2. Lawful Act in a Lawful Manner: The person must be performing a lawful act in a manner that complies with legal norms, and the tools or methods used must be legal.

3. Proper Care and Caution: Due care must be exercised, meaning that reasonable steps are taken to prevent harm.

4. Absence of Criminal Intention or Knowledge: The person should have no intent or knowledge that their actions could result in harm.

Example:

A tries to pickpocket B. B has a loaded pistol in his pocket, and A accidentally triggers it, causing B’s death. Since A did not intend to cause harm, this is classified as accidental death, not culpable homicide.

Implied Consent:

In the case of Tunda vs. Rex (AIR 1950 All 95), two friends who enjoyed wrestling were engaged in a wrestling match, during which one sustained fatal injury. The court held that there was an implied consent between them to suffer potential injuries while wrestling. Since there was no foul play, the injury was deemed accidental and the act unintentional. This decision fell within Sections 80 and 87 of IPC, now Sections 18 and 25 of BNS.

Section 19 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (formerly IPC Section 81): Act likely to cause harm, but done without criminal intent, and to prevent other harm.

Section 19 of BNS (corresponding to Section 81 of IPC) incorporates the doctrine of necessity, allowing individuals to avoid criminal liability for causing harm if the act was done in good faith to prevent a greater harm. This principle is based on the Latin maxim Quod necessitas non habet legem, which means "necessity knows no law." For this defence to be valid, the act must have been done without any criminal intent and with the purpose of preventing more significant harm.

Key Elements:

1. Prevention of Greater Harm: The act must have been committed to avoid a more serious harm.

2. Justification of the Risk: The harm to be prevented must be significant enough to justify the risk of causing other harm.

3. Good Faith and Absence of Criminal Intention: The act must be carried out in good faith, without intending to cause harm, and with the belief that it was necessary to prevent the greater danger.

Necessity Explained:

In the case of R. vs. Dudley and Stephens (1884), two seamen and a boy were stranded at sea without food or water. After 20 days, the seamen decided to kill the boy for survival. The court held that self-preservation could not justify the act of killing, and that the doctrine of necessity is only applicable when a person has no other choice and must cause lesser harm to prevent greater harm. The judgment clarified that although preserving one’s life is important, there may be circumstances where sacrificing it is a higher duty.

No Defence for Absolute Offences:

In R. vs. Martin (1989), the defendant was charged for driving despite being disqualified. He claimed necessity as a defence, but the court ruled that necessity is not a defence in cases involving "absolute offences," where liability is imposed without regard to intent or harm caused. The court further established that the defence of necessity is available only if the individual is acting reasonably and proportionately to avoid imminent threats of death or serious injury.

This provision does not extend to cases where the offender deliberately causes harm, as in Dhania Daji vs. Emperor where a person placed poison in his toddy pots, fully aware that it might cause harm but intending to catch a thief. Since the act was premeditated, the court ruled that the defence of necessity did not apply.