NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

SESSION 2019-20

TRIMESTER VI
COURSE : BALLB II YEAR

CRIMINAL LAW- II PROJECT WORK (2.0)

TOPIC: RASH OR NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE (Section 304 A) INDIAN PENAL CODE

Analysis of Bombay HC decisions (2017-18)

Submitted to Submitted by

Prof. Divya Salim Anushri Bhalavi

2018(BALLB)53

1
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the project has been prepared and submitted by Anushri Bhalavi, pursuing
her B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) at National Law Institute University, Bhopal. This is in the fulfilment of
the Criminal Law II course. This is also to certify that this is her original project work and this
has not been submitted to any other university.

Date: 10th July, 2020

Signature of student: …………………………

Signature of professor: …………………………

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to thank my Criminal Law teacher, Professor Divya Salim for providing me with
the opportunity of working on this project. It was a great learning experience and it helped in
enhancing my research skills. Also, it helped me in widening my knowledge and analyzing
criminal cases. I would also like to thank the library ‘Gyanmandir’ for providing me resources
essential for completion of research.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION
 Acknowledgement
 Statement of the problem
 Objective
 Hypothesis
 Research questions
 Methodology
 Rash or negligent homicide (introduction)

2. CASE ANALYSIS
 Vimanjan Hanumanta Devarkonda vs The State Of Maharashtra, 2017

 Sanjay Bhavrao vs The State Of Maharashtra, 2018

 Critical analysis (of both the cases)

3. CONCLUSION

4. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Statement of Problem

S.304A. IPC deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder with a mention
of death caused by rash or negligence. This project focuses the legal interpretation of
the said section on the cases by the Bombay HC.

Object
 To understand the difference between rash or negligent death and a murder.
 To understand the distinction between criminal recklessness and criminal
negligence.
 To find out how s.304 is different from s.304A.

Hypothesis
There has been a change regarding the interpretation of the S.304 IPC.

Research questions
The s.304 A. introduces rash or negligent death into IPC. Since mens rea (intention or
knowledge) is absent in negligence, how does it impose a criminal liability?

Methodology:

This project is based on doctrinal method.

INTRODUCTION

RASH OR NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE

S.304 A. covers cases wherein a person has caused the death of another by an act in a rash or
negligent manner but he did not have the intention to cause death and had no knowledge that
his actions will cause death.

INGREDIENTS
1. There has been a death of a person.
2. Such death was caused by the accused through a rash or negligent act.
3. The act does not amount to culpable homicide.

Difference between Ss. 304 and 304 A.

 S.304 A deals with homicidal death by rash or negligent act. It does not create a new
offence. It is directed against the offences outside the purview of Ss.299 and 300 and
covers those cases where the death has been caused without intention or knowledge.

 Even though the term rashness does contain an element of knowledge it is different
from that covered under S. 304 Part II.

 In S.304 Part II, the knowledge is about the consequences that would be naturally and
obviously follow from the nature of the act. But in rashness there is a knowledge that
the consequences may follow or are likely to follow but he is either indifferent to it or
hopes that the consequences would not follow.

To prove negligence under criminal law, prosecution must prove:

i) Existence of a duty
ii) A breach of duty causing death
iii) Breach of duty must be characterized as gross negligence.

Difference between negligence in Civil law and Criminal Law

 Existence of mens rea
 Presence of gross negligence – not an error of judgment.
CASE ANALYSIS

A. Vimanjan Hanumanta Devarkonda vs The State Of Maharashtra 1,

2017
Bench: A.M. Badar

MATERIAL FACTS

 The revision petitioner/accused had driven a Maruti van bearing No.MH-02-JA-228

in a rash and negligent manner and gave dash of that vehicle to Sugrabi and her son
Abdul Rafiq. The incident in question took place on 29/03/2000 at about 11.30 p.m.

 The incident, according to the prosecution case, took place near Halav bridge of Kurla
in front of Kudiya Badlu Chawl. The FIR came to be lodged by P.W.No.1 Yasmin
Abdul Khalid on 29/03/2000 itself.

 There were in all five persons in the vehicle. It is the case of prosecution that nobody
was apprehended on the spot of the incident. P.W.No.6 Raju - owner of the Maruti
van could not show that to whom the vehicle was entrusted by him.

 P.M.Report of deceased Sugrabi. From perusal of P.M.Report it is seen that she died
because of hemorrhagic shock due to polytrauma. A broken wooden cot was also
found on the spot. The spot of incident shown in the spot panchanama is a foot path
having 10 feet width. Width of the road abutting that foot path is stated to be 25 feet. 

 P.W.No.1 Yasmin Abdul Khalid is the first informant in the instant case. From her
cross-examination, it is brought on record that deceased Sugrabi and P.W.No.1 Abdul
Rafiq were sitting on the cot outside the house. Her cross-examination further shows
that she herself and her sister were standing at the door of their house. Size of her
house was just 10 feet x 10 feet as seen from the evidence of P.W.No.4 Ashok Sasane.

 From cross-examination of P.W.No.5 Salma - sister of P.W.No.1 Yasmin, it is

confirmed by the defence itself that P.W.No.1 Yasmin was with P.W.No.5 Salma at
the time of the incident in question and they both were standing at the door of their
house.

 From the cross-examination of P.W.No.2 Nasim Banu- another sister of P.W.No.1

Yasmin, it is brought on record by the defence that at the time of incident in question,
P.W.No.1 Yasmin was standing at the door of the house.

 This eye witness P.W.No.1 Yasmin has deposed that the Maruti van came from
eastern side by driving a distance of 30 to 35 feet and dashed to her mother Sugrabi
and brother Abdul Rafiq. She deposed that it was the revision petitioner/accused, who

1
Vimanjan Hanumanta Devarkonda vs The State Of Maharashtra AIR 2017
 was driving the van at the time of the incident and she identified him while giving her
statement before the Court.

 This witness has also deposed that it was the revision petitioner/accused who was
driving the Maruti van and who had run away from the spot. While in the witness box,
this witness identified the revision petitioner/ accused. Cross-examination of this
witness goes to show that the Maruti van involved in the accident crossed the road
and came on the foot path in order to give dash to the cot on which P.W.No.3 Abdul
Rafiq and his deceased mother Sugrabi were sitting.

CASE HISTORY

 The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 51st Court, Kurla in C.C.No.356/PW/2000

convicting him of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304-A of the Indian
Penal Code ("IPC" for the sake of brevity) and under Section 134(a) and (b) read
with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 ("M.V.Act" for the sake of brevity).

 The learned trial Magistrate upon conviction of the revision petitioner had sentenced
him to suffer simple imprisonment for six months apart from payment of fine of
Rs.1000/- in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month for the
offence punishable under Section 279 of the IPC. For the offence punishable
under Section 337 of the IPC, he is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six
months apart from payment of fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo further simple
imprisonment for one month. For the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the
IPC, he is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one year apart from payment
of fine of Rs.2000/-, in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month.
For the offence punishable under Section 134(a) and read with Section 187 of the
M.V.Act, he is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three months apart from
payment of fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for
fifteen days.

 The accused came to be sentenced as indicated in the opening paragraph of this

judgment. Feeling aggrieved by this conviction and sentence, the revision
petitioner/accused filed an appeal bearing No.882 of 2014 which came to be
dismissed on 03/01/2017 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai by the
impugned Judgment and Order.

LEGAL ISSUE

 S. 304 A provide for rash ‘or’ negligent homicide but in the present case, the court has
delivered the judgement considering the appellant’s act to be both rash and negligent.
Can an act be both rash and negligent or is it either rash or negligent?

ARGUMENTS
From the appellant’s side
1. The case was an accident case. The appellant has been accused of driving rashly and
negligently by the prosecution. However, the prosecution has just accused the
appellant for driving in a negligent manner but has failed to give a proper so as to
prove how the appellant was driving negligently. Prosecution did not describe the
negligent manner of appellant’s driving.

2. The courts below overlooked the fact that the owner of the vehicle did not clearly
state the name of the person to whom he had given his vehicle. He did not take the
appellant’s either. This could create a doubt that the appellant was the actual driver in
the night of the said incident.

3. The eye witnesses narrated the incidents to the court. none of them spoke about the
availability of the light source at the spot of the incident. If there had no light, the
accused could not be held guilty for either rash or negligent act since he could not see
properly. Thus, their accusation is not reliable.

Although the panchnama submitted by the concerned authorities state that there is a
street light near the spot of the incident but still there has been no clear mention of the
street light if it was lit or not.

4. There were 5 persons sitting inside the vehicle, none of them were frightened at the
time of incident or even before that. Thus, the driving of the appellant on being called
as rash and negligent is debatable. Had the driving been rash or negligent, then the
persons inside the vehicle with the appellants must have felt at least a little bit
frightened but no statements point that.

5. The eye witness PW1 also stated that she saw the driver(appellant) running away after
the incident. Also, she recognized the appellant as the driver before the court since it
was the same person running away after the incident. She also said that she had seen
the same person coming out from the driver’s seat and then ran away.

But the court did not pay attention to the fact that there were 5 persons in the vehicle
and after the incident it is natural to behave abnormal and get stressed. And in such
situation and circumstances one could possible run away from the spot, the person
running away could be possible one of those 5 persons, not clearly the driver only.
No other witnesses other than PW1 saw the appellant coming out from the driver’s
seat.

6. The post mortem report of the deceased showed that the deceased had died of
hemorrhagic shock due polytrauma. This indicates that the deceased did not die of the
injuries sustained of the incident but of the mental shock.
 7. The prosecution must establish the causa causans and not the causa sine qua non to
establish the guilt of the appellant. Since the shock is not the main factor behind the
death and in this way the accident is not the very direct cause.

From the respondent’s side

1. The appellant had been driving negligently and rashly, which caused the accident with
eventually resulted into the death someone. The eye witnesses stated that vehicle had
ran over the footpath and had hit the mother of the witness. This clearly shows that
the driving of the appellant was rash and negligent since the vehicle had ran over the
footpath.
2. Even though the owner of the vehicle did not mention the name to whom he had given
his vehicle but the eye witnesses have clearly stated that the appellant was the driver.
3. The panchnama describes the presence of the street light at the spot of the incident.
Even if the appellant pleads the unavailability of light, the vehicles light if switched
on reach the enough distance to see if someone is in front of the vehicle.
4. It is clearly a rash driving if the appellant had not turned on the lights of his vehicle
during the last night driving as the incident took place at around the mid night.
5. There were 5 persons inside the vehicle and theirs statements reveal that none of them
were frightened at the time of incident. But the statements did not show that the
vehicle was over speeding or the driver was drunk or unconscious enough to not
drive. But rather the court must look at the fact that the driver ran over the footpath, it
does not require any over speeding but a reckless or negligent driving.

6. The fact that one of the eye witnesses have seen the appellant coming out of the
driver’s seat cannot be overlooked. And it was the same person running away from
the said spot. He was surely the driver, the appellant, since all the other five who do
not hold any accountability of the accident were all there as they did not run away.
The clearly sensed the upcoming threat and thus ran away. Had he been clean, he
would not have run away and would have stayed there with his other 5 fellows.

7. It cannot be neglected that a death has been caused due to the negligent and rash act
or the appellant’s driving. The deceased dies due to the shock which was caused due
to the sudden threat over her life. Hence the appellant’s rash and negligent act is not a
cause sine qua non but actually causa causans.

JUDGEMENT

In the result, no infirmity can be found with the impugned Judgment and Order of the
appellate Court and as such, the order.

(i) The revision petition is dismissed.

(ii) Consequently, pending Criminal Application No.95 of 2017 for suspension of

sentence is also rejected.
(iii) Time of two weeks is granted to the revision petitioners to surrender.

B. Sanjay Bhavrao vs The State Of Maharasthra2

Bench: V. V. Kankanwadi

MATERIAL FACTS

 PSI Laxman Gangaram Kale was serving with Phulambri Police Station, Dist.
Aurangabad. A Motor Accident Case No. 8 of 2010 was registered with his Police
Station around 1 PM of 21.2.2010 and it was given to PSI Kale for enquiry. As per the
information that was received in respect of the accident that there was an accident
between the truck bearing No. MH 04 CU 5130 and pick up van No. MH-20 AT
3069.
 Devidas Dhangare had given telephonic information regarding the said accident. PSI
Kale and his team went to the spot and found that one pick up van of white colour was
standing facing Aurangabad in a damaged condition.
 Certain persons were found in injured condition near the said pick up van. Certain
persons were inside the pickup van. The truck was standing near a tree on the bandh
of Dhangare which was by the side of the road. The said accident had occurred at
Phulambri-Aurangabad Road. Ambulance was called and the injured persons were
sent to Civil Hospital, Aurangabad. In all 31 persons were sent who had sustained
injuries in the said accident. While undergoing treatment 8 persons expired.
 During the enquiry, it was found by him that the accident had taken place at about
12.45 PM. Many persons than the capacity of the pick up van were occupying and
pick up van was over taking the vehicle in front of his vehicle negligently and rashly
by ignoring the fact that a truck was coming from opposite direction. 
 Due to the negligence on the part of pick up van driver, the pick up van gave dash to
the truck. So also, it is stated that the truck driver also in order to not to give space for
over taking to the pick up van gave dash to the pick up van at the back side and
therefore, he lodged a report against both the drivers. Both the accused persons
pleaded not guilty.
 Statements of the prosecutor witnesses;
i. PW-1 Shivaji Sanase was unable to state how the accident took place.
ii. PW-2 Atmaram Shelke has stated that pick up van was over taking. He was sitting at
the back side.
2
Sanjay Bhavrao @ Baburao Sapkal vs The State Of Maharasthra AIR 2018
iii. PW-3 Sominath Endole stated that he had occupied back seat.
iv. PW-4 Ramdas Chandsurya has clearly stated that he was chatting with other relatives,
that means he was not paying attention to the road.
v. PW-5 Janabai Kale was also occupying back seat. In clear terms, she has stated that
she did not see how the accident took place.
 PW-6 Syed Bilal was the punch witness to the spot panchnama. He has turned hostile.
But, panchnama has been proved through PW-7 API Laxman Kale. The pick up van
was trying to overtake. The width of the road was 22 feet. There was safe distance.

CASE HISTORY
 Trial was conducted. After hearing both the sides, the learned Trial Court acquitted
the accused No. 2 and convicted accused No. 1.
The accused was found guilty by the TC under the following
i. Accused No. 1 had been held guilty of committing offence punishable under Section
279 of I. P. C. and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months
and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount he shall suffer
simple imprisonment for one month.
ii. Accused No. 1 was held guilty of offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of I. P.
C. and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay
fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount he shall suffer simple
imprisonment for six months.
iii. Accused No. 1 was further held guilty of offence punishable under Section 304-A of
I. P. C. and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay
fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default 5 CrApel 546-2016 of payment of fine amount he
shall suffer simple imprisonment for one month.
iv. Accused No. 1 has been further held guilty of offence punishable under Section 337
of I. P. C. and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to
pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine amount he shall suffer simple
imprisonment for one month.
v. Accused No. 1 has been further held guilty of offence punishable under Section 338
of I. P. C. and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to
pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount he shall suffer simple
imprisonment for one month.
vi. Accused No. 1 has been further held guilty of offence punishable under Section 427
of I. P. C. and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to
pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount he shall suffer simple
imprisonment for one month.
vii. Accused No. 1 has been further held guilty of offence punishable under Section
66 and 192-A of Motor Vehicle Act and has been sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-
and in default of payment of fine amount he shall suffer simple imprisonment for one
month. Hence, accused No. 1 has filed this appeal.

LEGAL ISSUES
  Res ispa locquitor states that the things speak for themselves. It is generally applied
while placing civil liability. Can res-ispa loquitor be applied on criminal cases as
well?
ARGUMENTS
From appellant’s side
1. Though certain passengers traveling from the pick up van were examined, but, the
seat which they were occupying was in such a position that they would not have
witnessed the accident. PW-1 was unable to state how the accident took place. PW-2
has stated that pick up van was over taking. But, he was sitting at the back side.
Therefore, it cannot be stated that he had knowledge of all the circumstances. PW-3
had also occupied back seat, PW-4 has clearly stated that he was chatting with other
relatives, that means he was not paying attention to the road. PW-5 was also
occupying back seat. In clear terms, she has stated that she did not see how the
accident took place. PW-6 was the punch witness to the spot panchnama. He has
turned hostile. But, panchnama has been proved through PW-7. The situation in the
spot panchnama would clearly give an indication that the appellant had tried to avoid
the accident. The pickup van was trying to overtake. The width of the road was 22
feet. There was safe distance. If at all there was an accident, it can be said to be the
error of judgment. It will not certainly amount to an offence under Section 304 Part II
of I. P. C. 

2. Reliance can be placed on the decision in Prabhakaran V/s State of Kerala3 wherein
it has been observed that Section 304 IPC. This Section applies to rash and negligent
acts and does not apply to cases where death has been voluntarily caused. This
Section obviously does not apply to the cases where there is an intention to cause
death or knowledge that the act will in all probability cause death. It only applies to
cases in which without any such intention or knowledge death is caused by what is
described as a rash and negligent act". In Alister Anthony Pareira V/s State of
Maharashtra4 the distinction has been made in respect of offences under Sections
304-A, 304 part I and II, 279 IPC. Following this, the learned Trial Court ought not to
have framed charge under Section 304 as well as for the Section 304 part II of I. P. C.
It has caused prejudice to the accused. Therefore, by any stretch of imagination the
accused ought not to have been held guilty for committing offence under Section
304 part II and ought not to have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for
10 years. At the most taking into consideration the fact that he was driving the pickup
van at the relevant time and in the said accident about 8 persons have been killed and
many persons have been injured. He would have been held guilty of committing
offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC. and maximum sentence could have
been imposed.

3. When the fact is certain that the accident had taken place, it was necessary for the
prosecution to prove that it had occurred due to the rashness and negligence on the

3
Prabhakaran V/s State of Kerala AIR 2007(14) SCC 269
4
Alister Anthony Pareira V/s State of Maharashtra AIR 2012(2) SCC 648
 part of accused No. 1. Now, these witnesses have stated as to what was the
approximate speed of the vehicle nor even a statement has been made that the speed
of their vehicle was high. No doubt, high speed of a vehicle is not the only criteria on
which the rashness and negligence would depend. In order to arrive at the conclusion
that the accident has taken place because of rashness and / or of negligence of a
particular driver, the prosecution has to prove the surrounding circumstances,
situation at the spot. 

4. PW-5 Janabai for the first time disclosed that the driver of their pick up van was over
taking another vehicle and at that time, truck came from the opposite direction. None
of the witnesses have stated that their vehicle was in the process of overtaking.

5. The spot which has been stated as "Ghatanasthal" i.e. the place of impact appears
almost in the middle of the road. Therefore, the situation in the spot panchnama is not
that much giving a clear picture as to exactly what was the spot of impact. The spot
panchnama shows that the spot was shown by one Devidas Dhangare. He is the
adjacent field owner, who had given the information regarding the accident. On
the basis of information supplied by him the spot of impact has been fixed by the
Police.

6. The evidence on record rules out the possibility that an action of the victim or some
third party could be the reason behind the event. Here, the same situation arises.
Further, it has been observed that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur has already been
abused and is equally applicable to the cases of accident and not merely to the civil
jurisprudence. Thus, these principles can equally be extended to criminal cases
provided the attendant circumstances and basic facts are proved. It may also be
noticed that either the accident must be proved by proper and cogent evidence or it
should be an admitted fact before this principle can be applied. This doctrine comes to
aid at subsequent stage where it is not clear as to how and due to whose negligence,
the accident occurred. The factum of accident having been established, the Court with
the aid of proper evidence may take assistance of attendant circumstances and apply
the doctrine of "res ipsa loquitur". 

7. Here also merely because the appellant had exceeded the limit of the passengers'
capacity in the pickup van, it cannot be said that he had the intention or even
knowledge that his said act would cause death of any passenger or passengers. 

From the respondent’s side

1. The pickup van was in fact not at all allowed for transportation of human beings.
More than 31 persons were injured who were sitting in the pickup van. This act itself
amounts to rashness and negligence on the part of the accused.
2. When he was taking more than 31 lives in his vehicle, he ought to have exercised all
the due care for their safe journey. He was trying to overtake the vehicle going ahead
of him and did not even notice that another vehicle is coming from the opposite
 direction. Negligent overtaking would definitely have given him knowledge that he
may commit accident in which the possibility of loss of life was there. Therefore, with
knowledge the act has been done and therefore, learned Trial Court has rightly
invoked Section 304 Part II IPC and he has been rightly convicted.
3. The appellant cannot deny that more than 30 persons were traveling from his pickup
van and 8 out of them have expired. The report of the RTO would show that there was
no mechanical defect in the pickup van. Therefore, utmost care was necessary for the
applicant No. 1 to drive the vehicle so that he can safely take the passengers at their
destination.
4. If we consider the situation shown in the spot panchnama, then it can be seen that
after the dash, the pickup van had gone ahead and stopped on the side margin. The
truck had gone at a distance of about 150 feet and left the road, went into the field of
one Ganpat towards the western side. There was damage to the extent of Rs. 30,000/-
to the pickup van. Therefore, the said situation at the spot was sufficient to infer the
principle of res ipsa loquitur.
5. Reliance can be placed on the decision in Ravi Kapoor V/s State of Rajasthan5,
wherein it has been held that the elements of doctrine of res ipsa loquitur - the event
would not have occurred but for someone's negligence. 

JUDGEMENT

ORDER

(i)The appeal is hereby partly allowed.

(ii)The conviction awarded to the appellant in Sessions Case No. 203 of 2010 by
Additional Sessions Judge-7 Aurangabad on 24.8.2016 is hereby set aside to the extent of
holding him guilty of committing offences punishable under Section 304 part II of Indian
Penal Code.

(iii)It is clarified that the conviction of the appellant in respect of offences punishable
under Sections 279, 304-A, 337, 338 and 427 of 18 CrApel 546-2016 I. P. C. as well
as Section 66 punishable under Section 192-A of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby
maintained.

5
Ravi Kapoor V/s State of Rajasthan AIR 2012 (8) SCJ 247 : AIR 2012 SC 2986)
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
In the given cases, the accused persons were being charged for rash or negligent homicide
that falls under the section 304 A. IPC. The analysis can be made on the legal issues framed
from the arguments and the judgement delivered by the concerned courts.
The former case that is from the Devarkonda vs. state of Maharashtra, it has been observed
that the court treated the terms ‘rash’ and ‘negligent’ as the synonyms of each other. At the
same time the court has used, ‘Rash and negligent act’ for the appellant’s act.
The landmark precedent, Balachandra Waman Pathe, 1968, has seemed to be overlooked by
the court. The case clearly gives a distinction between the two terms ‘Criminal Rash or
reckless’ and ‘Criminal Negligence’. Since there has been a clear distinction between the
two, these are to be used as separate terms. But the judiciary has failed to comply with the
precedent.
As per the above precedent, the former one is an act which is considered as an over hasty act
which is not a deliberate act done by the accused without duly thought and caution. This
implies that somewhere the person coming such an act is aware of the consequences but is
hoping to avoid them or is praying if those consequences do not occur. There is a factor of
risk taken by the accused.
Whereas on the other hand, the criminal negligence is a breach of duty. To apply this, there
must be a duty in existence which the person is bound by. Negligence is omission of an act
which a reasonable man would do. The duty which the law expects from a reasonable man to
stick to.
Thus, these two terms are totally contrary to each other and thus cannot co-exist. But here,
the court did not pay much attention to it and did not comply with the precedent.
The second issue that occurred with the second judgement is whether res-ispa loquitor rule is
applicable to the criminal cases as well. The concerned councils for both the parties had
actually argued on the same, this is where the legal issue arose before the court.
The learned council for the respondent state had argued that the damage caused to the van
and to the passengers including the 8 deaths, is speaking for itself that the driver was
recklessly and negligently driving. In counter argument the appellant’s council argued that
the damages can be caused by the other parties too. Thus, to apply the said doctrine one must
look into the fact of the actual person whose act has caused the damage.
CONCLUSION
The conclusion that can be drawn from the analysis is that, that the mens rea plays an
important role in the establish a culpable homicide to be a murder or not amounting to
murder.
The section 304 A. deals with such matters in which a death has been caused but without any
intention or prior knowledge. The culpable homicide doe not amount to murder without the
essence of ‘mens rea’. But thus does no escape the offender’s liability but rather makes the
case fall under the above section. The section deal with ‘Rash OR Negligent’ homicide.
Although these are two terms but the courts tend to use them as coexisting terms. The
precedent in 1968, a way earlier has clearly distinguished between the two and it has been
codified in to laws too but still the court fail to interpret it rationally.
It is always either Rash OR negligent. It is never Rash and Negligent. Even after so many
years, the judiciary has somewhere or accepted or has overlooked this small fact.
Through the first case we can see that the causa causans is very important for the prosecution
to establish. But in the first case, the court did not deal with that matter instead seemed to
have decided the matter on the mere fact the accused ran away. The courts fail to give a
logical understanding of the act and did not bother to describe the act, neither as rash nor as
negligent but still imposed punishment under section 304.
In the second case, the council’s argument sounded rational, as he emphasized on the fact that
the negligent or rash act must be direct and must be present at the relevant time of incident.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
 https://www.casemine.com/
 https://indiankanoon.org/
 https://www.wikipedia.org/
 https://www.lawnn.com/murder-section-304A-indian-penal-code/