Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code deals with death due to negligence. This Section was not included in the Indian Penal Code in 1860, but was added later in 1870 to cover the offences which fall outside the capacity of Sec. 299 and Sec. 300.

According to the section, 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 section does not apply to the following cases:

• death is caused with any intention or knowledge (voluntary commission of offence), i.e., the act must not amount to culpable homicide,
• death has arisen from any other supervening act or intervention which could not have been anticipated, i.e., death was not the direct or proximate result of the rash or negligent act,
• death occurred due to an accident (e.g., where an accused on dark night believing a man to be a ghost killed him.

Sec. 304-A applies where there is a direct nexus between the death of a person and the rash or negligent act. The act must be the causa causans, it is not enough that it may have been the causa sine qua non. 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 its consequences (i.e., without belief in the result of such doing).

Criminal negligence is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise the reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to a particular individual [Bala Chandra v State of Maharashtra AIR 1968 SC 1319]. An illegal omission if negligent, may come under this section.

Rash and negligent driving:

The mere fact that a fatal motor run-over accident took order to impose criminal liability on the accused, it must be found as a fact that a collision was entirely or at least mainly due to rashness or negligence on the part of the driver. An error of judgement on the part of the driver would not make him liable under Sec. 304-A.

The ‘rash or negligent act’ referred to in Section 304-A 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.

Case Law

In the very famous case of Ravi Kapur v. State of Rajasthan, 2012, the principle/doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was discussed in detail. This is the case of an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Jaipur Bench. The facts of the case were as follows:

“Sukhdeep Singh was going to attend the marriage of his brother along with his family. They were going in two jeeps and a Maruti car. On their way, they met with an accident with a bus that was coming from the opposite direction at a very high speed. Due to this eight-person died on the spot. According to one of the witnesses, the bus was driven by the accused Ravi Kapur and after the accident, he ran away from the spot. The trial court held that the prosecution was not able to prove the liability of Ram Kapur and hence he was acquitted by the trial court. However, the decision of the High Court comes against the trial court and its decision was backed by the reasoning which includes the principle of res ipsa loquitur, negligence, reasonable care.”

The principle of res ipsa loquitur serves two purposes – it establishes the negligence on the part of the accused party and secondly, it is applied in the cases where the claimant is able to prove that there is an accident but is not able to prove how the accident occurred. The High Court by applying the principle of res ipsa loquitur found Ram Kapur liable under Section 304A of the IPC. The same case when went to the Supreme Court the court held that the decision of the High Court was right and the appellant was held liable ultimately.   

Medical Negligence

In our country, they say that doctors are the second God because they cure people or provide a second life for sick employees who suffer from patients. Nowadays, it is often heard that patients suffer due to the negligence of these doctors or medical staff, and some people even die due to negligence in treatment. While presenting scientific treatment, notable care and warning need to be taken through specialists as they’re discharging their expert duties.

They are not indirectly responsible for the actions of their junior doctor or nurse, that is, if the junior doctor or nurse does not work in accordance with the doctor’s instructions, the doctor will not be held responsible. The burden of proof lies with the doctor to show that his action was reasonable.

Aishwarya Says:

I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.

If you are interested in participating in the same, do let me know.

Do follow me on Facebook, Twitter  Youtube and Instagram.

The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.

If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at adv.aishwaryasandeep@gmail.com

We also have a Facebook Group Restarter Moms for Mothers or Women who would like to rejoin their careers post a career break or women who are enterpreneurs.