Section 304A IPC – Rash And Negligent Act Causing Death
Section 304A is termed as if a person causes the death of another person by doing a negligent or rash act which does not amount to culpable homicide shall be punished with imprisonment for a term of a maximum of two years, or with a fine, or with both.
The word ‘negligence’ is termed as an act or omission that causes damage to the property of another person. By ‘rash act’ we mean any act which is done restlessly. By the term ‘negligent act’, we mean a breach of duty due to an omission to do something which a reasonable man would do.
Essential Elements Of A Negligent Act
There are four basic elements that a person has to fulfil in order to do a negligent act. These elements are as follows:
Duty
For committing a negligent act, there must be some duty on the part of the defendant. Here it is important to understand whether the defendant has taken legal duty of care towards the plaintiff.
Breach Of Duty
After fulfilling the first criteria, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant has breached the legal duty imposed on him/her. It talks about the breach of duty on the part of the defendant, which he/she is expected to do, as he/she has some legal duty towards the plaintiff.
The Action Of Causing Something
It means that the damage caused to the plaintiff is due to the act of the defendant. Here the defendant may do an act which is not expected from him/her, or the defendant may be negligent in not doing an act which was expected from him/her.
Damages
At last, what matters is there must be some damage/injury that is caused to the plaintiff, and this damage should be the direct consequence of the defendant’s act.
Facts Required To Invoke Section 304A
Thus, it’s clear that the facts which must be proved in order to invoke the applicability of this section are essentially threefold:
- Death of a human being;
- The accused caused the death;
- The death was caused by the doing of a rash and negligent act, though it did not amount to culpable homicide.
Difference Between Criminal Rashness And Criminal Negligence
| Concept | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Criminal Rashness | Criminal rashness is hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so and that it may cause injury, or with knowledge that injury will probably be caused. |
| Criminal Negligence | Criminal negligence is acting without the consciousness that the illegal and mischievous effect will follow but in circumstances which show that the actor has not exercised the caution incumbent upon him and that if he had, he would have had the consciousness. |
Rash Or Negligent Act Under Section 304A
- The rash or negligent act which is declared to be a crime is one not amounting to culpable homicide, and it must therefore be taken that intentionally or knowingly inflicted violence, directly and wilfully caused, is excluded.
- The ‘rash or negligent act’ referred to in this section means the act which is the immediate cause of death and not any act or omission which can at most be said to be a remote cause of death.
- If an act is intended to hurt and injure a specific person or object, the perpetrator of the act must be imputed with an intentional act done with consideration and cannot amount to a ‘rash’ and ‘negligent’ act.
Difference Between Rashness And Negligence
It is imperative to note that there is a difference between rashness and negligence.
| Rashness | Negligence |
|---|---|
| A rash act is primarily an overhasty act. | Negligence is a breach of duty caused by an omission to do something which a reasonable person, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do. |
Cherubin Gregory v. State of Bihar (1964)
The definition of a rash or negligent act can be understood through the famous case of Cherubin Gregory v. State of Bihar. In this case, the Supreme Court explained the distinction between rash and negligent acts.
Facts of the Case
In this case, the appellant was charged under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for causing the death of a woman who stayed near the house of the appellant.
The deceased had been using the latrine/toilet of the accused for about a week. The accused gave oral warnings to the deceased regarding the use of his latrine, but the deceased continued to use it.
As the accused found his oral warnings insufficient, he placed a naked copper wire carrying electricity on the passage leading to the latrine.
On the day of the incident, the woman went to the latrine of the appellant. There, she touched the fixed electric wire and died due to electrocution.
Issues Raised Before the Court
- Whether the accused could be held liable for the death of the deceased.
- Whether a landowner has the right to inflict injury upon a trespasser.
- Whether the act of placing an electrified wire amounted to a rash or negligent act under Section 304A IPC.
Observations of the Supreme Court
The Court held that the mere fact that a person entering the property is a trespasser does not entitle the owner of the land to inflict personal injury upon the trespasser.
The same principle also applies where the owner causes injury indirectly by doing an act that is likely to result in serious harm to the trespasser.
The owner should have knowledge that such an act may cause serious injury or death to another person.
Judgment and Ruling
The Apex Court held that the appellant was liable for his rash act, as the act was considered reckless in nature.
Accordingly, the accused was held liable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code.
Key Legal Principles
| Legal Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Rash Act | An act done recklessly without considering its dangerous consequences. |
| Negligent Act | An act done without proper care or caution expected under the circumstances. |
| Rights of Trespassers | A property owner cannot intentionally or indirectly cause serious injury to a trespasser. |
| Section 304A IPC | Deals with causing death by rash or negligent acts not amounting to culpable homicide. |
Sarabjeet Singh And Ors v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1983
In the very famous case of Sarabjeet Singh and Ors v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the intention of a person during the commission of a crime was questioned. Here the major question raised by the counsel of the accused was related to the intention of the person during the death of a person.
Facts of the Case
In this case, the appellant Sarabjeet Singh and 17 other people were put on trial for having committed the crime of murder of infant Radhey Shyam.
- The accused (Sarabjeet Singh) lifted the child and threw him on the ground.
- Later it was found that this resulted in the death of the child.
- It was found that there was no intention on the part of the accused towards the infant.
- It was also found that Sarabjeet has no grievances towards Radhey Shyam.
- Therefore, it was held that there is a lack of intention in this case.
Issue Before the Court
Now the next question which was put forward was about the knowledge of the wrong.
Here, in this case, the accused may not have intended to kill the infant, but he had all the knowledge that if the child were thrown from such a height, then the child would ultimately die.
Court Observation and Judgment
So the court held the accused liable under Section 299 as all the conditions under this section get fulfilled.
Now the counsel from the appellant side argued that this is the case of death by negligence and must come under Section 304A of the IPC.
He argued that this is because this case includes the rash act of the appellant, but as there is knowledge about the crime on the part of the accused, the court held that this case can’t come under Section 304A of IPC; rather, it will be covered by the second part of Section 304 (it talks about knowledge of the person during committing any crime).
Key Legal Principles
| Legal Provision | Explanation in This Case |
|---|---|
| Section 299 IPC | The accused had knowledge that throwing the child could result in death. |
| Section 304A IPC | The Court held that the case was not merely negligence or rashness. |
| Section 304 Part II IPC | Applied because the accused had knowledge of the likely consequences of the act. |
Conclusion
Now I like to end this article. I hope this one clears all your doubts regarding the terms of IPC, like negligence and rashness.
Both are being cleared with the help of case laws. Section 304-A was not to create a licence to kill, but in the present scenario, due to lack of evidence and at times due to some magical advocacy, one can avail illegitimate benefits of this section.
But such a situation is very much nominal and is rarely found.
It has been said that in cases falling under this section it is dangerous to attempt to distinguish between the approximate and ultimate causes of death.
But there is a negligible chance that the judiciary will get confused between Section 304-A and Sections 299 to 302 of the I.P.C.
Thus, it must be concluded that the said section doesn’t endow a “licence to kill” but is to protect the persons who had no intention to kill and due to an act of negligence did become guilty of a homicide.
