1

UNIVERSITY 0F KASHMIR
FACULTY OF LAW

CONTINUOUS ASSESSMENT: - CRIMES

TOPIC: SECTION 80 OF IPC

SUBMITTED BY:
FALAK FAYAZ WANI
ENROLLMENT NO.21042122054
COURSE: B.A, L.L.B (2021)
SEMESTER: 1sT

SUBMITTED TO:
DR. SABA
3

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 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.

COMMENT
Ingredient : -Indian Law on accident is contained in section 80 of the IPC, Its ingredients are as
follows:

 The act must be an accident or misfortune.

 The act must not be done with any criminal intention or knowledge;
 The accident must be the outcome of a lawful act done in lawful manner by lawful means;
 The act must have been done with proper care and caution.

Meaning of accident and misfortune

Section 80 of the Indian Penal Code is based on the principle that no act is per se criminal unless the
actor did it with criminal intent. To constitute a crime, intent and the act of the wrong-doer must both
concur. As the object of criminal law is to punish only serious infractions of the rules of society, it follows
that criminal law cannot punish a man for his mistake or misfortune. Accident does not mean a
happening by chance but such happening must be unintentional and unexpected. It means an
undesigned happening out of the ordinary course which no man of ordinary prudence could anticipate
or provide against.

For example, where two men A and B went to jungle to shoot wild rats, and they took their positions
and laid bait for the game. After a while some rustle was heard and A believing t to be wild rat, fired in
that direction. The shot caused B's death. A will be protected under this section because death was
caused by accident. In this ase the gun with which the accused had fired was an unlicensed gun and it
was observed that the use of unlicensed gun can make that person liable or an offence under section 19
of the Arms Act, but it cannot deprive him. of the benefit of section 80. But where two cars running in
opposite directions de with each other resulting in injuries to the drivers of both the vehicles, will be a
case of misfortune. However, in practice no distinction is maintained between misfortune and accident.

Lawful act done in lawful manner by lawful means

In Jageshwar v Emperor (A.I.R.1924 Oudh 228:24 Cri. L.J. 789.), the accused was beating a person with
his fists, when the latter's wife with a two months child on her shoulder interfered. The accused hit the
woman but the blow struck the child on his head. The baby died from the effects of the blow. It was held
that although the child was hit by accident the accused, was not doing a lawful act in a lawful manner by
lawful means and therefore the defence under section 80, LP.C. could not be availed of by him. A c.milar
situation would arise where B struck violent blows on the head and shoulders of a woman who was
4

carrying an infant child in her arms. one of the blows fell on the child and killed it, while the woman
received serious injuries. Here again the defence under section 80 will not be available to the accused.
He would be liable for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 301,
I.P.C. and for attempting to commit murder of the woman under section 307, I.P.C. In this very case if
the woman too dies, then the accused would be liable for committing murder of both.

Where A trespassed into B's house in absence and on return B demanded A to leave but A refused to do
so. This led to an altercation which excited B who gave him a kick causing injury resulting in death. It was
held that-"A kick is not justifiable mode of turning a man out of your house though he a trespasser. If
the deceased would not have died but for the injury received, the prisoner having unlawfully caused
that injury, he is guilty of manslaughter.

In Shakhir Khan v. Crown (A.I.R, 1931 Lah.54) ,a big party consisting of some hundred men went out for
shooting pigs. A boar rushed towards the accused who fired at her, but he missed the boar and the shot
struck the leg of a member of the party. It was held that the death was caused by accident and was not
the result of rash or negligent shooting. In another case A, by shooting at a with intent to kill and steal it
kills Z who is behind a bush, A not knowing that Z was there. Here A will not be guilty of any offence and
will get the benefit of this section.

In Sukhdev Singh v Delhi State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2003 Cri. L.J.4315 S.C), the appellant was
attached to MangatRam, a Municipal Councilor and Chairman Works Committee of the Municipality as a
personal security officer. On 14-6-1989 there was an altercation followed by scuffle between the
accused appellant and Devendra (deceased). The deceased had parked his three-wheeler the opposite
the gate Margat Ram's office which was objected to by to comply who asked him to take away the
vehicle. The deceased refused and thereafter the appellant threatened him to take the vehicle to police
station. The deceased also retorted to see what accused could d Thereupon the appellant boarded the
vehicle and asked the deceased to the vehicle to Adarsh Nagar Police Station. The deceased instead of
going to Police Station, Adarsh Nagar tried to proceed in wrong direction. App asked him to stop and
again a scuffle took place during which the appellant took out his pistol and fired at the deceased. The
bullet missed the take target and instead hit the thigh of one Vijay Kumar P.W-7, who was standing
nearby. The appellant fired again and the bullet hit the deceased and he collapsed. The deceased and
Vijay Kumar both were taken to hospital where the deceased was declared to be dead. In the course of
trial, the defence of accident under section 80, Indian Penal Code was pleaded on behalf of the
appellant

It was held that section 80 Indian Penal Code 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. If either of these elements is wanting the act will not be excused on the ground of accident
An accident is not the same as an occurrence, but something that happens out of the normal or ordinary
course of things. An effect is said to be accidental when the act is not done with the intention of causing
it, and its occurrence 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. The idea of
something fortuitous and unexpected is involved in the word "accident".

In the present case the factual position shows that the accused who was posted as Personal Security
Officer, deliberately used the gun, of course during the scuffle and the accused appellant did not say
that the bullet went off in the process of struggle and snatching, but the accused specifically told that as
5

the deceased tried to snatch the pistol, he fired at him. Hence it was not a case of accident and
therefore he would not be entitled to get the benefit of accident under section 80, Indian Penal Code.

Accidents in unlawful acts

Where an accident occurs in doing of unlawful act, there may be no liability for the harm so caused if
there is no causal connection between the resulting harm and the act in question. Macaulay in his draft
of the Indian Penal Code had cited two illustrations. A pilot is navigating in the river with the utmost
care. He directs the vessel against a sand bank, the existence of which was unknown to him till the
disaster. Several passengers are drowned in the river.

In this case to hang the pilot as a murderer on account of his misfortune would be an act of atrocious
injustice. If the voyage of the pilot is illegal and an offence, will it make a difference? His answer then
too is in negative. He says that to pronounce the pilot guilty of one offence, because a misfortune befell
him while he was committing another offence-to pronounce him the murderer of people whose lives he
never meant to endanger, whom he was doing his best to carry safe to their destination and whose
death has been purely accidental......is surely to confound all boundaries of crime. The other illustration
cited by Macaulay is: hundreds of persons in some great cities are in the habit of pickets. They know that
they are guilty of an offence. But it has never occurred to one of them, nor would it occur to any rational
man that they are guilty of an offence which endangers life. Unhappily, one of them attempts to take
the purse of a gentleman who has a loaded pistol in his pocket. The thief touches the pistol and the
trigger goes of, the gentleman is shot dead. In his opinion this man cannot be treated differently than all
those pick-pockets who steal under exactly similar circumstances with exactly the same intention, with
no less risk of causing death, with no greater care to avoid causing death. Therefore, he suggests that he
should not be given punishment other than that any other pick-pocket would get. It means he should
only be punished for pick pocketing and not for killing.

Act done with proper care and caution

In Bhupendrasinh A Chaudasama v. State of Gujarat,(1998 Cri. L.j. 57 S.C)" the appellant Bhupindrasinh
an armed constable of Special Reserved Police shot at his immediate superior Head Constable who died
on the spot. The victim and the appellant were posted in the same platoon at Khampla Dam site which
was in danger, some skirmishes developed and deceased had taken the appellant to task on the ground
of dereliction in discharge of the work allotted to him. The appellant did not lightly take the diatribe
hurled against him by the deceased and he was groping for some opportunity to retaliate. On the
evening of 2-7-1983 the appellant noted the victim walking near the tower of the dam. He aimed his
rifle at the deceased and pumped four bullets into his vital part. The appellant did own the act of firing
the rifle but pleaded that he was doing patrolling duty with the service rifle and at about 7.45 p.m. when
it was absolute dark, he came near the bridge for proceeding towards the valve tower. He saw a flame
near the tower and saw somebody moving. He suspected that some miscreant was about to commit
mischief with the fire. He could not identify the moving person due to want of light and shouted at him
to stop. Since there was no reply he proceeded further and repeated the shout and still there was no
reply. He had to open fire in discharge of his duties. His version is that he first fired in the open air and
then fired two more rounds and heard the sound of something falling down. Thereafter he reported the
incident in the office. The appellant was charged and tried for murder. He was acquitted by the trial
6

judge as he entertained doubt about his complicity. But a Division Bench of Gujarat High Court while
reappraising the whole evidence found that it was a cold-blooded murder. Accordingly, the acquittal was
reversed and the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for life. The Supreme Court refused to allow
the appellant benefit of Section 80, LPC because the act has not been done with proper care and
caution. The Court

observed that the very fact that the accused shot his own colleague at close range without knowing the
identity of his target smacks of utter dearth of care and caution. Another plea taken by the accused was
that his act was justified under Section 103, IP.C. The Supreme Court refused to accept his plea as well
as it observed that there is a condition for claiming such an extended right of private defence if the
property sought to be protected is a building. It should be a building used for human dwelling or for
custody of property. The dam is not a building of that type and therefore the person exercising the right
of private defence cannot go to the farthest extent of killing another person unless the threatened
mischief has caused a reasonable apprehension that death or grievous hurt would otherwise be the
consequence. The tower which the accused feared to have been under threat was neither used for
human dwelling nor custody of property and there was no apprehension of death or grievous hurt
therefore defence under section 103, IPC was not allowed.

In this case the Court observed that the accused did not disclose to any prosecution witness that he was
unable to identify his immediate superior and he thought him to be a miscreant and fired to protect
valve tower. The plea of private defence was taken only in his statement under section 313, Cr PC the
right of private defence was far from contemplation of accused when he opened fire at the deceased,
hence accused is not entitled even to restricted right to private defence under section 104, I.P.C.

Burden of Proof
K.M. Nanavati v. State of maharastra, A.I.R.1962 S.C. 605, in order that the accused may successfully
claim a defence under this section proof of any criminal intention or knowledge behind the doing of the
act is necessary. Where the accused pleads exception under this section that death was caused by
accident, the court shall presume absence of circumstances bringing the case within that exception in
view of section 105 of the Evidence Act and the burden will lie upon the accused to prove that his case
falls within the exception. The burden of proving negation of mens rea which lies on the accused is
discharged if he satisfies the court to the extent that a party to a civil proceeding must satisfy to obtain a
verdict in his favor. He need not go to the excluding of a reasonable doubt as the prosecution must do to
secure a conviction, mere preponderance of probability is enough.