The accused was beating a person with fists. The wife of the man being beaten intervened with her baby in arms with a view to rescuing her husband. The accused gave a fist blow to her also, which struck the baby, as a result of which it died. On being prosecuted, the accused pleads accident. Decide.

Question: The accused was beating a person with fists. The wife of the man being beaten intervened with her baby in arms with a view to rescuing her husband. The accused gave a fist blow to her also, which struck the baby, as a result of which it died. On being prosecuted, the accused pleads accident. Decide. [Jharkhand. C.J. 2002]

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [The accused was beating a person with fists. The wife of the man being beaten intervened with her baby in arms with a view to rescuing her husband. The accused gave a fist blow to her also, which struck the baby, as a result of which it died. On being prosecuted, the accused pleads accident. Decide.]

Answer

Section 80 of IPC on which the present case is based, states that in order to take the defence of section 80 (accidental act), it is necessary that the act of the accused must have been lawful, and must have been done in a lawful manner and by lawful means.

The essential ingredients for an act or misfortune to operate as a mitigating factor are:

• The act was a pure accident or misfortune,
• It was not caused by any criminal intention or knowledge,
• It was the consequence of lawful actions carried out by lawful means,
• It was carried out with due care and caution

In the given case, the act of beating a man with fists is not lawful and hence the accused cannot plead the defence of accidental act under section 80 of the code. In order to take advantage of the protection provided for in section 80, an act should be an accident, done without intention, and such an act should also be a lawful act, done by lawful means. For example, if a blow is unlawfully targeted at an individual and it strikes another and kills him, the accused cannot be protected under section 80.

The facts of the given case are based on Chature Nath’s case, In this case, the Bombay High Court held that although the child was hit by the accused by accident, yet the accused was not entitled to take the benefit of section 80 in as much a the act of the accused i.e. beating was not lawful. Thus, the accused cannot plead accident as a defence for his unlawful act in the present case as well.

---

Important Mains/Long Questions for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

1. IPC Mains Questions Series Part I: Important Questions
2. IPC Mains Questions Series Part II: Important Questions
3. IPC Mains Questions Series Part III: Important Questions
4. IPC Mains Questions Series Part IV: Important Questions
5. IPC Mains Questions Series Part V: Important Questions
6. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VI: Important Questions
7. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VII: Important Questions
8. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VIII: Important Questions
9. IPC Mains Questions Series Part IX: Important Questions
10. IPC Mains Questions Series Part X: Important Questions