CAUSING DEATH BY RASH AND NEGLIGENT ACT: NEED FOR

LEGISLATIVE REFORMS

A research proposal submitted in partial fulfilment of the course Criminal Law I to obtain
the degree BBA., LLB (Hons.) during the academic session (2019-20)

SUBMITTED BY:

Aastha
Prakash Roll
no.: 2002

SUBMITTED TO:

Dr. Father Peter Ladis F.

Assistant Professor of Law

September, 2019

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY (CNLU), NYAYA

NAGAR, MITHAPUR, PATNA- 800001
 DECLARATION

I, Aastha Prakash, hereby declare that, the project work entitled, “Causing Death By Rash
And Negligent Act: Need For Legislative Reforms” submitted to C.N.L.U, Patna, is record of
an original work done by me under the guidance of faculty member, Dr. Father Peter Ladis
F., C.N.L.U, Patna. I have duly acknowledged all the sources from which the ideas and
extracts have been taken.

2
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, I would like to thank my faculty of Criminal Law- I, Dr. Father Peter
Ladis F., for giving me the opportunity to work on this project named ― “Causing Death By
Rash And Negligent Act: Need For Legislative Reforms”. His guidance and support has been
instrumental while making my project on this issue.
I would also like to thank all authors, writers, columnists and social thinkers whose ideas and
works have been made use of in my project. My heartfelt gratitude also goes to all staff and
administration of C.N.L.U for the infrastructure in the form of library that was a great source
of help in the completion of this project.
I would also like to thank my friends for their precious inputs which have been very useful in
the completion of this project. I would also like to thank my parents, my seniors, who have
helped me with ideas about this work.
I hope you will appreciate my true work which is indeed a hard work and a result of my true
research and work.

3
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents
DECLARATION.......................................................................................................................2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.......................................................................................................3
1. INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................5
2. RASH AND NEGLIGENT ACTS: MEANING................................................................8
3. NEGLIGENT ACT AND ITS TYPES.............................................................................11
4. LEGAL PROVISIONS AND PUNISHMENTS IN INDIA.............................................14
5. CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................16
BIBLIOGRAPHY....................................................................................................................17

4
 1. INTRODUCTION

Section 304-A postulates a rash and negligent act entailing death of another. The provisions
of this section apply to cases where there is no intention to cause death, and no knowledge
that the act done in all probability would cause death. A man may bring about an event
without having adverted to it at all; he may not have foreseen that his actions would have this
consequence and it will come to him as a surprise. The event may be harmless or harmful; if
harmful the question arises whether there is legal liability for it. In tort this is decided by
considering whether or not a reasonable man in the same circumstances would have realized
the prospect of harm and would have stopped or changed his course so as to avoid it. If a
reasonable man would not, then there is no liability and the harm must lie where it falls. But
if the reasonable man would have avoided the harm then there is liability and the perpetrator
of the harm is said to be guilty of negligence.
The word 'negligence' denotes, and should be used only to denote, such blameworthy
carelessness; and the man who through his negligence has brought harm upon another is
under a legal obligation to make compensation for it to the victim of the injury who may sue
him in tort for damages. But it should now be recognized that at common law, there is no
criminal liability for harm thus caused by carelessness. This has been laid down
authoritatively for manslaughter again and again. There are only two states of mind which
constitute mens rea, and they are intention and recklessness.
There are two parts of Section 304-A of I.P.C. The first part relates to causing of death of
any person by any rash act of the accused. The second part comes in operation when the
death is caused due to negligent act; but in both cases, it should not amount to culpable
homicide. The prosecution has either to prove the first part or the second part but there may
be cases where both the parts may come in operation simultaneously if the evidence suggests
that the act of the accused was not only rash but also negligent which resulted in the death of
someone.

5
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
 The researcher wants to study the constituents of ‘rash and negligent acts’.
 The researcher wants to study the relevant provisions for the particular topic.
 The researcher will look for the related case laws and the legal reforms which should
be made.

HYPOTHESIS
1. Mere negligent act is protected.
2. Rash act with negligence is not protected by Indian Penal Code.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The researcher will do doctrinal type of research in which the researcher will study and work
on the primary as well as the secondary sources. The researcher through this method will go
through books, articles and various other works on the issue. The researcher will, therefore,
try to form a clear picture of the topic.
The researcher will collect data from both primary as well as secondary
sources. Primary sources: Indian Penal Code, case laws, judgements given by
courts.
Secondary sources: books, journals, articles etc.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
P.S.A. Pillai’s, Criminal Law, 11th edition (Lexis Nexis)
This book systematically and clearly provides an in-depth analysis of all the categories of
offences incorporated in IPC. Retaining the scheme and essential facets of the previous
editions, the revising editor has developed the work in the light of the leading judicial
pronouncements and emerging trends in the field.

LIMITATION OF THE STUDY

Since the researcher is a student at a university, she has limited time in which she has to
complete the project. Also, there is limited access of area. Although, the researcher would
study various books, judgements, articles but his knowledge would still be limited. The
researcher also has restricted access to cases, law reports. Money is also one the limitations.

6
SCOPE OF THE STUDY
This research will help in understanding the constituents of negligent and rash acts. The
consequences of such acts. It will also help in understanding the legal provisions under IPC
and the case laws and the judgements given in such offences.

7
 2. RASH AND NEGLIGENT ACTS: MEANING

The expression 'negligence' has been interpreted to mean an omission to do something which
a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of
human affairs would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not
do. It involves blameworthy recklessness on the part of the accused which a normal prudent
man exercising reasonable care and caution ought to avoid. Thus, where bodily injury is
intentionally inflicted and the victim dies, the offence will be one of simple or grievous hurt
if the intention or knowledge which is an ingredient of culpable homicide is wanting.1
Intentionally or knowingly inflicted violence directly of wilfully caused is excluded under
Section 304-A, I.P.C. In other words, the said section does not apply to a case in which there
has been voluntary commission of an offence against a person.
Criminal rashness is hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so,
and that it may cause injury, but without intention to cause injury, or knowledge that it will
probably be caused. The criminality lies in running the risk of doing such an act with
recklessness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence is the gross and
culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard
against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which, having
regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen, it was the imperative duty
of the accused person to have adopted. The hazard must be of such a degree that injury was
most likely to be occasioned thereby. The accused driving a bus came in good speed and at a
place where two bullock-carts were stationary and sheep were moving about swerved the
vehicle to the right of the road and hit a cyclist going ahead of the bus, the cyclist dying on
the spot, the bus travelling a distance of nearly 79 feet before it came to a stop, it was held
that the two strong circumstances, namely, the speed at which the vehicle was driven at the
time without reminding the traffic conditions and taking the vehicle to the right half of the
road, indicated that the accused was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle and causing the
death of the cyclist. For criminal negligence it must be shown to secure conviction that the
act was done with the consciousness of risk that evil consequences of death were likely to
flow therefrom and/or there was mens rea in the doing of the negligent act alleged against the
accused.
Culpable rashness is acting with the consciousness that the mischievous and illegal consequences may
follow, but with the hope that they will not, and often with the belief that the actor has taken sufficient

1
Dayal v. Union of India, AIR 1963 HP 18.
8
precaution to prevent their happening. The imputability arises from acting despite the consciousness.
Culpable 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.
A rash act is primarily an overhasty act and is opposed to a deliberate act; even if it is partly
deliberate, it is done without due thought and caution. 71Criminal rashness is hazarding a dangerous act
with the knowledge that it is so and that it may cause an injury. There is a breach of positive duty.
Illegal omission is "act" under this section and may constitute an offence if it is negligent.

In the case of Sadhu Singh Harnam Singh v. State of Pepsu2, the deceased was enjoying
liquor party at the house of accused who due to some disrespectful behaviour of deceased put
gun on his chest but gun went off and killed the deceased. It was held that accused had no
intention to kill the deceased as he had pulled the trigger without aiming at the deceased in a
state of intoxication in order to prevent Mahant deceased from leaving the place. It was
wholly rash and negligent act on B's Part or at the worst was an act which would amount to
the manslaughter and could not be held to constitute an offence of murder. The accused was,
therefore, held guilty of an offence u/ s. 304A and was sentenced to imprisonment he had
already undergone.
In the case of Kanwar Singh v. State3, the deceased when did not stop the cart he was driving
the accused assaulted him with lathi on his back due to which he fell down and wheel of cart
passed through his body. The conviction of accused for causing death by negligence was held
proper.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RASH ACT AND NEGLIGENT ACT

NO. RASH ACT NEGLIGENT ACT

1 Rash is primarily over hasty act, it is Negligence is a breach of duty imposed by

opposed to a deliberate act. law.

2
AIR 1954 SC 271.
3
1996 CrLJ 4054 (Raj).

9
2 Rashness means doing an act with the Negligence is the omission to do something
consequences of a risk that evil which a reasonable man, guided by those
consequences will follow but with the considerations which ordinarily regulate the
hope that they will not happen. conduct of human affairs would do, or doing
something which a prudent and reasonable
man would not do.

3 The criminality lies in running the risk Negligence may either civil or criminal
of doing such an act with recklessness negligence depend upon the nature and
or indifference as to the consequences. gravity of the negligence.

10
 3. NEGLIGENT ACT AND ITS TYPES

TYPES OF NEGLIGENCE

There could be many ways of partaking in criminal negligence. There are two major
criteria that come to the forefront while discussing Criminal Negligence:

i. MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE

Medical negligence is a breach of duty on the part of the defendant who has a legal as well as
a moral duty to look after his/her patient. The act of “negligence” is open to interpretation
based on the actions of the defendant in each case. A medical practitioner is liable for
negligence if he/she deviates from “the standard treatment” recommended for taking care of
his/her patient causing death or injury of the patient. A medical practitioner can be a doctor as
well as a nurse. Medical negligence cases can be civil as well if the hospital as a whole is
held accountable for malpractice. For instance, using faulty equipment or expired medicines
in the hospital.

Jacob Mathew v State of Punjab [ANR 2005]

The plaintiffs, in this case, were the family of Jivan Lal who was admitted and died in CMC
Hospital, Ludhiana. The two doctors who attended the deceased were Jacob Matthew and
Allen Joseph. The doctors had to face the charge of criminal negligence. The plaintiffs
claimed negligence on the doctor’s part while procuring oxygen cylinder for their father. The
defence argued that the patient was at the last stage of cancer. He was not supposed to
be admitted to any hospital in lieu of his degrading health.

The Supreme Court argued in favour of the doctors stating that the plaintiff must prove that
the medical professionals acted “in disregard of the life and safety of the patient.” A medical
professional cannot be held liable if they are following the accepted procedure of medical
practice. They cannot be reprimanded for not using an alternative method that might or might
not have brought the desired result. They can only be charged in either of the two conditions

 If they do not possess the skill to match their profession.

 If they did not show reasonable competence while discharging their duty; the
standard set here would be of an ordinary competent person.

11
 ii. MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS

The incident of a motor vehicle crash leading to the death of people will not be enough to
charge someone under Section 304(a) for negligent driving. The charge of criminally
negligent driving requires the driver to be solely or entirely responsible for the accident
because of their negligence or rashness. This, however, requires interpretation on part of the
court; taking into account the level of rashness and deliberation in an action that led to an
accident. The court has to take into account that if one decides to drive under influence, they
are aware of the consequences of their decision. The court also has to take into account the
degree of damage done by undertaking that reckless decision.

Somabhai Mangalbhai Dabhi vs State of Gujarat [1988]

The Session Judge convicted the accused of the death of a 10-year-old girl. He was
charged under section 304 (a) of IPC for the negligent driving of a motor bus. The defence
claimed that the girl entered the road out of nowhere. There was insufficient evidence of the
girl coming out of nowhere and also the fact that the driver was driving on the wrong side.
Therefore, the session’s court sentenced the accused with two years of Rigorous
Imprisonment (RI) along with 500 rupees fine. The Supreme Court did allow probation
after regarding the context of the case.

iii. CORPORATE NEGLIGENCE

In matters of corporate negligence, a company is liable under Section 304(a) if it takes any
action that injures their consumers, creates an unsafe environment for their employees or
cheats their shareholders. Some of the crimes that come under corporate negligence cases
are:

 air and water pollution caused by industries;

 adulteration of food by food companies;
 involving themselves in different lobbies for their own profit by exchanging money
with political parties;
 releasing confidential information without permission;
 recording personal conversations and breaching privacy;

12
  harming or cheating the shareholders’ out of their profit.4

4
(Sept. 1, 2019, 11:04 P.M.) https://legodesk.com/legopedia/304a-ipc-causing-death-by-negligence/

13
 4. LEGAL PROVISIONS AND PUNISHMENTS IN INDIA

The original Penal Code did not have any provision for dealing with death caused by
negligence. In 1870, Act 27 of the Indian Penal Code added Section 304 a as an
amendment.5
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.6
In conviction under Section 304A, I.P.C., 1860, the legislature in its wisdom has given
discretion to the Court to fix up the proper sentence and imprisonment is not a must merely
because human life is lost.7

ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS

An offence under Section 304A has following essentials:

(i) That the accused caused the death of any person;
(ii) That such death was caused by the accused doing any rash act;
OR
That such death was caused by the accused doing any negligent act; and
(iii) Such a death did not amount to culpable homicide.

EVIDENCE

To prove the offence under Section 304A, I.P.C. the prosecution is to prove:
(i) It is the accused who did some act which was rash or negligent;
(ii) it entailed death of any person;
(iii) this death is the direct result of the rashness or negligence;
(iv) That this rash and negligent act did not amount to culpable homicide. As to
the first criterion, it must be established that the accused committed the
rash and negligent act. Connecting the accused with the crime is of vital
importance. The prosecution is required to prove that the act was much
more than simple negligence.

5
(Sept. 1, 2019, 8:22 P.M.) https://legodesk.com/legopedia/304a-ipc-causing-death-by-negligence/
6
Indian Penal Code, 1860, sec. 304-A.
7
State of Maharashtra v. Bhalchandra, AIR 1966 Bom 122.

14
PROCEDURE
The offence is cognizable, bail able and not compoundable. It is triable by Magistrate, First
class as warrant case.

PUNISHMENT

The sentence should be a proper one and considering all the facts. Merely because a life
was lost--the sentence need not be deterrent. The callousness must be looked for the
severity of the sentence. The Courts have frowned against a lenient approach towards
sentence, when death of an innocent person resulted in the occurrence.

Driving was in rash and negligent manner as road was narrow but speed was high and there
was sign board indicating go-slow. It was held that acquittal of driver by trial Court has
resulted in miscarriage of justice. The accused was, therefore, convicted but sentence was
reduced to the period already undergone.8
The death of patient was caused due to negligence of accused in not putting a cuffed
endotracheal tube of proper size in a prescribed manner. It was held that though act may
amount to negligence but it was not so reckless or grossly negligent as to make him
criminally liable. Proceedings were quashed.9
In the case of State v. Madanlal10, the accused, who was driving bus on public road in rash
and negligent manner he was held liable for causing the death by negligence. Since case was
pending for 10 years and accused was under stress sentence was reduced to three months
simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/-.
The offence under Section 304Ais committed without any mens rea. In conviction under
Section 304A, I.P.C., the interest of justice would be met if the accused is sentenced to pay a
fine instead of jail sentence, particularly, when a long period (seven years) elapses after the
occurrence before the conviction.11
This section did not create a new offence but was directed towards the offences which fall
outside the range of section 299 and 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 when neither
intention nor knowledge to cause death is present.

8
Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn., Vol. 11, para 1170, p. 625.
9
Cross & Jones Introduction to Criminal Law, 4th Edn., Vol. 11, para 16.4, pp. 325-326.
10
2005 CrLJ 803 (HP).
11
State v. Bhagirath, 2003 CrLJ 4608 (MP).

15
 5. CONCLUSION

Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with rash and negligent acts. An act can be
considered negligent or supposed to have been done negligently when the person does an act
which causes damage to another but without any intention or malicious motive behind the
commission of that act. Negligence connotes want of proper care
Negligent act may also include the omission of certain thought or action. An act can be called
as a rash act when it has been done in a hurry without giving it a second thought or due
consideration.
In the given research proposal, there are two hypotheses proposed by the researcher. First
being the one that a mere negligent act is protected, which has been disproved as mere
negligence is an omission to do something which a reasonable man would do or would have
avoided. Mere negligence also includes breach of duty or ignorance of law which may
amount to death of the person so harmed (as in cases of medical negligence or in cases of
motor vehicle accidents). Thus, mere negligent act is punishable.
The second hypothesis proposed was rash act with negligence is not protected by Indian
Penal Code which has been proved. Rash act with negligence is punishable until the contrary
is proved.

16
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

WEBSITES REFERRED

1. www.legodesk.com
2. www.indiankanoon.org
3. www.livelaw.in
4. www.legistify.com

BOOKS REFERRED
1. Pillai, P S A (2012), Criminal Law, Lexis Nexis (11th Edition)
2. Saxena, R.N., Indian Penal Code, Central Law Publications

17