Homocide

by
Under IPC Sec
304 A
Death
By
Negligence

Amendment act of 1870

Provision of Section 304 A was inserted
Before 1870 IPC did not contain any provision
for punishment in those cases where the death
is caused by negligence .

Rash or Negligent Act

Death
By
Negligence

Section 304A.
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.
Intention and/or knowledge is not required
This is not a new offence but is varied from other crimes in the category
'OF OFFENCES AFFECTING THE HUMAN BODY'
 Due to an Without
Death any
act i.e.
must be intention
rash or or
caused
negligent knowledge

This is not a new offence but is varied from other crimes in the category
'OF OFFENCES AFFECTING THE HUMAN BODY'
 1)
For any person to be convicted under this section, there must be
death caused. If the accused has not caused the death of that
person, even though there has been a negligent or rash act, this
Death must section would not apply.

be caused
2)
Further, the death must be the cause due to the act of the accused
and not by another reason. The ultimate reason for the act done
by the accused must be death.

Section 304 A consists of

3)
It must be "causa causans – the immediate cause", and it is not
enough that it may be “causa sine qua non - the proximate cause"
following essentials –
 Due to an Without
Death any
act i.e.
must be intention
rash or or
caused
negligent knowledge

This is not a new offence but is varied from other crimes in the category
'OF OFFENCES AFFECTING THE HUMAN BODY'
1)
Second and most important is that the act must not be any act but Due to an act
a rash or negligent act. The act of being rash is different from the
act of being negligent.
i.e. rash or
negligent
2)
To be rash denotes the act of being reckless and doing without
paying heed to the consequences.

3) So, the person who acts rashly tends to know what can result or what can be the
consequences, although, the accused may not have imagined the consequences to lead
to the death of another. And the act of being negligent denotes the absence of proper
care and caution.
The act was done without proper precautions to avoid any illegal
consequences, which may include omission to do something.
To understand this, the test from a reasonable man's perspective is
required to judge the circumstances as to reasonable care and
precautions would have led to these consequences or not?
The degree of such rashness and negligence must be very high and
gross as to run a risk of causing deadly injury to others.
Here, the act of rashness or negligence must be of a criminal nature
and not falling under section 80, which is a protection against this
section
Due to an act
i.e. rash or
negligent
Sec 80. Accident in doing a lawful act.-
Nothing is an offence which is done by
accident or misfortune, and without any
criminal intention or knowledge in the doing
of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful
means and with proper care and caution".
 Due to an Without
Death any
act i.e.
must be intention
rash or or
caused
negligent knowledge

This is not a new offence but is varied from other crimes in the category
'OF OFFENCES AFFECTING THE HUMAN BODY'
1) The act of the accused must not be intentional or pre-planned

2)
for conviction under this section.
The moment it is proved that it is an intentional act, the case
Without any
3)
would be falling under the section 299 or section 300.
There must be an absence of intention as well as knowledge intention or
and the act leading to death must be totally involuntary. knowledge
Difference between Rash and Negligent Act:

As the section itself provides for "rash or negligent act", it is observed that both these acts are not similar.

They both are different types of acts. One being reckless and being haste while the other requires a breach of
duty by omission, which any reasonable man in the given circumstances would not do so.

The difference between the two has been elaborately explained in the case of Bhalachandra Waman Pathe v.
State of Maharashtra, (1968) 71 Bom LR 634(SC)

In the case of a rash act, the criminality lies in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or
indifference as to the consequence.

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.

Negligence is an omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which
ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affair would do, or doing something which a prudent and
reasonable man would