
not have been an accident. The section also includes injuries caused by
gaming and sports events.

In State Government of Madhya Pradesh v. Rangaswamy [2], the

respondent shot at a point 152 feet away. He found himself shot at a
human being to his horror. The defendant argued that he had the bona
fide belief that the shot target was a hyena he had seen the day before.

It was raining at the time of the shooting, so he didn’t expect a man to

be present at the spot in question. The act of causing death was
considered to be purely an accident and the accused was protected

https://www.legalbites.in/accident-and-necessity/ 22/04/20, 1:36 PM

Page 3 of 8
 under section 80.

In Girish Saikia v. State of Assam[3], in the night he was asleep, the

accused was attacked by his brother. The brother tried to strangulate
the suspect and hit him. The brothers began to scuffle and rolled out of
the room. The accused was holding a bamboo that was trying to strike
his brother.

Then immediately their father interfered and the father’s head

accidentally got hit by the bamboo blow, directed at the son. The father
succumbed to the injuries and died. The Guwahati High Court held that
no offence had been committed by the accused as the act was covered
by s 80 (the exception in) and acquitted.

3. The consequence of lawful actions carried out by

lawful means

In order to take advantage of the protection provided for in section 80,

an act should be an accident, done without intention, and such an act
should also be a lawful act, done by lawful means. For example, if a
blow is unlawfully targeted at an individual and it strikes another and
kills him, the accused cannot be protected under section 80.

4. Proper Care and Caution

Not only should the accidental act be without any criminal intent and a
lawful act, but it should also have been exercised with “proper care and
caution.” What is required is not the utmost consideration, but adequate
precaution that, in the circumstances of the case, a reasonable and
prudent man would consider appropriate.

One of the key provisions of s 80 is that the act must have been carried
out with due care and caution and that the amount of care and

https://www.legalbites.in/accident-and-necessity/ 22/04/20, 1:36 PM

Page 4 of 8
 situation took by the defendant must be done by a prudent and
rational man in the circumstances of the case.

In Sita Ram v State of Rajasthan [4], the accused dug a spade into the
ground. The deceased came to pick up the mud. The spade hit on the
head of the deceased and he succumbed to the injuries. The defendant
claimed it to be an accident.

The Rajasthan High Court held that the accused knew that the mud
would be picked up by other workers. The accused was not careful and
cautious and was negligent. Under s 304A, IPC, he was sentenced.

In Shankar Narayan Bhadolkar v State of Maharashtra[5], the

Supreme Court refused to grant the protection of s 80 to a person who
had picked up a weapon, unlocked it, loaded it with ammunition and
shot dead, one of the invited guests at his place for dinner. It held that
the accused’s act was intentional and without due care and caution.

III. Introduction to Section 81

Section 81 in The Indian Penal Code: “Act likely to cause harm, but
done without criminal intent, and to prevent other harm– Nothing
is an offence merely by reason of its being done with the knowledge
that it is likely to cause harm if it be done without any criminal
intention to cause harm, and in good faith for the purpose of
preventing or avoiding other harm to person or property.

Explanation.—It is a question of fact in such a case whether the harm to

be prevented or avoided was of such a nature and so imminent as to
justify or excuse the risk of doing the act with the knowledge that it was
likely to cause harm.

Illustrations

https://www.legalbites.in/accident-and-necessity/ 22/04/20, 1:36 PM

Page 5 of 8
 (a) A, the captain of a steam vessel, suddenly and without any fault or
negligence on his part, finds himself in such a position that, before he
can stop his vessel, he must inevitably run down to boat B, with twenty
or thirty passengers on board, unless he changes the course of his vessel,
and that, by changing his course, he must incur risk of running down a
boat C with only two passengers on board, which he may possibly clear.

Here, if A alters his course without any intention to run down the boat C
and in good faith for the purpose of avoiding the danger to the
passengers in the boat B, he is not guilty of an offence, though he may
run down the boat C by doing an act which he knew was likely to cause
that effect if it be found as a matter of fact that the danger which he
intended to avoid was such as to excuse him in incurring the risk of
running down the boat C.

(b) A, in a great fire, pulls down houses in order to prevent the

conflagration from spreading. He does this with the intention in good
faith of saving human life or property. Here, if it is found that the harm
to be prevented was of such a nature and so immi​nent as to excuse A’s
act. A is not guilty of the offence.”

Doctrine of Necessity

Section 81 IPC acknowledges and embraces the necessity principle as a

shield against criminal liability. Legal necessity involves the judgment
that in the particular circumstances the evil of obeying the letter of the
law is socially greater than the evil of breaking it.

In other words, in order to achieve a greater good, the rule must be

violated. It is relevant to note that while s 81 does not specifically refer
to’ greater evil’ or’ lesser evil,’ it deals with the’ lesser evil’ situation in
practice

https://www.legalbites.in/accident-and-necessity/ 22/04/20, 1:36 PM

Page 6 of 8
 Preventing or Avoiding Other Harm

Immunity from criminal liability under s 81 shall be available where an

offence is committed without any criminal intention to cause harm and
in good faith and where such offence has been committed in order to
prevent or prevent further harm to persons or property.

In Gopal Naidu v Emperor [6], a drunken man with a revolver in his

hand was disarmed and subjected to restraint by police officers,
although the offence of public disturbance under s 290 was an
unrecognizable offence without a warrant.

Although police officers were prima facie guilty of the wrongful

confinement offence, under this section they were held to be able to
plead justification. The Madras High Court held that “the person or
property to be protected may be the person or property of the accused
himself or of others”.

Necessity as a reason for homicide

It is a very difficult question whether the doctrine of necessity can be

applied as a justification for killing another human being. The usual view
is that a murder charge is not a defence against necessity. It may seem
like an example of the necessity to kill a person in self-defence.

The accused was a member of a boat’s crew following a shipwreck in the

case of United States v. Holmes[7]. Fearing the vessel would sink, he
threw 16 male passengers overboard under the mate’s instructions.
Although not convicted of murder, the defendant was convicted of
manslaughter and sentenced with hard labour to six months ‘
imprisonment.

https://www.legalbites.in/accident-and-necessity/ 22/04/20, 1:36 PM

Page 7 of 8
 References

1. KI Vibhute, PSA Pillai’s CRIMINAL LAW, 11th ed, 2012, Lexis Nexis.
2. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 35th ed, Lexis Nexis.

[1] Blackstone’s Criminal Practice 2003, Peter Murphy (ed), Oxford, 2003,
p 34.

[2] AIR 1952 Nag 268

[3] (1993) CrLJ 3808 (Gau)

[4] (1998) CrLJ 287 (Raj)

[5] AIR 2004 SC 1966

[6] AIR 1921 Mad 523

[7] 26 Fed Cas 360 (1842)

1. Important Provisions in IPC with regard to Women and

Children(Opens in a new browser tab)

https://www.legalbites.in/accident-and-necessity/ 22/04/20, 1:36 PM

Page 8 of 8