‘Negligence’ and ‘Rash’ as criminal categories and its juristic interpretation (s.

304-A)

Background:

Section 304-A1 of Indian Penal Code defines- Causing death by negligence and states the
punishment for it,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. This particular section was later
added through the 1870 Indian Penal Code Amendment act to the Indian Penal Code (IPC) 1860
as there was no provision that defined or even considered actions that resulted in the death of a
person via a negligent or rash act. This section did not create any new offense, it just defined and
stated punishment for offenses which fell out of the ambit of section 2992 and section 3003 of the
IPC. In this particular offense there is neither intention nor knowledge to cause death. Empress v.
Idu Beg4 - One of the earliest cases dealing with Section 304A. The court distinguished rashness
and negligence, noting that rashness implies hastily doing an act without due consideration,
while negligence implies omitting to do something that a reasonable and prudent person would
do. The following conditions must be met in order for Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code
(IPC) to arise:
● The individual in question must have died.
● That death must have been caused by the accused.
● The accused must be found guilty of rash or negligent acts that resulted in the death, that
does not amount to culpable homicide.
The provision was included to hold people liable for deaths resulting from their careless actions
and create deterrence against such acts. It covers deaths caused by negligent driving, medical
negligence, unsafe work practices, poor maintenance of premises, etc. The extent of sentencing
to accused under Section 304A has been an issue, with courts awarding the same maximum
sentence even though the crime committed feels grave.

Analysis & Opinion:

Section 304A prescribing a maximum 2 years imprisonment for causing death by negligence has
been criticized as inadequate by the Supreme Court in cases like Prabhakaran v State of Kerala
20075 and State of Punjab v Saurabh Bakshi 20156 etc. The Court has repeatedly expressed
concern on low punishment and need for legislative amendment. The Law Commission has

1
Indian Penal Code 1860, s 304A.
2
Indian Penal Code 1860, s 299.
3
Indian Penal Code 1860, s 300.
4
Empress v. Idu Beg [1881] 3 All 776.
5
Prabhakaran v State of Kerala [2007] 14 SCC 269.
6
State of Punjab v. Saurabh Bakshi [2015] 5 SCC 182.
recommended enhancement multiple times - in 19717 for 5 years, reiterated in 19978, November
20079, a bill was introduced in the Rajya Sabha proposing “imprisonment upto three years and
fine upto one lakh rupees”, proposed to make the section non-bailable. In June 201910, a Bill
proposed increasing punishment to upto 7 years imprisonment or fine of at least Rs 75,000 or
both. However, recommendations remain unlegislated. Judicial observations, Law Commission’s
urging and continued negligent deaths indicate need to increase punishment as deterrence
through suitable amendment while balancing severity.

In my view, the recommendations put forth by the Law Commission to augment penalties under
Section 304A are justifiable. The current lenient penalties prove ineffective in deterring instances
of negligence that result in fatalities. Nevertheless, it is imperative to use caution in order to
avoid implementing measures that are excessively severe. The potential consequence of
designating 304A as a non-bailable offense is an increase in prison population due to
overcrowding. To ensure the attainment of justice, it is imperative to adopt a balanced approach
that entails a gradual increase in punishments. The suggested measures pertaining to the issue of
drunk driving are commendable in their efforts to mitigate the problem. In general, the
recommendations appear to be driven by good intentions, albeit their implementation by policy
makers should be approached with careful consideration and attention to detail.

1. Suleman Rahiman Mulani v. State of Maharashtra (1968)11 - The court observed the
combination of a motor vehicle with criminal rashness or negligence is an "explosive
mixture". High degree of responsibility is expected from drivers.
2. Dr. Suresh Gupta v. Govt of NCT of Delhi (2004)12 - The Supreme Court elaborated on
negligence of doctors and held that simple lack of care, diligence or want of proper skill
cannot be termed as negligent to hold them criminally liable. Gross negligence is
required.

In summation, it has been elucidated by the courts that establishing criminal culpability
necessitates the demonstration of a substantial level of negligence beyond a reasonable doubt.
The mere absence of reasonable care in a civil context is insufficient, as the specific
circumstances of each case are taken into account.

7
‘LAW COMMISSION of INDIA FORTY-SECOND REPORT INDIAN PENAL CODE’ [1971].
8
‘LAW COMMISSION of INDIA ONE HUNDRED FIFTY - SIXTH REPORT on the INDIAN PENAL CODE’
[1997].
9
THE INDIAN PENAL CODE (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2007 A BILL further to amend the Indian Penal Code,
1860. [2007].
10
SHRI SHRIRANG APPA BARNE, M.P, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2019 .A BILL
further to amend the Indian Penal Code, 1860. [2019].
11
Suleman Rahiman Mulani v State of Maharashtra [1968] AIR 829.
12
Dr. Suresh Gupta v Government of NCT, Delhi, [2004] 6 SCC 422.
The aforementioned cases highlight that courts have consistently held that Section 304A requires
proof of a high degree of negligence to establish criminal liability, rather than mere lack of due
care and caution. The courts have looked at surrounding circumstances and recognized that
standards vary for professionals like doctors (Dr. Suresh Gupta) versus drivers operating
dangerous machinery like vehicles (Mulani). The principle laid down is that simple negligence
does not suffice and gross negligence must be established for 304A, with higher responsibility
for those handling public services. However, in my opinion, this interpretation sets an
excessively high bar for negligence under Section 304A. By requiring gross negligence
equivalent to recklessness, the courts have made it extremely difficult to convict even in cases of
clear carelessness leading to loss of life. This overly narrow interpretation has rendered Section
304A ineffective in tackling fatal negligence. The judiciary needs to relook at this strict
interpretation, and take a more balanced approach that still upholds due principles of criminal
law while also addressing the legislative intent behind Section 304A.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, it is of my opinion that Section 304A requires careful re-examination both in

terms of legislative amendment and judicial interpretation. The legislative intent behind inserting
304A in the IPC was to deter negligent acts causing deaths. However, the inadequate maximum
punishment of 2 years imprisonment compromises this intent and needs enhancement through
suitable amendment. The main point to increase the sentence is to deter the actions and to make
sure no person uses this section to escape harsher punishment. A famous example is Salman
khan's hit-and-run case13. On the judicial front, the courts have set too high a bar for negligence
under 304A by requiring proof of gross negligence. This makes securing convictions under 304A
difficult even in cases of obvious negligence. The judiciary needs to revisit this strict
interpretation and take a more balanced approach aligned with the legislative objective behind
the section. Ensuring convictions in cases of clear negligence and enhancing punishments will
make Section 304A an effective deterrent. Re-examining Section 304A is imperative for the
legislature and judiciary to uphold the spirit of law and justice.

13
Aman Sharma, ‘MHA Looks to Increase Punishment for Hit-And-Run Cases’ The Economic Times (23 July 2015)
<https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/mha-looks-to-increase-punishment-for-hit-and-run-
cases/articleshow/48180034.cms?from=mdr> accessed 24 October 2023.
Doctors, nurse get bail as police drop culpable homicide charge
Death by negligence: Supreme Court for stringent punishment under Section 304
MHA looks to increase punishment for hit-and-run cases
Amendment in Section 304-A IPC: Due, delayed and still awaited
Section 304A Of Indian Penal Code: The Amendment That Never Happened

Indian Penal Code 1860, s 304A.

LAW COMMISSION of INDIA FORTY-SECOND REPORT INDIAN PENAL CODE’ (1971).

‘LAW COMMISSION of INDIA ONE HUNDRED FIFTY - SIXTH REPORT on the INDIAN
PENAL CODE’ (1997).

THE INDIAN PENAL CODE (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2007 A BILL further to amend the
Indian Penal Code, 1860. (2007).

SHRI SHRIRANG APPA BARNE, M.P, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE (AMENDMENT) BILL,
2019 .A BILL further to amend the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2019.