Accident: Accident Lawful Act in A Lawful Manner Proper Care and Caution

ACCIDENT deceased’s hand and as the result the
deceased inflicted injuries on his own neck

S.80 of PC and he died due to that.
Nothing is an offence which is done by Held : Although the fight itself was an
accident or misfortune, and without any unlawful act but the accident occurred while
criminal intention or knowledge, in the doing the appellant tried to release himself from
of a lawful act in a lawful manner, by lawful the fight which was a lawful act.
means, and with proper care and caution.
Distinction of offences :
Elements : - Mala in se : The act itself is in
1) The act was an accident nature/intrinsically offences
2) The act must be a lawful act done in a E.g: rape, theft, murder
lawful manner - Mala prohibita : The act becomes illegal
3) The act was done in proper care and when there is a prohibition imposed by the
caution authorities
State v Rangaswamy AIR

1) Accident The court also ruled that the accused could
- The act must be an accident or misfortune raised the defence of accident although the
without the intention of causing harm or fact that the possession of the gun was
knowledge that the act is likely to cause harm unlawful and constitutes and offence under
Arms Act but it does not affect his defence
Ratnam v R under accident.
To constitute a defence of accident, the act
must be unintentionally and a pure accident. - However, it has been observed that the
A dispute arose between the and the common law distinction between malum in se
deceased. The deceased called upon the (mala in se) and malum prohibita (malum
appellant to vacate the coolie lines. Then, prohibita) need to be applied with caution.
both of them went to the office and in the - Where the act is purely accident but it is
course of journey, the appellant stabbed the resulted from an act of malum prohibita, it is
deceased. The appellant was charged with stated that the illegality would not render the
murder. accidental act criminal.
During the trial, the appellant stated that he - The decision should depends on the harm
did not intentionally stab the deceased and resulting from the accident was the harm that
that the death was accidental. the statute intended to prevent.
His story was that he turned around with such - If it is the harm that the statute intended to
force that the knife accidentally hit the prevent and it naturally arose from the
deceased and that he had no intention of accident, the defence under Section 80
stabbing the deceased. should not be applicable.
Held : The conviction must be quashed. The
defence of accident was accepted and the - It does not cover the situation where the act
appellant was acquitted. itself is an unlawful act.
Jageshar v King Emperor
2) Lawful Act done in a Lawful Manner There was a fight between the accused’s
- The accident or misfortune must be a lawful husband and a woman carrying a baby. The
act in its nature and it is done in lawful woman interfered with the fight and
manner and by lawful means accidentally she hit the baby and as a result of
the injury the baby died.
R v Ong Choon Held : Although the injury resulted from an
The appellant appealed against the conviction accident, but the of beating a person itself
when he caused the death of the deceased was an unlawful act.
when he tried to make the deceased throw
away the knife during the fight. But when the 3) Proper care and caution
deceased refused, he tried to released the - In doing the act, it must be done with proper
care and caution.
- The standard of care and caution that is
expected from a person is based on what
would a prudent and ordinary man consider
adequate in the circumstance of the case.
Smith v Emperor
The accused person drove in a slow speed
and had entered a road which was under
repair and closed to traffic. He ran over the
two workers who slept on the road and their
body fully covered except their faces.
Held : It could not be expected that a person
should have looked out for persons who used
the road in abnormal use.
NECESSITY
S.81 of PC Gopal Naidu v Emperor
Nothing is an offence merely by reason of its The defence of necessity was available to a
being done with the knowledge that it is likely village magistrate who arrested a drunken
to cause harm, if it be done without any man whose conduct was grave danger to the
criminal intention to cause harm, and in good public as he was threatening to commit
faith for the purpose of preventing or assault.
avoiding other harm to person or property.
R v Dudley and Stephens
Elements : The two defendants and a 17 year old boy
1) Knows that the act is likely to cause harm were cast away in an open boat at sea
but done without criminal intention following a storm. The boat drifted in the
2) Good faith ocean and was considered to be more than
3) To prevent or avoid other harm to person 1000 miles from land. After 8 days without
or property food, the defendants killed the boy so that
- Where the act was done to avoid they could survive. The defendants ate him
consequences which could not otherwise be and drink his blood for the following 4 days
avoided and that no harm was done than was until rescue. They were charged with murder
reasonably necessary but it was argued that the defendants
- The harm inflicted must no be greater than believed that in the circumstances they would
the harm avoided die unless the boy was killed.
- It is permissible to cause harm in order to Held : The defence of necessity was not
avoid greater harm to person or property available as a defence to murder on these
facts. It is not possible to justify the killing of
1) Without criminal intention one individual in order to save the life of
- It is necessary to scrutinize the motive another on the basis that the killing is
behind the commission of the criminal act. necessary to do so.
- It is important because a person will not
commit an offence unless he has a strong United States v Holmes
motive to do so. (In cases where positive The accused with 8 other seaman and 32
evidence is clear and conclusive, then the passengers were in an overcrowded lifeboat.
element of motive is no longer important) Fearing that the boat would sink, he threw 16
- Before the defence under S.81 of PC can be passengers overboard.
used, the accused must be facing an incident Held : The accused was guilty as the case does
if imminent danger and it must be proved not become a case of necessity unless all
that his act was done without ‘criminal intent’ ordinary means of self preservation have
been exhausted. The circumstance is not so
PP v Ali bin Umar imminent as it is not fully sure that the boat
The court acquitted the accused for carrying would sink.
tin-ore in a local craft without the permission
of Director-General of Customs. They claimed
that their boat had a broken rudder forcing
them in distress to enter into Malaysian
waters. The offence is done to preserve the
lives of the crew during such distress. Any
reasonable person will act in the same way as
the respondents.
2) Good Faith - S.52 of PC

- Act done or believed in good faith which are
done with proper care and caution
3) To prevent or avoid other harm to person

or property

Accident: Accident Lawful Act in A Lawful Manner Proper Care and Caution

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Accident: Accident Lawful Act in A Lawful Manner Proper Care and Caution

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Accident: Accident Lawful Act in A Lawful Manner Proper Care and Caution

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ACCIDENT deceased’s hand and as the result the

deceased inflicted injuries on his own neck

State v Rangaswamy AIR

2) Good Faith - S.52 of PC

3) To prevent or avoid other harm to person

You might also like