Raju is cutting wood with an axe at a place where children are playing. The axe flies off and kills a nearby child. Is Raju entitled to protection under Section 80 of IPC?

Question: Raju is cutting wood with an axe at a place where children are playing. The axe flies off and kills a nearby child. Is Raju entitled to protection under Section 80 of IPC?

Find the question and answer of IPC only on Legal Bites. [Raju is cutting wood with an axe at a place where children are playing. The axe flies off and kills a nearby child. Is Raju entitled to protection under Section 80 of IPC?]

Answer

No, Raju is not entitled to receive the protection of defence of accident under section 80 of IPC. He has committed the offence of causing death by negligence.

Section 80 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with the defence of an Accident in doing a lawful act. The provision states that nothing is an offence that 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.

Thus, 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

Here, one of the most essential ingredients requires the perpetrator to exercise due care and action in order to get the protection of section 80. Not only should the accidental act be without any criminal intent and a lawful act, but it should also have been exercised with “proper care and caution.” What is required is not the utmost consideration, but adequate precaution that, in the circumstances of the case, a reasonable and prudent man would consider appropriate.

However, in the present case, Raju was performing his act of cutting wood with an axe at a place where children are playing is an act done in a rash and negligent manner. Hence he cannot take the defence of accident under Section 80 of IPC.

In Sita Ram v. State of Rajasthan [(1998) Cr LJ 287 (Raj)], the accused dug a spade into the ground. The deceased came to pick up the mud. The spade hit on the head of the deceased and he succumbed to the injuries. The defendant claimed it to be an accident.

The Rajasthan High Court held that the accused knew that the mud would be picked up by other workers. The accused was not careful and cautious and was negligent. Under section 304A, IPC, he was sentenced.

---

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