Accident in Criminal Law

Every crime is punishable by law, as is commonly known; yet, some exceptions release the accused from prosecution. One of the most notable exceptions is accident. Since any mishap beyond human control is often defined as an accident, people involved are not subject to legal repercussions. This article examines the definition of accident as given in Section 80 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

CLAT 2025: 10 Free Mock Tests | Legal Maxims | Landmark Judgements | PYQs

CUET BA LLB 2025:  Legal Studies ebook | 5 Free Mock Tests

MH CET LAW 2025: 10 Free Mock Tests | Legal Reasoning Practice Questions

Monthly Legal Current Affairs:  August’24 | July’24 | June’24

This Story also Contains

1. General Defences Under Criminal Law
2. Section 80 IPC - Accident
3. Chapter 4 of IPC
4. Essentials of Accident under Section 80 IPC
5. Status of Accident in New Criminal Penal Code
6. Case Laws on Accidents in IPC
7. Conclusion

In everyday speech, the word "accident" refers to a series of uncontrollable events that, despite one's best efforts and safeguards, cannot be avoided. As long as an accident is established beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law, Section 80 normally shields the parties involved from criminal prosecution and liability. The intention of the law is not to punish a man for circumstances over which he may have no control. Actus non facit reum nisi men sit rea just serves as a reminder that criminal law needs to establish some sort of mental element of guilt before it can punish someone. This suggests that someone cannot be held accountable for anything if they could not have been expected to imagine it happening or if they did not intend for it to happen.

General Defences Under Criminal Law

The general defences provided by the Indian Penal Code, of 1860 can shield an accused individual from prosecution because, even if they committed the crime, they are not accountable for it. This is because either there was no mens rea at the time of the offence or his conduct was justified. Nonetheless, he will not be held accountable under the defences allowed under Chapter 4 of the IPC. General Defences is covered in Chapter 4 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Only when mens rea and actus reus are together can a crime occur. The well-known adage "Actus Reus Non-Facit Reum Nisi Mensit Rea," which maintains that an act is innocent unless the mind renders it guilty, serves as its foundation. Certain offences may be treated as non-offences since these general defences allow for some exceptions and are not all-inclusive.. There are two categories of defences under criminal law are-

Excusable Acts

Excusable acts are those that are released from criminal accountability due to the accused party's absence of mens rea, which is seen as a necessary component in the formation of a crime, at the time of the act. Excusable acts include the following-

• Section 76 and 79- Mistake of Fact

• Section 80- Accident

• Section 82 and 83- Infancy

• Section 84- Insanity

• Section 85 and 86- Intoxication

Justifiable Acts

The defences listed in Part 4 of the IPC are applicable in certain situations where the accused's acts are lawfully justified. Since there was mens rea present at the moment of the act, these actions are prima facie crimes under normal circumstances. Justifiable Acts include the following-

• Section 77 and 78- Judicial Acts

• Section 81- Necessity

• Section 87 to 92- Consent

• Section 93- Communication

• Section 94- Duress

• Section 95- Trifle Acts

• Section 96 to 106- Private Defence

Section 80 IPC - Accident

An accident is defined as an unexpected, unfortunate event that happens by chance and has no apparent reason. It is regarded as one of the general defences available under criminal law for the absence of mens rea, which is a necessary component of criminal intent at the moment of action. An act by itself, committed without malice, is not a crime.

Nothing done by accident or misfortune, and without any criminal intention or knowledge when carrying out an authorized act in a lawful manner by lawful methods and with appropriate care and caution, is considered an offence, according to this clause.

Chapter 4 of IPC

According to Section 80 of the Indian Penal Code, an accident is considered a general defence, exempting the person from both criminal liability and punishment. The legislation states that it does not seek to punish someone for circumstances over which he may not have any control. Until an activity is performed with the intent to harm, it is not considered a crime. Since there was no criminal intent present when the accident occurred, it falls under the excusable defence category, which is handled as a general defence under the IPC. This has been demonstrated repeatedly since purpose is a crucial factor in determining what qualifies as a crime.

Crime has four elements: Person, Actus Reus, Mens Rea, and Injury. Mens rea holds that this is the most crucial element in demonstrating the commission of a crime. It implies that the accused intended to hurt someone or their property on purpose, intentionally, and with thorough forethought. Actus Reus Negative Reum Nisi It originates from the well-known proverb "mens". Sit Rea asserts that a man cannot be found guilty of a crime unless his actions and thoughts are both guilty.

Essentials of Accident under Section 80 IPC

Such an Act must be the result of an accident or misfortune

The act must be an obvious accident or disaster, according to the first requirement of the IPC. More specifically, there should be less chance of an accident happening and no human error involved. Stated differently, chance on its own is not significant in this situation; rather, chance must be limited to what an individual of average intelligence could not have predicted.

In the case of Sukhdev Singh v. Delhi State, The Honorable Supreme Court denied the accused (appellant) the benefit of Section 80 since the accused shot the deceased on purpose during the altercation and his behaviour was not accidental.

The act should not be done with Criminal intention or knowledge

The need that the act be performed without criminal intent is the second key component of this provision. Put another way, the act must lack both knowledge and the "mens rea," or guilty thought, to qualify under this provision.

In the case of, Atmendra v. State of Karnataka, The accused said that the gun accidentally fired at the dead, blaming it on a swinging reaper striking it. Ballistic analysts verified the close-range firing, but no such reaper was found at the scene. Evidence also suggested a disagreement between the deceased and the accused.

When carrying out a legal act in a legal way using a legal method

The act must be the result of a lawful act carried out fairly by lawful means, which is the third requirement of this clause. It is important to remember that a legitimate act must contain all three of these elements: a lawful manner, a lawful means, and the outcome or consequence of the act. This means that this defence cannot be used if any one of the three is missing.

In the Tunda v. Rex case, both wrestlers impliedly accepted the danger of injury, hence the incident was inadvertent and happened accidentally. One of the players suffered an injury during the match, which ultimately led to his death. The second participant was released from liability by the High Court due to the lack of proof of foul play.

Such Acts must be done with Proper Care and Caution

To be eligible for the defense under this article, one must not only fulfill the requirements mentioned above, but also the fourth requirement, which is to exercise sufficient care and prudence. The particulars of each case dictate what constitutes adequate and sufficient care and caution. Stated otherwise, the level of care must be equivalent to what someone with reasonable caution could provide.

In the case of, the State Government of Madhya Pradesh v. Ranagaswamy, The accused fired at them from 152 feet away after mistaking a person for a hyena. It was raining and visibility was bad, so he wasn't expecting to see anyone. It was decided that the death was only an accident and that section 80 protected the accused.

Status of Accident in New Criminal Penal Code

While the accident is covered under section 80 of chapter 4 of the current penal code (the Indian Penal Code, 1860), section 18 of chapter 3 of the new penal code (The Bharatiya Nyaya (Second) Sanhita, 2023) covers the same subject. Nothing has been changed or added to this specific area. Under Section 18, it states: "Inadvertently performing a legal act

Nothing that is done accidentally, unintentionally, or with knowledge of committing a crime while carrying out a legal act in a legal way, using legal means, and exercising due care and caution is considered an offence.

Case Laws on Accidents in IPC

In the case of Bupendra Sinha Choudasama v. State of Gujarat

This case is founded on the idea that an act does not fall under Section 80 of the IPC if it was done knowingly and with due care and caution.

In this instance, the appellant Bhupendra Sinha, an armed policeman of special restricted police, shot and killed his supervisor, the chief constable. At Khumpla Dam, both were really posted to the same platoon. The defendant then contended that he was carrying out his patrolling assignment.

However according to the Supreme Court, the accused's acts demonstrate a total lack of caution and necessary care, and as a result, he is not qualified for any benefits under Section 80 of the IPC.

In the case of, State Government v. Rangasway

The premise that an act performed in error is punished under Section 80 of the Indian Penal Code forms the basis of this case.

The accused in this instance went to murder the hyena. He heard a sound coming from its direction and fired a shot in its direction. Later on, though, it was persuaded that it was a person and not a hyena. Then he begged that it was raining and that he had a genuine feeling that it was a hyena. He then fired the shot to defend others nearby from the attack.

The accused is entitled to the advantages specified in Section 80 of the Indian Penal Code, the Court ruled, because, among other circumstances, there was no anticipation that anybody else would be in the location where the death occurred. so it is established that the incident led to the act.

Conclusion

The defence under the IPC is an important provision. Under the defences given under IPC, a person will not be liable for her actions. The defences include Excusable acts and Justifiable acts. The exceptions given under the Indian Penal Code are given in Chapter 4. According to to these exceptions certain exceptions might not contain the intention or knowledge that such acts will lead to such harmful circumstances. This article describes the exception of accident which is an excusable act which escapes a person from the liability arising out of a crime.