Accident

Section 80 of Penal Code “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”

Elements to be satisfied 1. The act done by accident

2. It must be done without an criminal
● The accused must fulfil and intention or knowledge
satisfy all these conditions 3. The act must be a lawful act
otherwise, he will not come under 4. The act must be a lawful means
the ambit of the section 80 5. In a lawful manner
6. It must be done with proper care
and caution

1. The act is done by accident or Stephen’s definition in Ong Choon’s

misfortune case:

- Unintentional
- Unexpected
- Has taken reasonable precaution
against it

Per Gibbs J. in Kaporonovski’s case:

- Not indeed or foreseen

- Unreasonably foreseen by ordinary
person

Misfortune - An instance of bad luck, something

not desired nor designed but it
simply happens in evil plight
- It is unexpected act which implies
the idea of something not only not
intended but something which was
so little expected that it came as a
surprise

Case: Basant Sing v Emperor

- The accused and his friends went
into the jungle to hunt wild pigs
- A wild boar charged at him
- He panicked and fired a shot aimed
at the wild pig
- Unfortunately it missed and hit his
friend, causing death
- It was held by the court to be a
purely accident case as he had no
intention to kill his friend, and the
act was a lawful act done in a
lawful manner and that the event
 was not foreseeable

2. Without any criminal intention or Criminal intention:

knowledge - To cause harm which is prohibited
by law

CRIMINAL INTENTION KNOWLEDGE

- The aim or resolution of the mind to - The presumption which the law
produce an effect makes of resolution from action
accompanied by knowledge of the
consequence

Case: Paryaq v State of Allahabad - If a man knows that certain

consequence will follow from his act
it must be presumed in law that he
intended that consequence to take
place although he may have had
some quite different ulterior motive
for performing the act

Case: King Emperor v Timmappa - The accused and his friend (victim)
went into the jungle to hunt for
porcupine(landak)
- According to their plan, they would
be situated at two different places to
wait for porcupines to appear
- The accused heard some noises
and rattles from the bushed, and dia
tembak sebab dia ingat tu landak,
turns out tu kawan dia
- Dia tembak pakai unlicensed gun
- He was convicted under section
304A of IPC.
Court:
- It was an accident as there was no
intention to kill his friend and there
was no lack of proper care and
caution on his behalf
- The fact that he was shooting with
an unlicensed gun would not affect
his immunity under that section

3. Lawful act in lawful manner by Lawful act: the act must not be one of
lawful means these:
1. Malum in se: the nature of the act
a. Timmappa (1901) - mala prohibita itself is an offence (rape, murder,
b. Jageshar (1923) - malum in se kidnap)
c. Ong Choon (1938) - private defence 2. Malum Prohibita: the act or conduct
v accident which requires a law to say that
d. Kong Poh Ing (1977) such action is prohibited (failure to
wear seatbelt or helmet)
Case: R v Ong Choon - The accused was in fight with the
deceased, and the deceased
accidentally stabbed himself
- Although the act was in mala in se,
iit was established that the accused
was doing a lawful act as he was
trying to stop the fight with the
deceased
- In doing so, the deceased
accidentally stabbed himself
- Although the fight itself was
unlawful, the accident occurred
while the appellant was doing a
lawful act of trying to release himself
so as to stop the fighting
- The defence of accident was
applicable to him

Case: Kong Poh Ing v PP - The accused told her boyfriend that
she wanted to commit suicide as he
had betrayed her
- When she showed him the knife, he
hugged her and told her not to die
- He then attempted to wrench the
knife from her
- They fell and he was accidently
stabbed in the stomach

The Federal Court:

- Allowed the appeal against the
conviction for murder on the ground
that the defence of accident was not
adequately put to the assessors
- When she intervened she was not in
the act of committing suicide but had
only expressed an intention to so do
- If she had done an act towards
killing herself. The defence of
accident will not be applicable as
she was doing an unlawful act
(attempting to commit suicide under
section 309 of penal code)
- Guilty

4. Lawful manner Driving not under the influence of alcohol or

drugs

5. Lawful means - Licensed gun or weapon

- The requirement that the accused’s
act must be lawful

Case: Jageshar v King Emperor

- The accused was beating a man

 with his fist when the latter’s wife
appeared to inquire what was
happening
- The wife was carrying a baby on her
shoulder
- She tried to interfere
- The accused tried to hit her but the
blows hit the baby and the baby died
two days later
- The accused tried to bring in the
defence of accident

The court:

- Although the baby was hit by

accident, section 80 did not cover
the accused’s act as must as he
was not doing something that was
lawful
- The initial principal acts were
already unlawful for being mala in se
- An act which was initially
unjustifiable cannot later become
justifiable on the grounds of
accident/misfortune
- Beating another person with bare
hands during fight is not doing a
lawful act

Case: State Government of Madya

Pradesh v Rangswami

- The respondent fired at the

deceased under an impression that
it was the hyena(dubuk) which had
been seen in the vicinity of the
villages causing injuries and deaths
to small children
- People become afraid and they
complain to the authorities
- The gov cakap waktu menembak tu
tengah hujan, so penglihatan sangat
terbatas that dia tak expect pun ada
manusia dekat situ sebab dia aim
dubuk and dia tembak sebab dia
nampak figure warna coklat
- The deceased wearing a gunny bad
at that time
- The respondent was acquitted in
respect of the charge under section
304A of IPC
6. Proper Care & Caution Section 52 of Penal Code:

Case: King Emperor v Timmappa “Nothing is said to be done or believed in

good faith which is done or believed without
- There exist absolute proper care due care and attention”
and caution taken by the accused
- Same goes with the case of Basant Misra J:
Singh v Emperor - Reasonable
- The amount of care & caution must
be prudent that reasonable man
would consider it to be adequate to
the case (reasonable man test)

Case: Hori Lal v State

- A free fight occurred in the house of
the accused
- He aimed a lathi blow on “N” who
had caused injury to his father and
suddenly the deceased came in
between them to pacify the parties
- The lathi blow which was aimed at
“N” landed on the head of the
deceased causing fatal injury
- It was held that the accused was
exercising the right of private
defence and was doing a lawful act
in a lawful manner
- The court held that the fact did not
disclose the absence of proper care
and caution

Case: Bhupendrasinha
- The accused and the deceased
were police constable and
head-constable
- They were posted to protect a dam
site (tapak empangan)
- The accused killed his colleagues in
the night by firing at a close range
without knowing the identity of this
target
- The accused pleaded defence of
accident
- The trial court convicted him under
section 302

Supreme Court
- The conviction under the said
section and held that the accused
acted without proper care and
caution and that the act of the
accused could not come under an
accident or misfortune or it was not
a lawful act