Causing Death By Negligence Section- 304a, Indian Penal Code

Bare Reading of the section:

[304A. Causing death by negligence.--Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.]

STATE AMENDMENTS

Himachal Pradesh:

After Section 304 A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in its application to the State of Himachal Pradesh, the following section shall be added, namely: 

"304-AA. Causing death or injury by driving a public service vehicle while in a state of intoxication.--Whoever, while in a state of intoxication, drives or attempts to drive a public service vehicle and causes the death of any person not amounting to culpable homicide, or causes any bodily injury likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine, as if the act by which death or bodily injury is caused, is done with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death or cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.

Explanation: "Public service vehicle” means any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward, and includes a maxicab, a motorcab, contract carriage, and stage carriage".

[Vide Himachal Pradesh Act 19 of 1997, sec. 2].

In Section 304-AA of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in its application to the State of Himachal Pradesh, 

(a) For the words “a public service vehicle” wherever these occur, the words "any vehicle" shall be substituted; and

(b) The explanation shall be omitted.

[Vide Himachal Pradesh Act 7 of 2012, sec. 2].

1. Ins. by Act 27 of 1870, s. 12.

What is Section 304A of IPC?

Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with the offense of "causing death by negligence." It is a provision that is applicable when a person's negligent actions result in the death of another person. The section is as follows:

Section 304A: "Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."

In simple terms, if a person causes the death of another person due to a rash or negligent act, but the act does not amount to culpable homicide (which is a more severe form of causing death), they can be punished under Section 304A. The punishment can include imprisonment for up to two years, a fine, or both.

It's important to note that the key elements in such cases are negligence and the absence of an intention to cause death. The act leading to death must be a result of negligence or recklessness, but it shouldn't be a deliberate act to cause death.

Homicide i.e., the killing of a human being by a human being is divided into two parts:

1. Culpable Homicide either amounting to murder or not; and
2. Murder.

In these, either there is knowledge or intention, the only difference lies in gravity and intensity. But, for an offence to fall under section (304 A), intention and knowledge of causing death[i] should not be there. Section 304A was added in the year 1870 by the Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Act, 1870.

Example: Suppose two friends A and B were sitting in the room. Friend A tells B that he has bought a new revolver and B requests to show the same. In the course of showing the revolver to B, a bullet gets fired which leads to the death of B. In the present condition, B cannot be held liable under culpable Homicide or Murder as there is neither knowledge nor intention but B can be held liable under Section 304A.

Elements to be fulfilled:

To establish a negligent act in the context of criminal or civil law, four basic elements must typically be fulfilled. These elements help determine whether an individual's actions or conduct can be considered negligent. These elements may vary slightly depending on the legal system and jurisdiction, but generally, they include:

1. Duty of Care: The person accused of negligence must owe a legal duty of care to the person who suffered harm. Duty of care implies a legal obligation to act reasonably and prudently to prevent foreseeable harm to others. The duty of care can vary depending on the circumstances and the relationship between the parties involved.
2. Breach of Duty: The accused must have breached their duty of care, meaning they failed to act as a reasonably prudent person would in similar circumstances. This breach is essentially a failure to meet the standard of care expected in the given situation.
3. Causation: The accused's breach of duty must be the actual and proximate cause of the harm suffered by the plaintiff. In other words, there should be a direct connection between the breach of duty and the harm that occurred. The harm must not be too remote or unrelated to the negligent act.
4. Damages: The plaintiff must suffer actual damages or harm as a result of the accused's breach of duty. Without damages, there is no basis for a negligence claim. Damages can include physical injuries, emotional distress, property damage, financial loss, or any other harm recognized under the law.

In essence, negligence is established when a person owes a duty of care to another, breaches that duty, and as a direct result of the breach, causes harm or damages to the other person. These elements are crucial for determining whether a negligent act has occurred and can be the basis for legal liability or compensation. However, it's important to note that the specific requirements and standards for proving negligence may vary in different jurisdictions and legal contexts.

Essentials of Section 304A:

In the context of Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the essential elements that need to be fulfilled for a person to be convicted for causing death by negligence are as follows:

1. Death of a Person: The death of a person must have occurred. This section is concerned with cases where a person's negligent actions lead to the death of another individual.
2. Negligence or Rashness: The accused person must have caused the death by doing a negligent act or by acting rashly. A "rash or negligent act" refers to an action that is reckless or careless, not by a standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise.
3. Absence of Intention to Cause Death: It is essential to establish that the accused did not have the intention to cause death. This section deals with situations where the accused did not intend to cause the death of the victim.
4. Causation: There must be a direct link between the negligent act or rashness and the death of the victim. It must be proven that the death was a direct result of the accused person's negligent actions.
5. Punishment: If the above elements are proven, the person can be punished under this section. The punishment may include imprisonment of either description for a term that may extend to two years, or a fine, or both.

These are the essential elements of Section 304A of the IPC, and they need to be established by the prosecution to secure a conviction under this provision. This section deals specifically with deaths caused by negligence and not deaths resulting from intentional actions.

Rash or Negligent Act:

The present section talks of rash and negligent Act, and if the act does not fall within culpable homicide, it falls within the present provision. So before moving further, it is much important to understand the meaning of ‘rash’ and ‘negligent’ act. ‘Rash Act’ refers to an act done in hurry without proper thinking and action. ‘Negligent Act’ refers to a breach of duty imposed by law or omission of anything which a man of ordinary prudence should have done.

Criminal negligence was defined in the case of Bala Chandra v. State of Maharashtra, where it was defined as complete or partial negligence or failure in exercising reasonable and proper care and precaution in protecting any particular person or public in general, which would have been the essential duty of the accused keeping in mind the circumstances.

In Juggankhan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court held a medical practitioner accused under 304A for discharging a poisonous drug into the body of a patient suffering from guinea warm without even knowing the effect of same. The act of the accused was considered a ‘negligent act’. 

‘Rash Act’ can be understood clearly by the case Cherubin Gregory v. State of Bihar. In this case, a neighbor started using the washroom of the accused. The accused objected, but despite she carried on using his washroom. One day, the accused placed a naked wire carrying electricity at the entrance of the washroom, and the lady touched the wire and died. Here, the accused was held liable for a ‘rash act’.

The difference between rash and negligent acts was highlighted in the case of Bhalachandra Waman Pathe v. State of Maharashtra. The accused was driving his car at a normal speed hit two sisters on the pedestrian crossing and one of them died. In the present case, the act of the accused was considered a negligent act because he made a breach of duty as imposed upon him by law. It was his duty to take care of pedestrians while crossing the pedestrian crossing. His act was not considered a ‘rash act’ because the speed of the car was normal and it was morning time and extra care did not have to be taken.

Act not amounting to culpable homicide:

For an act to fall under this section there should be the absence of both knowledge and intention. In the case of Sarabjeet Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, the question was raised about the intention of the accused. The accused lifted a child and threw him on the ground which resulted in the death of the child. It was found that though his intention was not there, knowledge was there and he was not held liable under 304A (as prayed by his counsel, considering the act as a rash act) but he was held liable under 304 (Part II).

Death must be the direct result:

For an act to fall under this section, the death must be caused as a direct result or in consequence of the act of the accused. The principle of causa causes i.e., immediate cause or last link of the chain applies. 

In the case of State of Punjab v. Amrit Lal Jain: Amrit Lal Jain, the principal of a school was held liable under 304A because of the death of two teachers and sixteen students because of falling debris in adjacent Shyamlal’s building. It was held that the death was not a direct consequence as he had not done repairs for a long time and the building was in a bad condition. Also, Amrit Lal had removed some soil last year which led to the act. Since it was not a direct consequence, the principle of causa causans applied and the accused was acquitted.

In the case of Suleman Rehiman Mulani & Anr v. State of Maharashtra, a person driving a jeep hit a person. Then, he took him up, made him sit in the jeep, and took him to a doctor. He refused to give treatment and was directed to go to a different place. But the accused took him somewhere else and the person died. It was found that though the accused was negligent as he had a learning license and was driving without a personal, it was held that hitting by the vehicle of the accused was not the direct consequence of the death of the person in question and hence, accused cannot be held liable under 304A.