Section 300 - 'Accident'? Kya Bhai, Accident?

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the doctrine of accident in Section 300 IPC. So, it says the accused can only be considered guilty of culpable homicide if the incident was not an accident. But then, 'accident' is defined as a natural consequence of human action. Okay, got it. But what if the accused intended the consequence, but didn't plan it? Is that still an accident? And what about those who say the doctrine is just a cop-out to avoid applying the concept of intent? It's like, what's the logic behind calling a 'reckless' act as an accident? Anyone else feeling this way, or am I missing something?