LAW OF CRIMES

ASSIGNMENT
TOPIC:SECTION 80&81 OF IPC
(ACCIDENT AND NESSICITY)
 CONTENTS

 TABLE OF CASES
 INTRODUCTION
 SECTION 80: ACCIDENT
o Section 80: Accident in doing a lawful act
o Accident as defence under IPC
o Essential elements or ingredients of section 80, IPC

 NECESSITY:
 CONCLUSION
 REFERENCE
 TABLE OF CASES

 Gopal Naidu v. Emperor

 Jageshwar vs Emperor  
 R v Bourne
 Regina v. Dudley and Stephens
 Shakhir Khan vs Crown
 Shankar Bhadolkar vs State of Maharashtra
 State of M.P. v. Rangaswamy
 State of Orissa v. Khora Ghasi
 State vs Rangaswamy
 Tunda vs State
 United States v. Holmes
 INTRODUCTION
The Indian Penal Code provides some general defences under chapter four
that exonerate criminal liability which based on the premise that though the person
committed the offence, he cannot be held liable. This is because at the time of
commission of offence, person was justified of his/her acts, or there was absence of
mens rea. However, it is not all acts that are to be punished. There are certain
defences provided under the ambit of Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 from Sections
76 to 106. Some exceptions such as mistake of fact, accident and necessity are
available when person was mistaken to existence of some facts and act done
without criminal intention. However, as per Section 105 of Indian Evidence Act,
1872, the burden of proof regarding existence of a situation of general defences
lies on the accused.
 SECTION 80: ACCIDENT

The Indian Penal Code provides some general defences under chapter four
that exonerate criminal liability which based on the premise that though the person
committed the offence, he cannot be held liable. This is because at the time of
commission of offence, person was justified of his/her acts, or there was absence of
mens rea. However, it is not all acts that are to be punished. 1 There are certain
defences provided under the ambit of Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 from Sections
76 to 106. Some exceptions such as mistake of fact, accident and necessity are
available when person was mistaken to existence of some facts and act done
without criminal intention. However, as per Section 105 of Indian Evidence Act,
1872, the burden of proof regarding existence of a situation of general defences
lies on the accused.

Section 80: 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 standing
nearby. Here, if proper precautions were not taken on behalf of A, then his work
shall be excusable and not an offence.

1
Avtar Singh, Law of crimes,11TH ED., Eastern Book Company.
Accident as defence under IPC

Section 80 of IPC is based on the principle that no act is an offence or crime

unless the one doing it has done it with criminal intent. Accident does not only
mean occurrence by chance, but such occurrence must be unintended and
unexpected.

This section states that if anything is done by accident or misfortune and that
too without any criminal intention in doing a lawful act in a lawful manner and by
all lawful means with proper care and caution, it will not be defined as an offence.

In other words, it is no offence if a person commits an act that is an offence

under the eye of IPC by accident or misfortune but without any criminal intent or
having knowledge of it. The act must be lawful, and it must be done in a lawful
manner by lawful means.

It must be noted that both the words accident and misfortune indicates injury
to another person. Accident pertains to injury to another person, but misfortune
pertains to as much injury to the first person as to the other person who is not
connected with the act.2

For example, in State vs Rangaswamy (1952), A and B both went to the

jungle to shoot wild rats, and both took their positions. After some time, some
sound was heard, and A, believing it to be a wild rat, fired in that direction.

2
Ritu Gupta,Law of crimes, 1st ed, Lexis Nexis.
Unfortunately, the shot caused B’s death. It was held that A was not liable for the
death as the death resulted from an accident. But where two persons driving a car
collide with each other. And, this resulted in injuries to drivers of both vehicles. It
will be a case of misfortune.

Essential elements or ingredients of section 80, IPC

The essential elements of section 80 can be outlined as follows:

1. The act committed must be an accident or misfortune.3

2. Such act must not be committed with criminal intention or knowledge.4

3. The accident must be the outcome of a lawful act done in a lawful manner and
by a lawful means.5

4. The act committed must have been done with proper care and caution.6

Burden of Proof
The burden of proof under section 80 of the Indian Penal Code lies upon the
accused. It is on the accused to prove that his case falls within the exception
provided under this section.

3
State vs Rangaswamy ,  (AIR 1952 Nag. 268):
4
Tunda vs State 1950 Cr. Lj. 402 (All. HC) 
5
 Jageshwar vs Emperor  (24 Cri LJ 789),Shakhir Khan vs Crown (1931) 32 Cr.LJ 587
6
Shankar Bhadolkar vs State of Maharashtra AIR 2004 SC 1966
 An accident must be unintentional and unexpected. It implies to happening
which cannot be predicted by 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.7

In State of Orissa v. Khora Ghasi 8, 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.

If the accident occurs while doing an unlawful act, the act would not attract
the provision of Section 80 of IPC. In Jogeshwar V. Emperor 9the accused was
giving the first blow to the victim but accidently hit his wife who was holding her
2 month old child, the blow hit the head of the child which resulted in his death. It
was held that even though the child was hit by accident, the act was not lawful, not
done by lawful means or in a lawful manner.

In State of M.P. v. Rangaswamy 10, accused though that he'd seen a hyena
152 feet away and shot at its direction. But later on it was found out that it was a
person, he pleaded that it was raining and had a bonafide impression that it was a
hyena and he in order to protect the people around him fired the shot. Court held
that he will be entitled to the benefit under section 80 as besides the other facts,

7
Dr. S.R. Myneni, Law of crimes ,  2nd Ed ,Asia book house.

8
(1978) Cri LJ 1305
9
(24 Cri LJ 789),
10
AIR 1952 Nag. 268
there was no expectation of any other person being present in the area where the
shot was fired which resulted in the death of a human being.

Shankar Narayan Bhadolkar v. State of Maharashtra 11, 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.

11
AIR 2004 SC 1966
 NECESSITY:
Necessity as a defence is defined under section 81 in Indian Penal Code as:

“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.”

Defence of necessity applied, when a person in order to prevent a greater

harm from taking place, commits a crime or a criminal act during an emergency
situation, wherein accused can escape criminal liability because his/her act was
justified as he/she had the intention to prevent a situation which would cause a
greater harm as compared to the criminal act committed by him or her.12

Section 81: 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 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.

An act of accused in order to prevent greater harm without any criminal

intention falls under the ambit of necessity. Such act must be done in good faith in
order to prevent the happening of great harm. The question of motive is of no
importance, where positive evidence does exist in the favour of accused.

12
Avtar Singh, Law of crimes,11TH ED., Eastern Book Company.
 In Gopal Naidu v. Emperor13, the police officials were guilty of the offence
of wrongful confinement for disarming and restraining a drunken man carrying a
revolver in his hand. Though the offence of public nuisance was a non- cognizable
offence without a warrant, it was held that they can plead justification under this
defence. In this case the Madras High Court held that the person or property to be
protected may be person or property of the accused himself or of others. The word
harm in this section means 'physical injury.'

Regina v. Dudley and Stephens14

In this case the defendants, that is, Thomas Dudley and Edwin Stephens and
a cabin boy named Richard Parker were cast adrift in a boat following a shipwreck
without food and water. On the 18th day, when they had been seven days without
food and five days without water, Dudley proposed to Stephen that lots should be
cast who should be put to death to save the rest, and that they afterwards thought it
would be better to kill Parker so that their lives could be saved. So, on the 20 th day,
Dudley with the assent of Stephens, killed Parker and both of them fed on his flesh
for four days., after which, a vessel rescued them and they were charged with
murder.

It was held that killing an innocent life to save one’s own does not justify
murder even if it is committed under extreme necessity of hunger. So, the
defendants were sentenced to death, but it was later commuted to six months
imprisonment. And in R v Howe15, the House of Lords affirmed the case of Dudley
and Stephens.

13
(1923) ILR 46 Bom 605
14
(1884) 14 QBD 273.
15
[1987] AC 417.
United States v. Holmes16

In 1842, a longboat containing passengers and members of the crew of a

sunken American vessel was cast adrift in the stormy sea. To prevent the boat from
being swamped, members of the crew threw some of the passengers overboard. In
the trial of one of the crew members, the court recognized that such circumstances
of necessity may constitute a defence to a charge of criminal homicide, provided
that those sacrificed be fairly selected, as by lot. Because this had not been done, a
conviction for manslaughter was returned.

R v Bourne17

In this case, a young girl was pregnant because she was raped and the
defendant, who was a gynaecologist, had performed an abortion, with the consent
of her parents because he was of the opinion that the rape victim could die if
permitted to give birth. The defendant was found not guilty of “unlawfully
procuring a miscarriage” following a direction from the trial judge to the jury that
the defendant did not act “unlawfully”, rather he acted in good faith while
exercising his clinical judgement.

16
26 F. Cas. 360 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1842).
17
[1939] 1 KB 687.
 CONCLUSION

The criminal law outlines different punishments for various crimes. But a
person may not always be punished for a crime that he/she has committed. The
Indian penal code 1860 recognizes defences under section 76 to section 106. The
law offers certain defences that exculpate criminal liability. These defences are
based on the premises that though the person committed the offense, he cannot be
held liable. This is because at the time of the commission of the offence, either the
prevailing circumstance were such that the act of person was justified or his
condition was such that he could not form the requisite mens rea for the crime. The
defences are generally classified under two heads: justifiable and excusable.
Accident comes under excusable general exception, where if person has done
lawful act in lawful manner without any criminal intention then he/she can take the
plea of this section. the defendant under no circumstances should intentionally cause
harm and harm should be caused only during grave necessity in order to prevent a
greater harm which might have been caused in case the minor harm had not been
committed by the defendant.
REFERENCE

 Avtar Singh, Law of crimes,11TH ED., Eastern Book Company.

  Dr. S.R. Myneni, Law of crimes ,  2nd Ed ,Asia book house.
 Ritu Gupta,Law of crimes, 1st ed, Lexis Nexis.
 SS Srivastava, Law of crimes , Central Law Publications, 6th ED, 2018