0
0
Read Time:12 Minute, 32 Second
Author: Ananya Ghosh, the author is currently a student in her second year in the LLB programme at NLSIU, Bangalore.
Criminal Liability Under the Indian Penal Code, 1860:
The Indian Penal Code,1860 provides an extensive list defining various crimes along with the punishments that each crime calls for. A crime can be defined as any conduct which jeopardizes the safety of the people in a society and hence, needs to be effectively curtailed.1 So, criminal liability would naturally be the responsibility or blame that falls on someone due to their conduct falling within definitions of criminal act. The fundamental principle of criminal liability is that there must be a wrongful act- actus reus combined with a wrongful intention- mens rea2. This principle is embodied in the maxim- ‘ actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea’, which means that ‘an act does not make one guilty unless the mind is also equally blameworthy.’3
While pining criminal liability on someone, it needs to be proven that the act is the most proximate cause of the harm or injury. The ‘causal act’ must be a conscious movement, resulting from the operation of will. Any movement of body, not in consequence of will, is not a voluntary act and therefore the person responsible for the act cannot be said to have had a guilty mind or mens rea while performing the act or causing the harm. 4Mens rea covers a wide range of mental states and conditions such as intention, knowledge, negligence and voluntariness.5 Each of these mental conditions which are the sine qua non for criminal acts6 are based on the underlying ability to gauge the probable consequences of one’s acts; a guilty mind is the very essence of a crime.
Chapter IV of the Indian Penal Code,1860 lists out general exceptions to criminal liability. This chapter lists out the instances in which, even though the outcome is the result of the actions of the accused, they are saved from being held criminally liable for their actions as the actions were not accompanied by an appropriate guilty state of mind. Our focus for the purpose of this article would be on s.80 of this chapter, dealing with accidents and to analyze its role in addressing unintentional harm.
Section 80 IPC, 1860: 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.
Breaking down this section, it means that an accident or misfortune will operate as an exonerating factor if:7
-
It is a mere accident or
-
Not accompanied by any criminal intention or knowledge
-
Is the outcome of a lawful act done in a lawful
-
Is done with proper care and
The word ‘accident’ is derived from the Latin word accidere, signifying ‘fall upon, befall, happen, chance’. The idea of something fortuitous and unexpected is involved in the word ‘accident’.8 This section recognizes that there are instances where the consequences of one’s actions are completely out of their control or their future perception. In such cases, holding them accountable would be an error in the position of law and justice. So, it lays down conditions fulfilling which, one would be exempted from being held criminally liable for the consequences of their actions. The conditions guarantee that to seek the defence of this section, one has to be completely free from the clutches of any kind of guilty state of mind.
Development of the Position of Law Relating to Section 80:
Section 80 of IPC has been used by our courts in a series of milestone judgments to address unintentional harm. This section will look at some of those judgments and the application of section 80 in those cases by the courts.
State of Government v Rangaswamy9– The respondents were playing cards on a cloudy day. One of the respondents went out to relieve himself. When he returned, he reported to the others that the hyena which had been frequenting the area for quite some time had come back and pointed out to a moving object. They believed it. Rangaswamy, the respondent then shot at the object but it gave out a human cry.
The court took into account the conditions surrounding the incident. It was drizzling, the sky was overcast with clouds and visibility was poor. There were bushes around the area and the deceased was wearing a gunny bag. Further, the witnesses mentioned that entry into the area was not permissible without a pass and the pass issued to the victim had been terminated earlier. Also, even though the respondents were certain that the moving object was a wild animal, they had not fired immediately. Instead, they had informed their superiors and had waited for their confirmation and only on being fully satisfied, had fired the shot. The facts point out that it was neither the intention of the respondents to shoot the deceased nor did they have any knowledge that they might shoot a person instead, as the area in question was not where the presence of a human can be reasonably associated. They thought that they were shooting a wild animal, which was within their legal ambit and had taken the amount of care that can be expected of a prudent person.
On the facts satisfying every precondition for s.80 to apply, it was held that it was an accident and the respondent was protected under the given section.
Tunda v Rex10– Appellant Tunda and the deceased Munshi were friends and fond of wrestling. They participated in a wrestling match and Munshi suffered an injury which resulted in his death. Tunda was charged under s.304A IPC. The High Court held that when both the parties agreed to wrestle with each other, there was an implied consent on part of each to suffer accidental injuries. In the absence of any foul play, it was held that the act was accidental and unintentional. The act was lawful and unless proven that it was done in an unlawful manner, s.80 would apply.
This judgment is of significance not just because it does not allow the law to punish someone for an act which was lawful and unintentional but also because it does not allow a party to take advantage of a position that they had themselves bestowed upon the other. When one consents to take part in an action
fully aware of its risks, they cannot cry foul when they suffer those consequences, in the absence of any foul play from the opponent.
Bhupendra Singh Chaudasma v State of Gujarat11– A constable shot at his superior during dusk on a cloudy day. Appellant adopted the defence that he was on patrol duty when he saw a flame near the valve tower and saw somebody moving. He suspected that some miscreant was about to commit mischief and shouted at him several times. On not receiving a reply, open fired at him in discharge of his duties. The post mortem of the wound on the deceased showed blackening around the wound which proves that the shot was fired from a close range. Witnesses had also pointed out that there was some enmity between the appellant and the deceased. The court refused to entertain a plea under s.80 and held that a shot at close range without knowing the identity of the object smacks of utter death of any care and caution.
The judgment lays down that one cannot claim immunity from the consequences of their actions, if initially they had not applied proper care in performing such acts.
Mahadev v State of Madhya Pradesh12– the respondents were working on a field. The applicant came from the side of village, driving a tractor and crushed one of them. The other suffered minor injuries. The driver was booked under s. 304 A IPC for driving rashly and negligently. However, it was found on the testimony of the mechanic that the steering wheel of the tractor had come out, which made the applicant lose control over the tractor. Therefore, the court held the incident to be an accident under s.80.
This judgment highlights the principle that a person cannot be punished for the consequences that were beyond his control and could not have been averted by him.
State of Orissa v Khora Ghasi13– the deceased had entered the field of the accused to commit theft. The accused on hearing some sound coming out of the field thought that a bear had entered into the field, shot at the deceased with an arrow. The deceased died after two hours. The accused was charged under
s.302. his defence was that it was a dark night, drizzling and low visibility. The deceased had covered himself with a black blanket. On top of that, the area is covered by forests on all sides and is infested with wild animals. At midnight, it was not reasonably expected that a man would enter such a field infested with wild animals. The court took into account his claim and held that he had shot the arrow with a bona fide belief that the sound producing object was a bear and so, his case falls within the exception of either s.79 or s.80.
This judgment again highlights how the courts have used the defence of s.80 in favour of an accused who had caused a harm unintentionally. The facts of the situation were such that it was neither within his knowledge that such an incident might occur nor within his foreseeability. In such a case, to hold someone responsible for their bona fide mistake would have been an injustice to the process of law. This was averted by the judgment by acquitting him of his charges.
Jageshwar v Emperor14– The appellant was beating one Sheopal Ahir with his fists, when Sheopal’s wife interfered while carrying her two months old baby on her shoulder. When the appellant tried to hit at the woman, his blow struck the child on the head, as a result of which he died after two days. The appellant claimed immunity under s.80 stating that it was not his intention to hit the child. He also claimed that he had not contemplated that a single blow would be sufficient to kill the woman and so,
he cannot be convicted under s.301 of the IPC. It was held that though the blow to the child was not intentional and also would not have been sufficient to cause the death of the woman for whom it was intended, the actions of the appellant were themselves illegal. His beating up Sheopal Ahir was not a lawful act and so, the preconditions for the application of s.80 are not fulfilled and he cannot be exempted from being convicted under s.301.
The underlining principle behind s.80 is that one cannot claim immunity from the consequences of one’s illegal actions, even though the ensuing result was not the one that was intended. If one engages in unlawful actions, one must be ready to face the consequences arising out of them, either directly or tangentially.
Subjectivity of Standard of Care
Section 80 IPC however, does not take into account the fact that the standards of care are not objective but instead quite flexible.15 More often than not, a moral judgment is made about whether the accused owed any duty of care to the victim and this consideration then plays a role in determining whether he would be excused under the section.16 This becomes a more difficult question in activities such as sports, where when one participant injures the other, it might be difficult to decide whether the injury can be attributed to negligence or not. In most cases, the court has been not willing to impose any liability on the opponent stating a mere error of judgment or lapse of skill.17 Such varying standards of care can actually act in support of the defendant, in relieving himself of the consequences of his actions. Standards are also varied for public authorities and on consideration of the seriousness of the harm caused.18
If we are to consider the judgments discussed above, in the case of Tunda v Rex,19 the court paid much attention to whether there was any foul play on part of the accused and also to the fact that the deceased had accepted the risks himself. Their position ignored the fact that even though the players had agreed to the risks of the game, the accused did owe a certain amount of care to his opponent. The court did not go into whether that standard of care had been breached or not or whether the accident could have been averted by caution from the accused’s side. In Mahadev v State20 of Madhya Pradesh, the court relied their decision on the fact that the coming out of the steering wheel had caused the accused to lose control over the tractor. What had not been considered is that being the driver of a tractor, is it not the duty of the driver to make sure that every part of their vehicle is in perfect working condition? It might be that the mechanical mishap might have not been foreseeable but at least the suspicion should have been entertained by the court.
What this whole discussion points out is that s.80 acts as a shield against convicting someone who has no state of a guilty mind and the harm caused by whom is completely unintentional. It does not justify the harm caused but just exempts the perpetrator from blame.21 It is based on the moral principle that no one should be punished for something over which they had no control. But, while the section does cover every aspect of a guilty mind that is needed to prove criminal liability, it does not consider that the standards of mental state are not objective and can be varied to serve the defendant.22
Flexibility of Standards: A Boon Rather Than a Bane
While the above discussion does warrant some attention, what has to be borne in mind is that criminal acts vary in their factual situations so much that having an objective standard of care would turn out to be detrimental rather than beneficial. It would tie the hands of the judges in paying attention to the ancillary points which might be necessary to determine the standard of care in a particular case. Such formalism is not conducive to the process of justice. So, whatever may be the apprehensions regarding the detrimental use of the exception under s. 80, it still stands as expansive and allows the needed discretion to the judges to decide liability on the merits of each case and save the accused when needed from being convicted for causing any harm not intended.
Happy
0 %
Sad
0 %
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
0 %
Surprise
0 %
