Causing death by Negligence | Section 304A IPC | Section 80 IPC | Causation | Negligence

 

There are three types of homicides which are punishable in IPC

1.       Culpable homicide not amounting to murder

2.       Culpable homicide amounting to murder

3.       Homicide by negligence

Homicide by negligence is covered in section is covered in Section 304A of IPC and is attracted in the cases where neither nor the intention to cause of death is present

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.”

Elements of Section 304A

1.       Whoever

2.       causes the death of any person

3.       by doing any rash or negligent act

4.       not amounting to culpable homicide

Section 304A  deals with “death” caused due to “rash” and “negligent” act. However, in both the cases, the death caused should not amount to culpable homicide.

A rash act implies an act done by a person with recklessness or indifference as to its consequences. The doer, being conscious of the mischievous or illegal consequences, does the act knowing that his act may bring some undesirable or illegal results but without hoping or intending them to occur.

 A negligent act, on the other hand, refers to an act done by a person without taking sufficient precautions or reasonable precautions to avoid its probable mischievous or illegal consequences. It implies an omission to do something, which a reasonable man, in the given circumstances, would not do.

In other words, A rash act is primarily an overhasty act.3 Negligence is a breach of a duty caused by omission to do something, which a reasonable man guided, by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do.

Negligence is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise reasonable and proper care, and precaution to guard against injury, either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which a reasonable man would have adopted.

Section 80 of IPC describes Accident in doing a lawful act. Which states:

“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”

Section 80 talks about the exception given in IPC in case of accidents. Now Let’s compare Section 80 with offence of homicide by negligence in Section 304A:

The term ‘negligence’ as used in this section does not mean mere carelessness. The rashness or negligence must be of such nature so as to be termed as a criminal act of negligence or rashness. Section 80 talks about the act which is done with proper care and caution and in a lawful way, hence considered as exception and the same is absent in case of Homicide by negligence which makes it an offence.

CAUSATION IN CRIME: Some causal relationship has to be established between his conduct and the prohibited result. A man is usually held criminally liable only for the consequences of his conduct as he foresaw, (or in crimes of negligence, he ought to have foreseen).

Causation and Negligence: The difficulty of causation arises very often in cases of negligence. It has to be established that first, the conduct of the person was negligent and secondly, that but for the negligent act of the accused, the accident would not have occurred. In other words, the act us reus should be causally connected to the act, which should be proved to be negligent. In order to impose criminal liability under s 304A, IPC, it is essential to establish that death is the direct result of the rash or (and) negligent act of the accused as held in S.N Hussain vs State of A.P case. It must be causa causans-—the immediate cause and not enough that it may be causa sine qua non, i.e. proximate cause.

The case of Cherubin Gregory comes  within the purview of Causa causans  in which court held that the death was direct result of the shock. Also, court said that although there was trespass on behalf of the deceased and occupier owes no duty  to take reasonable care for his protection, but at the same time occupier is not entitled to wilfully do any act with the delebrate intention to cause harm to tresspassers or in reckless disregard of the presence of trespasser.


-Summary by Tushar Bawa

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Case Summary : Duncans Industries Ltd. v. State of U.P. (2000) 1 SCC 633 | Property Law

Bench: N.S. Hegde, B.N. Kirpal Facts of the case: 1.  ICI  India Ltd. executed an agreement of sale wherein it agreed to transfer on an “as is where is” basis and “as a going concern” its fertilizer business of manufacturing, marketing, distribution and sale of urea fertilizer in favour of Chand Chhap Fertilizer and Chemicals Ltd. (“CCFCL”), also a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 which company has since been renamed as M/s Duncans Industries Limited, Fertilizer Division, Kanpur Nagar (the appellant herein) for a total sale consideration of Rs 70 crores which was termed as “slump price” in the agreement. 2.  Pursuant to the said agreement, a deed of conveyance was executed by the said ICI in favour of CCFCL, on the presentation of the said Conveyance Deed for registration.  3. The Sub- Registrar made a reference to the Collector under  Section 47-A(2)  of the Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter refe...
Read more

Case Summary: Central Bureau Of Investigation vs V.C. Shukla & Ors on 2 March, 1998 | Indian Evidence Act | S. 10,17,21,34 IEA

Sections Involved Section 10 IEA: Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design. –– Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or written by any one of such persons in reference to their common intention, after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them, is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to be so conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it. Section 17 IEA:  Admission defined.––An admission is a statement, 1 [oral or documentary or contained in electronic form], which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and under the circumstances, hereinafter mentioned.  Section 18 IEA:  Admission––by party to proceeding or his agent....
Read more

Case Summary: State of Haryana v. Dinesh Kumar | Criminal Law | Cr.P.C.

 Case Citation : (2008) 3 SCC 222 Bench: Altamas Kabir. J Facts of the case: 1. The respondent in the first of these two appeals and the appellants in the other appeal applied for appointment as Constable-Drivers under the Haryana Police and submitted their respective application forms, which contained two columns, namely, 13(A) and 14, which read as follows:-      13(A): Have you ever been arrested?      14: Have you ever been convicted by the Court of any offence? Respondent answered the both questions as negative. 2. Subsequently, during verification of the character and antecedents of the said respondent, it was reported that he had been arrested in connection with a case arising out of FIR. However, he was aquitted in that matter by judicial magistrate. 3. Appellant, however, alleged that the respondent had concealed these facts from the Selection Committee and had not correctly furnished the information in columns 13(A) and 14 of the applica...
Read more