Section 80: Error when doing a legal act. "Nothing done by accident, misfortune, or without criminal intent or knowledge in the performance of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with appropriate care and caution" is considered an offense. This section's protections will only come into play if the act is the consequence of an unfortunate event or accident. The root word "accidere," which means "fall upon, befall, happen, chance," is where the term "accident" originates. One of the fundamental requirements for an act to fall under the legal definition of "accident" is that it must not be the result of human error.

Accident and misfortune are not only the outcome of an unexpected or unforeseen event occurring; they also indicate that an unexpected or unintended conduct has caused harm to another else. Thus, this section covers injuries sustained during games and sports as well.

Accidents have long been acknowledged as a legitimate defense against criminal responsibility, provided that further requirements are met. Initially, the alleged act must be "without any criminal intention or knowledge." Second, the mishap ought to have happened when the person was "doing a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means." Thirdly, "proper care and caution" ought to have been used when doing the legal act. An act committed accidentally or via bad luck won't be considered offensive if these three requirements are met.

It is necessary to prove that the act was performed without "criminal intention or knowledge" in order for this clause to apply. To put it another way, there must be no mens rea, or guilty thinking. It goes without saying that an intentional or known act cannot be an accident.

For an act to qualify for protection under this clause, it must be an accident, performed without malicious intent, and recognized by law. This provision will not apply if an act is not lawful or is not performed in a lawful way by a legitimate means. As an illustration, the accused kicked a trespasser to get him to leave the property. The kick caused the trespasser to die. Because "a kick is not a justifiable mode of turning a man out of the house," the court judged him guilty. Not only should the accidental conduct have been lawful and committed without any criminal intent, but the lawful act itself should have been executed with appropriate care and prudence.

Some cases can be sited as Examples

1. The Allahabad High Court in Tunda v Rex (AIR 1950 ALL 95): This case dealt with two friends who were found of wrestling participated in wrestling match. One of them sustained injuries which resulted in a fracture. The other person was charged under section 304-A, IPC. The court held that when both agreed to wrestle with each other, there was an implied consent on the part of each to suffer accidental injuries. In the absence of any proof or foul play, it was held that the act was accidental and not intentional and the case falls completely within sections 80 and 87 of the IPC.
2. State of Karnataka v. Atmendra (AIR 1998 SC 1985): The deceased had been shot by the accused. The accused argued that the gun was accidentally struck by the reaper as it swung past the body. Nevertheless, the scene of the incident revealed no reaper. Moreover, the ballistic specialists' testimony excluded the possibility that the gunshot was fired from a close distance. Additionally, there was proof that the accused and the deceased disagreed. According to the Supreme Court, the behavior was deliberate and not coincidental. He received a life sentence after being found guilty under section 302.
3. State of Rajasthan v. Sita Ram (1998 CRILJ 287): The defendant was using a spade to dig up dirt. The dead person arrived to gather the mud. The dead died from his wounds after the spade struck him in the head. Despite the accused's argument of accident, the Rajasthan High Court ruled that the accused knew other laborers would come and gather dirt. The accused acted carelessly and without using the necessary caution. He was found guilty in accordance with IPC section 304-A.

Necessity as a General Exception
"Act likely to cause harm, but done without criminal intent, and to prevent other harm" is what Section 81 of the Indian Penal Code states.- If anything is done in good faith to prevent or avert further injury to people or property, without any criminal intention, even if it is done with knowledge that it is likely to cause harm, it does not constitute an offense. EXPLANATION: It is a question of fact in such a case whether the harm to be prevented or avoided was of such 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.

Example, 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 and property. Here, if it be found that the harm to be prevented was of such a nature and so imminent as to excuse A’s act. A is not guilty of the offence.

Necessity is meant by a situation where conduct promotes some value higher than the value of the literal compliance with the law. It is on the principle of expediency that the law has recognized necessity as an excuse in criminal cases. In other words, what necessity forces it justifies, namely quod necessitas, cogit defendit.

Section 81 stresses three conditions to claim exemptions from criminal responsibility, namely:

1. The act must have been committed in order to avoid other harm;
2. The harm to be avoided must be such as to justify the risk of doing an act likely to cause harm; and
3. The act must have been committed in good faith without any criminal intention to cause harm.

Similar sections 80 and 81 deal with accidents in the former case and inevitable accidents in the latter. The kind and scope of mens rea that are required by each of these parts change, nevertheless. Both the lack of criminal knowledge and intent are specified in Section 80.

But Section 81 stipulates the absence of criminal intention alone. Thus, the term ‘without criminal intention’ or ‘knowledge’ are present in section 80, whereas, the term used in section 81 is ‘without criminal intention’ alone. In fact, section 81 clearly contemplates a situation where the accused has knowledge that is likely to cause harm, but it is specifically stipulated that such knowledge shall not be held against him. Thus in certain situations even though the presence of knowledge is sufficient mens rea, in this section, knowledge alone will not be sufficient if there is absence of criminal intention. Knowledge has been described as awareness of consequences of the act. The demarcating line between knowledge and intention is no doubt thin, but it is not difficult to perceive that they connote different things.

This clause grants immunity from criminal culpability in cases where an offense is done in good faith, with no criminal purpose, to inflict harm, and if such an offense is committed with the intention of avoiding or preventing damage to other people or property. While this point might become relevant when evaluating an act's good faith, the harm created need not always be less than the harm avoided. According to the section's explanation, each situation must be evaluated on its own merits in order to establish if the risk involved should be excused or the harm caused justified.

It is extremely difficult to determine if the theory of necessity can be used as an excuse to kill another person. the common belief that a victim of murder cannot use necessity as a defense. But in an emergency, killing becomes far more challenging. Killing someone to protect oneself could seem like a necessary action. Even if self-defense might seem like a need. Self-defense and necessity are not the same, even if they may overlap.

Written By: Akanksha