Introduction:
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 entails different kinds of crimes, their nature, scope and punishment thereof. The Indian Penal Code was drafted by Thomas Babington Macaulay in 1837; he was also the Chairman of the First Law Commission. The code is influence by British Law however; various elements have also been derive from the Napoleonic Code (1804) and also from Edward Livingston’s Louisiana Civil Code (1825).
Chapter XVI of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with offences affecting the human body. The act of causing death by negligence is covered under Section 304A of the Code. This section insert in the Indian Penal Code through the Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Act, 1870; Section 12 of the Amendment Act contained the provisions relating to the insertion of Section 304A.
In this article, I’ll be mentioning about the various aspects of the section. Its landmark cases bringing about changes in the interpretation of the section.
About Section 304A IPC
Section 304A clearly states that “Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act; not amounting to culpable homicide; shall be punish with imprisonment of either description for a term; which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”
This section does not define any new offence it rather covers an offence falling outside the purview of sections 299 (Culpable Homicide) and 300 (Murder) of IPC. Because in cases of offences involving Section 299 or Section 300; there is an intention or knowledge of the act committed. However in the case of Death by Negligence the element of knowledge or intention is absent, i.e. This section recognizes the criminality of an act even in the absence of mens rea.
In the case of Shankar Narayan Bhandolkar v. State of Maharashtra,[1] the court clearly stated that to be encompassed the protection under Section 304-A there should be neither intention nor knowledge to cause death. When any of the two elements is present, Section 304-A has no application.
Thus, the essentials of Section 304-A are:
- Accused causes death of a person
- Death is cause by any rash or negligent act
- The act committed should not amount to culpable homicide.
Rash and Negligent Act
Section 304-A states the causing of death of any person by any “rash or negligent act”. There is a difference between “Rash Act” and “Negligent Act”. By Rash Act we mean some act which is cause restlessly and by a Negligent act. We mean a breach of duty in doing something or omitting to do something; which a reasonable man would have done.
However, the Supreme Court differentiates between Rash and Negligent Act in the context of this section in the landmark case of Cherubin Gregory v. State of Bihar[2]. Here, in this case, the appellant was charge under Section 304A for causing the death of a woman who live near his home. The deceased was using the latrine of the appellant for a few weeks; the appellant gave oral warnings to the deceased about not using the latrine. However, the oral warnings were in vain and they didn’t stop the lady from using his latrine. Finding his oral warnings to be insufficient he put a live naked wire on the path of the latrine. The lady went to the latrine and was electrocute leading to her death.
The Supreme Court held that the lady being a trespasser does not entitle the owner of the land. It is to inflict personal injury on the trespasser. The same principle also applies to the fact that the owner inflicted the injury by indirect ways of doing something. The owner should know that it may cause a serious injury to the trespasser. Here the Apex Court also held that in this case, the appellant would be liable for his rash act (as the act was considered to be reckless). The accused was liable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code.
Further, in the case of JugganKhan v. State of Madhya Pradesh,[3] the Supreme Court discussed the facts of the case where a Homeopathic doctor administered a drug to a patient who was suffering from guinea worm with a drug which was poisonous and simultaneously caused the death of the patient. The doctor had administered the medicine to the patient without studying its effects. The Court held the accused guilty under section 304A. As the negligence of the accused was evident through his act of administering the drug without studying the effect of such administration.
In the case of Bhalachandra Waman Pathe v. State of Maharashtra,[4] the court differentiated rash and negligent act very closely. Here the appellant charge under section 304A of IPC. It was for causing the death of a 21-year-old lady by driving her car rashly and negligently. Here the appellant questioned her conviction which was suo motu by the High Court. In this case, two sisters were crossing the road through the pedestrian crossing; when the car of the appellant knocked them down. As a result which the elder sister suffered a brain haemorrhage and she died.
The question that was ask by the Court was regarding the rash and negligent driving of the car by the appellant. Here, the High Court found that there was negligence on the part of the appellant as his conduct was not as reasonable or prudent a man would have. It was that the appellant fail to discharge the duty impose by law on him. It is to take care of the pedestrian in pedestrian crossings while driving.
However, the appellant was not to drive his car rashly. It is because the prescribe limit of the speed of that in the street was 35 km/hr. Here, in this case, the car to be drive within the speed prescribe by law. Also, the time at which accident took place was in the morning and as a result, the driver does not need to take extra care regarding the speed of the car.
An important thing to be noted here is the rash or negligent act must be the immediate cause of death and not a remote cause. To impose criminal liability under section 304A of IPC it is necessary that the death should have been the direct result of the rash and negligent act of the accused, and that act must be proximate and efficient cause without the intervention of another’s negligence.
Absence of Mens Rea or Intentional Violence
As mentioned earlier Section 304A of IPC recognises the criminality of the action even though there is no presence of mens rea or the intention to commit the crime. This makes it different from the definition of culpable homicide or murder under IPC. This essential of the Section is define by the court in the famous case of Sarabjeet Singh and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh[5], here the court questioned the intention of a person during the commission of a crime. In this case, the appellant Sarabjeet Singh along with 17 other people were put on trial for having commit the crime of murder of an infant Radhey Shyam. The accuse Sarabjeet Singh has lift the child and had throw him on the ground. It was later find that the act result in the death of the child.
However, it was found that the accuse had no intention to kill the child Radhey Shyam. Now the next question that arose was about the knowledge of the consequences of the act. It was held that the accused might not have the intention to commit the wrong. But he certainly know that if a child is throw from a height on the ground he will ultimately die.
Now the Court say that he would be liable under Section 299 which states of Culpable Homicide. However, the counsel from the appellant side argue that it was a rash act from the accused. Though it had the knowledge and thus it must come under the purview of Section 304A. The Court says that though it was a rash act; the accused had knowledge of the consequences of his action. Thus he shall be liable under the second part of Section 304 which speaks of adequate knowledge during a crime without any regard to the intention in causing the violence.
In Arun v. State of Madhya Pradesh[6], the Madhya Pradesh High Court observed the difference between the offence of culpable homicide as defined under Section 299 and death caused due to rash or negligent act as defined under Section 304A of IPC.
The court observed that one of the essentials in culpable homicide is the presence of an intention to cause injury along with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death. However in case of an offence committed under Section 304A of the IPC the death should have been caused without any intention of committing the offence and also without any knowledge of the consequences of the same[7].
Punishment
As mentioned earlier, even though mens rea is not present this section recognises the criminality of an offence. The section states that whoever causes the death of another person by doing any rash or negligent act which does not amount to culpable homicide, shall be punish with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both. The offence committed under this section is cognizable, bailable and a non-compoundable offence.
Conclusion
This section deals with the death caused by rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide and it helps distinguish between offences committed with an intention and also with the knowledge of the consequence of the said offence. This section needs to have stringent punishment and this was called for by the Supreme Court in a case[8] in 2016.
References:
[1] AIR 2004 SC 1966: 2004 Cr LJ 1778
[2] See, AIR 1964 SC 205
[3] AIR 1965 SC 831
[4] Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 1965
[5] AIR 1983 SC 529
[6] Cr. R. No. 4869/2018
[7] Arun v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Cr. R. No. 4869/2018
[8] https://www.financialexpress.com/india-news/death-by-negligence-supreme-court-for-stringent-punishment-under-section-304/358863/
0 Comments