section 304 case study

Most Important Case Laws on Dowry Death – Section 304B, IPC

Essential Ingredients or Elements of Dowry Death – Section 304B, IPC

Dowry demand, meaning of “soon before death” with respect to dowry death, “soon before death” cannot mean “immediately before”, legality of dowry demand with regards to invalid marriage, example of how not to write judgement in dowry death cases.

The Supreme Court has outlined the essential elements of dowry death (section 304B, IPC) in the case of Kamesh Panjiyar vs State of Bihar, 2005  as:

(i) The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under a normal circumstance. (ii) Such a death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage. (iii) She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband. (iv) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with the demand of dowry. (v) It must be shown that such cruelty or harassment has been suffered by the woman soon before her death.

Facts of the case.

In this case, the deceased, Jaikali Devi and the appellant got married in 1988. At the time of marriage, Rs 40000 was paid as dowry. During her second Bidai ( Durgaman ), the groom’s side demanded a she-buffalo. The demand was not fulfilled. The deceased had complained about the ill-treatment and torture by her husband and other members of his family several times.

On 28 November 1989, her brother, Sudhir Kumar Mahto, heard some rumours in the village with respect to the murder of the deceased (her sister). After that, he, his father, brother and uncle, went to the appellant’s village. The body of her sister (deceased) was lying in the verandah, and there was some blood coming out of her mouth. Also, there were several marks of violence on her neck.

Judgement of the case.

During the trial of the Sessions Court, it was observed that it was not the case of natural death. And, the court recorded the conviction under section 304B of IPC, and the punishment for ten years of imprisonment was granted to her husband. He then appealed to the High Court.

The High Court upheld the conviction. However, it reduced the sentence to seven years. He then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the collected reading of section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code ascertains that there must be some material or proof to show that soon before the victim’s death, she has suffered cruelty or harassment.

Also, the court stated that in the cases of dowry death, the presumption is that direct evidence is not necessarily required. Also, nothing was brought by the defence on record to explain the injuries on the neck of the deceased. And, hence the conviction of the husband under section 304B was justified.

This case talks about what is dowry demand. In Bachni Devi vs State of Haryana, 2011 , the Supreme Court stated that any demand of any property or valuable security which is in any way connected with marriage constitutes dowry demand.

Facts of the Case.

Kanta Devi, the deceased, was married to the accused in May 1990. After two months of marriage, the deceased’s mother-in-law (accused 1) went to her father’s house and demanded a motorcycle as her son (accused 2) wanted to start a house milk vending business. But as the father of the deceased was poor, he indicated his inability to fulfil the demand.

Thereafter, the husband and mother-in-law of the deceased started harassing her badly and told her father that if he does not give a motorcycle, they will not allow Kanta Devi to live in the matrimonial house.

The husband of the deceased took her to her father’s house five days before the Rakshabandhan, left her there and returned to his house on the same day.

The deceased told her father about the harassment and ill-treatment done by her husband and her mother-in-law. But two days before Rakshabandhan, Kanta was taken from her parent’s house by her husband, asserting that his brother’s engagement has to be performed. The statement made by her husband was utterly false.

After about eight days (on 12 August 1990), the father of the deceased was informed by other villagers that Kanta was dead. When her father went to the house of accused 1 and 2 along with some other persons, he saw the dead body of the Kanta lying in the room. And, as Kanta’s death appeared to have taken place in unnatural circumstances, the father of the deceased filed a case.

The Trial Court held her mother-in-law and husband guilty of committing an offence under section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. They were given punishment for seven years of rigorous imprisonment. When the appeal was made to High Court, it agreed to the Trial Court, and the appeal was rejected.

The appeal was then made to the Supreme Court. The apex court held that demand for any property or valuable security having nexus with marriage constitutes dowry demand. The cause or reason for such demand is immaterial. It observed that the deceased was harassed by the accused after her father denied fulfilling the demand. Hence, harassment driving the deceased to commit suicide is dowry death.

Accordingly, the appeal was rejected by the Supreme Court, and the time of two months was given to accused 1 to surrender for going through the imprisonment conferred to her.

In Rajinder Singh vs State of Punjab, 2015 , the court has explained the term “soon before death”. The court, in this case, observed that time delays might vary in cases. But what is necessary is that the demand for the dowry should be continuing cause for the death of the married woman.

Salwinder Kaur, the deceased, was married to the appellant Rajinder Singh in 1990. Within four months of her marriage, she consumed Aluminium Phosphide, a pesticide, and she died. The deceased’s father stated in the court that her husband had demanded money for the construction of the house. And at that time, he was unable to give the amount. However, he had given a she-buffalo to his daughter to be taken to her in-law’s house. Thereafter, about 7-8 months later, her daughter was ill-treated again. He promised his son-in-law, the accused, that he would pay the amount after harvesting the crop.

Karnail Singh (father of the deceased) stated to the counsel that no complaint was made by his daughter (the deceased) within one year of the marriage. After examining the pieces of evidence, the Trial Court convicted the appellant (deceased’s husband) under section 304B and punished him with seven years of rigorous imprisonment .

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana also upheld the conviction. The court observed that:

“days or months are not what is to be seen. What must be borne in mind is that the word ‘soon’ does not mean ‘immediate’.

And hence, the appeal was rejected.

In Satbir Singh & another vs State of Haryana , the Supreme Court observed that the phrase ‘soon before death’ cannot mean ‘immediately before’. The Bench further observed that a close and live link between the dowry death and cruelty or harassment by the husband and his relatives must exist.

The above observations were made while the Bench was rejecting the appeal filed by the accused convicted for the offence under section 304B challenging the judgement passed on 6 November 2008 (Satbir Singh & another vs State of Haryana).

In Reema Aggarwal vs Anupam, 2004 , the legality of dowry demand in respect of invalid marriage was dealt with. In this, the court held that the concept of dowry is linked with marriage and the provisions for dowry death applies to married persons only. It also observed that when the validity of a marriage is in itself illegal and under legal scrutiny, the dowry demand in an invalid marriage would be legally non-recognizable.

The High Court of Patna in State of Bihar vs Nasruddin Mian stated that the Supreme Court has focused on the same thing repeatedly, that is, dispassionate examination of evidence must be done by the courts and judges. And that, while passing the judgement, the courts and judges should not be driven by the horror of the crime or the character of the person.

The following statement by the High Court of Patna was made while the Bench was dealing with the appeal that was filed challenging the order of the conviction and sentence passed on 26th and 29th March 2019. The Trial Court had passed a sentence whereby the husband and the sister-in-law of the deceased wife were punished for the offence of dowry death.

The High Court of Patna thus observed that since after the charge was changed, there was no charge under section 306 of IPC , and there was no opportunity for the Trial Court to record such findings in respect of section 306 of IPC. As the prosecution has completely failed to establish the motive beyond doubt that it was a case of murder, the High Court of Patna further contemplated that legally acceptable evidence was not there, and the Trial Court has convicted the appellants under section 302 of IPC only on the ‘moral ground’ as the wife had died in her matrimonial home.

Consequently, the judgement and sentence dated 26th and 29th March 2019 were set aside. And the appellants were proposed to be released.

• Latest Posts

• Understanding the Legislative Branch of the Indian Government - 6th May 2024
• Appointment, Oath, and Removal of Constitutional Posts in India - 28th April 2024
• Powers of Income Tax Authorities in India - 26th April 2024

How to Start Studying Law – For New, Existing, and Old Students

How to Study and Prepare for Judiciary Exams (13 tips)

11 Tips to Pass AIBE With Bare Acts and MCQ Tests in 2024

How to Write the Best Answer in Judiciary Mains Exam

10 Legal Jobs and Career Options After Law in 2024

Best Books for Judiciary Exam Preparation in 2024

My name is Ankur . I am a law graduate. I was my college topper for five years. In March 2018, I started WritingLaw.com . The main motive was to make a modern law website that is clean and comfortable.

Everything is going well . This is because of law students, advocates, judges and professors like you, who give me satisfaction, hope and the motivation to keep working. Thank you for your love and support. I hope you have a fruitful time here.

Law Study Material

© 2018-2024 | About Us |  Contact Us | Privacy Policy | T&C | Disclaimer | Cookies | Sitemap

• High Court rules against criminal prosecution under Section 276B of the I.T. Act when penalties under Section 221 are not imposed, Read Judgment
• VP Jagdeep Dhankar to Law Students: Our youth must rebuff and neutralise forces that keep partisan or self-interest above that of our nation
• 2020 Delhi riots: Lawyers and students appeal to SC, Delhi HC for expeditious bail hearings
• HC on Slum Redevelopment: We need sustainable development. We cannot just have a concrete jungle with no open space
• Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co. advises Brainbees Solutions Limited on its Initial Public Offering
• भलस्वा डेयरी को शिफ्ट किया जाएगा या नहीं? दिल्ली हाईकोर्ट में सुनवाई आज
• Allahabad High Court rejects plea to Quash Case against Muslim Men for Carrying Tiranga with Arabic Verses
• 'FIR Quashed': Gujarat HC rules on offensive Youtube Videos on Arya Samaj and its Founder
• Delhi HC restores mandate of IOA ad hoc panel on plea seeking stay on WFI's functioning
• हाईकोर्ट ने BJP सांसद बांसुरी स्वराज को भेजा नोटिस, सोमनाथ भारती ने निर्वाचन को दी है चुनौती
• राहुल गांधी की नागरिकता रद्द करने की मांग लेकर दिल्ली हाईकोर्ट पहुंचे सुब्रह्मण्यम स्वामी, याचिका पर अगले हफ्ते हो सकती है सुनवाई
• High Court on Transfer Applications: Woman's conduct a important factor for consideration in Matrimonial case transfers, Read Judgment
• SAM advises Ceigall India Limited on its IPO aggregating to INR 1,252.66 crore through a fresh issue and an offer for sale
• Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas advises Financial Institutions (Deal Managers) on USD 1 Billion Sustainable Notes Programme by Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited

• Central Acts
• Latest News
• Corporate Law News
• Human Rights News
• Intellectual Property News
• Did you Know?
• International News
• हिंदी न्यूज़
• Law Firm News
• Marriage and Divorce News
• Tourism News
• World of Petroleum & Natural Gas
• Case Analysis Supreme Court High Courts Tribunal Courts
• Cheque Bounce News
• Legal Services News
• Petroleum News

Supreme Court Judgments

• Supreme Court

High Court Judgments

• Delhi High Court
• Allahabad High Court
• Bombay High Court
• Calcutta High Court
• Madras High Court
• Punjab & Haryana High Court
• Andhra High Court
• Chattisgarh High Court
• Gauhati High Court
• Gujarat High Court
• Himachal Pradesh High Court
• Jammu & Kashmir High Court
• Jharkhand High Court
• Karnataka High Court
• Kerala High Court
• Madhya Pradesh High Court
• Meghalaya High Court
• Manipur High Court
• Orissa High Court
• Patna High Court
• Rajasthan High Court
• Sikkim High Court
• Tripura High Court
• Telangana High Court
• Uttarakhand High Court
• Arbitration
• Conciliation

Campus Buzz

• Call for Papers
• Conferences & Seminars
• Courses & Workshops
• Debate Competitions
• Essay Competitions
• Fellowships
• Fests, MUNs and Other Competitions
• International Opportunities
• Internships
• Moot Court Competitions
• Scholarships
• Legal Documents
• Legal Forms for Advocates
• Legal Dictionary
• SC Collegium Resolutions
• Law Commission of India Reports
• NCRB Reports
• Justice Verma Committee Report, 2013
• Justice BN Srikrishna Report on Institutionalisation of Arbitration
• Legal Maxims
• Web Links Directory

Legal Education

• Law School Entrance Exams
• Law Schools and Colleges in India
• Overseas Law Schools
• Careers in Law

Circulars & Notices

• RBI Circulars
• RBI Notices
• SEBI Circulars
• SEBI Notices
• MCA Circulars
• MCA Notices
• Supreme Court Calendar 2023
• Supreme Court Bar Association
• Supreme Court Advocate-On-Record
• All High Courts Calendar
• High Courts Portals
• Judicial Exam Notice Board
• Judicial Services Exam Question Papers
• Bar Councils
• Bar Associations

• Case Analysis

Recent News

Sc on sec.304a ipc: negligence on the part of accused and its nexus with death of victim can only sustain conviction, read judgment.

The Supreme Court has observed that the Doctrine of 'res ipsa loquitur stricto sensu' would not be applicable to a criminal case for injury by negligence.

The Division Bench comprising of   CJI NV Ramana, Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Hima Kohli while adjudicating upon a Criminal Appeal acquitted the two convicts holding that under provision of   Section 304(A) IPC,  negligence on the part of accused and its nexus with death of victim can only sustain conviction.

Res ipsa loquitur stricto sensu

The principle that the mere occurrence of some types of accident is sufficient to imply negligence

The conviction of the Appellants/Accused rested on circumstantial evidence. The defence taken by the Appellants/accused was that on the day of the incident, they had not attended any telephone wire repair at the place of the incident and death of the deceased was not due to their carelessness and negligence. While the Appellants/accused have not denied the post-mortem report which attributes the death to instantaneous cardiac arrest and paralysis of the brain stem secondary to shock, the source of the shock is implied to be the television set and not the Telephone connection.

After analysing the case, the Court noted that the conclusion for conviction doesn't inspire confidence.

"We also find difficult to see reason in the submission that telephone wires were able to carry current from an 11KV high tension line and did not immediately melt. It is even more difficult to assimilate that such current when passed through the television, did not blast the television set and set the entire wiring of the house on fire. Be that as it may, the allegations against the Appellants are highly technical in nature and we find that no report or even inspection was conducted by a technical expert to assess the veracity of the averments made by the complainants to suggest that it was due to the alleged acts of the Appellants that the incident took place."

Even the evidence of PW15 is circumstantial in nature, who stated that as per the job sheet, the Appellants were working at the Police quarters; however, there is no eye witness to say conclusively that the Appellants were infact executing the work at the place alleged, the Court noted citing  Syad Akbar Vs. State of Karnataka, 1979 Latest Caselaw 125 SC  to reaffirm that doctrine of res ipsa loquitur stricto sensu would not apply to a criminal case as its applicability in an action for injury by negligence is well known.

"In case of circumstantial evidence, there is a risk of jumping to conclusions in haste. While evaluating such evidence the jury should bear in mind that inference of guilt should be the only reasonable inference from the facts. In the present case however, the conviction of the accused persons seems wholly unjustified against the weight of the evidence adduced."

The Court cited  Syad Akbar Vs. State of Karnataka,1979 Latest Caselaw 125 SC  to state that for bringing home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has to firstly prove negligence and then establish direct nexus between negligence of the accused and the death of the victim.

"Perusal of the record reveals that out of various witnesses arrayed by the prosecution, there are no eye witnesses. Any evidence brought on record is merely circumstantial in nature. We are constrained to repeat our observation that it sounds completely preposterous that a telephone wire carried 11KV current without melting on contact and when such current passed through the Television set, it did not blast and melt the wiring of the entire house. It is even more unbelievable that Appellant no. 2 came in contact with the same voltage and managed to get away with a few abrasions. The Appellants therefore are entitled to be given the benefit of doubt; more so, when there is no report of a technical expert to corroborate the prosecution story."

Case Title: Nanjundappa & Anr. Vs. The State of Karnataka

Case Details: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 900 OF 2017; MAY 17, 2022

Coram: CJI NV Ramana, Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Hima Kohli

Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:

Picture Source :

You May Also Like :

Trending news :.

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2024

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2024', Apply Now!

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

Publish Your Article

Campus Ambassador

Media Partner

LatestLaws Partner Event : 3rd Arbitrate In India Conclave 2024

Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News

• Case Briefs

Supreme Court Decodes Section 304 IPC Maze: When can conviction under Part I be Converted to Part II?

While summarising the principles for altering conviction under Section 304 Part I of the IPC to Section 304 Part II of the IPC , the Supreme Court highlighted the difference between ‘guilty intention’ and ‘guilty knowledge’.

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)

Supreme Court : In a case where the bench of BR Gavai and JB Pardiwala , JJ had to alter the conviction under Section 304 Part I of the IPC to Section 304 Part II of the IPC , it lucidly summed up the principles to be considered by the Courts while doing so and held that the first part of Section 304 IPC would apply when there is ‘ guilty intention ,’ whereas the second part would apply when there is no such intention, but there is ‘ guilty knowledge’

Explaining the difference between the two parts of Section 304 IPC , the Court further observed that under the first part, the crime of murder is first established and the accused is then given the benefit of one of the exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC , while under the second part, the crime of murder is never established at all. Therefore, for the purpose of holding an accused guilty of the offence punishable under the second part of Section 304 of the IPC , the accused need not bring his case within one of the exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC .

Principles for altering conviction under Section 304 Part I of the IPC to Section 304 Part II of the IPC

(1) The intention or knowledge of the accused in committing an act determines the offence committed, according to Section 300 of the IPC. If the intention or knowledge falls under Clauses (1) to (4) of Section 300, even a single injury resulting in death can be considered murder.

To illustrate : ‘A’ is bound hand and foot. ‘B’ comes and placing his revolver against the head of ‘A’, shoots ‘A’ in his head killing him instantaneously. Here, there will be no difficulty in holding that the intention of ‘B’ in shooting ‘A’ was to kill him, though only single injury was caused. The case would, therefore, be of murder falling within Clause (1) of Section 300 of the IPC. Taking another instance, ‘B’ sneaks into the bed room of his enemy ‘A’ while the latter is asleep on his bed. Taking aim at the left chest of ‘A’, ‘B’ forcibly plunges a sword in the left chest of ‘A’ and runs away. ‘A’ dies shortly thereafter. The injury to ‘A’ was found to be sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. There may be no difficulty in holding that ‘B’ intentionally inflicted the particular injury found to be caused and that the said injury was objectively sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. This would bring the act of ‘B’ within Clause (3) of Section 300 of the IPC and render him guilty of the offence of murder although only single injury was caused.

(2) Even when the intention or knowledge of the accused may fall within Clauses (1) to (4) of Section 300 of the IPC, the act of the accused which would otherwise be murder, will be taken out of the purview of murder, if the accused’s case attracts any one of the five exceptions enumerated in that section. In the event of the case falling within any of those exceptions, the offence would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder, falling within Part 1 of Section 304 of the IPC, if the case of the accused is such as to fall within Clauses (1) to (3) of Section 300 of the IPC. It would be offence under Part II of Section 304 if the case is such as to fall within Clause (4) of Section 300 of the IPC. Again, the intention or knowledge of the accused may be such that only 2nd or 3rd part of Section 299 of the IPC, may be attracted but not any of the clauses of Section 300 of the IPC. In that situation also, the offence would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 of 50 the IPC. It would be an offence under Part I of that section, if the case fall within 2nd part of Section 299, while it would be an offence under Part II of Section 304 if the case fall within 3rd part of Section 299 of the IPC.

(3) If the act of an accused person falls within the first two clauses of cases of culpable homicide as described in Section 299 of the IPC it is punishable under the first part of Section 304. If, however, it falls within the third clause, it is punishable under the second part of Section 304. In effect, therefore, the first part of this section would apply when there is ‘ guilty intention ,’ whereas the second part would apply when there is no such intention, but there is ‘ guilty knowledge’ .

(4) Even if single injury is inflicted, if that particular injury was intended, and objectively that injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the requirements of Clause 3rdly to Section 300 of the IPC, are fulfilled and the offence would be murder.

(5) Section 304 of the IPC will apply to the following classes of cases:

(i) when the case falls under one or the other of the clauses of Section 300, but it is covered by one of the exceptions to that Section,

(ii) when the injury caused is not of the higher degree of likelihood which is covered by the expression ‘sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death’ but is of a lower degree of likelihood which is generally spoken of as an injury ‘likely to cause death’ and the case does not fall under Clause (2) of Section 300 of the IPC,

(iii) when the act is done with the knowledge that death is likely to ensue but without intention to cause death or an injury likely to cause death.

(6) The word ‘likely’ means probably and it is distinguished from more ‘possibly’. When chances of happening are even or greater than its not happening, it can be said that the thing will ‘probably happen’. In reaching the conclusion, the court has to place itself in the situation of the accused and then judge whether the accused had the knowledge that by the act he was likely to cause death.

(7) The distinction between culpable homicide (Section 299 of the IPC) and murder (Section 300 of the IPC) has always to be carefully borne in mind while dealing with a charge under Section 302 of the IPC. Under the category of unlawful homicides, both, the cases of culpable homicide amounting to murder and those not amounting to murder would fall. Culpable homicide is not murder when the case is brought within the five exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC. But, even though none of the said five exceptions are pleaded or prima facie established on the evidence on record, the prosecution must still be required under the law to bring the case under any of the four clauses of Section 300 of the IPC to sustain the charge of murder. If the prosecution fails to discharge this onus in establishing any one of the four clauses of Section 300 of the IPC, namely, 1stly to 4thly, the charge of murder would not be made out and the case may be one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder as described under Section 299 of the IPC.

(8) The court must address itself to the question of mens rea . If Clause thirdly of Section 300 is to be applied, the assailant must intend the particular injury inflicted on the deceased. This ingredient could rarely be proved by direct evidence. Inevitably, it is a matter of inference to be drawn from the proved circumstances of the case. The court must necessarily have regard to the nature of the weapon used, part of the body injured, extent of the injury, degree of force used in causing the injury, the manner of attack, the circumstances preceding and attendant on the attack.

(9) Intention to kill is not the only intention that makes a culpable homicide a murder. The intention to cause injury or injuries sufficient in the ordinary cause of nature to cause death also makes a culpable homicide a murder if death has actually been caused and intention to cause such injury or injuries is to be inferred from the act or acts resulting in the injury or injuries.

(10) When single injury inflicted by the accused results in the death of the victim, no inference, as a general principle, can be drawn that the accused did not have the intention to cause the death or that particular injury which resulted in the death of the victim. Whether an accused had the required guilty intention or not, is a question of fact which has to be determined on the facts of each case.

(11) Where the prosecution proves that the accused had the intention to cause death of any person or to cause bodily injury to him and the intended injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, then, even if he inflicts a single injury which results in the death of the victim, the offence squarely falls under Clause thirdly of Section 300 of the IPC unless one of the exceptions applies.

(12) In determining the question, whether an accused had guilty intention or guilty knowledge in a case where only a single injury is inflicted by him and that injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the fact that the act is done without premeditation in a sudden fight or quarrel, or that the circumstances justify that the injury was accidental or unintentional, or that he only intended a simple injury, would lead to the inference of guilty knowledge, and the offence would be one under Section 304 Part II of the IPC.

Ruling on facts

In the case at hand, a father-son duo was working in their agricultural field early in the morning. They wanted to transport the crop, they had harvested and for that purpose they had called for a lorry. The lorry arrived, however, the deceased did not allow the driver of the lorry to use the disputed pathway. This led to a verbal altercation between the appellant and the deceased. After quite some time of the verbal altercation, the appellant hit a blow on the head of the deceased with the weapon of offence (weed axe) resulting in his death in the hospital.

Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the case and looking at the overall evidence on record, the Court refused to conclude that when the appellant struck the deceased with the weapon of offence, he intended to cause such bodily injury as was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

“The weapon of offence in the present case is a common agriculture tool. If a man is hit with a weed axe on the head with sufficient force, it is bound to cause, as here, death. It is true that the injuries shown in the post mortem report are fracture of the parietal bone as well as the temporal bone. The deceased died on account of the cerebral compression i.e. internal head injuries.”

In such circumstances, the appellant could only be attributed with the “guilty knowledge” that it was likely to cause an injury which was likely to cause the death. Hence, the Court held that the case on hand does not fall within clause thirdly of Section 300 of the IPC and altered the conviction of the appellant under Section 304 Part I of the IPC to one under Section 304 Part II of the IPC. Resultantly, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years.

[ Anbazhagan v. State, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 857 , decided on 20.07.2023 ]

Judgment authored by Justice JB Pardiwala

Advocates who appeared in this case :

For Petitioner(s) Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv.; Mr. M.P. Parthiban, AOR; Ms. Priyaranjani Nagamuthu, Adv.; Mr. A.S. Vairawan, Adv.; Mr. R. Sudhakaran, Adv.; Mr. G.R. Vikash, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., AOR; Ms. Shubhi Bhardwaj, Adv.; Ms. Vaidehi Rastogi, Adv.

Buy Penal Code, 1860   HERE

Section 125 CrPC: Can the second wife be entitled to maintenance from her husband?

Delhi HC granted bail to a man accused of raping woman he met on dating app on pretext of marriage

Do convicts have a fundamental right to procreate? Watch to know what Delhi High Court recently held

Book release of 8th edition of “Criminology, Penology and Victimology” revised by Sanjay Vashishtha

Join the discussion, leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

• Supreme court
• 'Guilty Intention' vs 'Guilty...

'Guilty Intention' vs 'Guilty Knowledge' : Supreme Court Explains Fine Distinction Between Two Parts Of Section 304 IPC

21 July 2023 4:30 AM GMT

In a judgment delivered yesterday, the Supreme Court explained the fine difference between the two parts of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code.The bench of Justices B R Gavai and J B Pardiwala observed that, under the first part, the crime of murder is first established and the accused is then given the benefit of one of the exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC, while under the second part,...

In a judgment delivered yesterday, the Supreme Court explained the fine difference between the two parts of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code.

The bench of Justices B R Gavai and J B Pardiwala observed that, under the first part, the crime of murder is first established and the accused is then given the benefit of one of the exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC, while under the second part, the crime of murder is never established at all.

For the purpose of holding an accused guilty of the offence punishable under the second part of Section 304 of the IPC, the accused need not bring his case within one of the exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC, the court added.

In this case, the Trial Court had convicted the accused for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part I of the IPC. The High Court affirmed the conviction by dismissing his appeal. Before the Apex Court, the appellant-accused contended that the conviction deserves to be altered from Section 304 Part I of the IPC to one under Section 304 Part II of the IPC. It was contended that the case does not fall within clause thirdly of Section 300 of the IPC as all that can be attributed to the appellant is ‘knowledge’ and ‘not intention’.

The judgment discusses the the fine distinction between the terms ‘intent’ and ‘knowledge’ , Section 299 IPC and Section 300 IPC. The bench summarized as follows:

(1) When the court is confronted with the question, what offence the accused could be said to have committed, the true test is to find out the intention or knowledge of the accused in doing the act. If the intention or knowledge was such as is described in Clauses (1) to (4) of Section 300 of the IPC, the act will be murder even though only a single injury was caused. To illustrate : 'A' is bound hand and foot. 'B' comes and placing his revolver against the head of 'A', shoots 'A' in his head killing him instantaneously. Here, there will be no difficulty in holding that the intention of 'B' in shooting 'A' was to kill him, though only single injury was caused. The case would, therefore, be of murder falling within Clause (1) of Section 300 of the IPC. Taking another instance, 'B' sneaks into the bed room of his enemy 'A' while the latter is asleep on his bed. Taking aim at the left chest of 'A', 'B' forcibly plunges a sword in the left chest of 'A' and runs away. 'A' dies shortly thereafter. The injury to 'A' was found to be sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. There may be no difficulty in holding that 'B' intentionally inflicted the particular injury found to be caused and that the said injury was objectively sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. This would bring the act of 'B' within Clause (3) of Section 300 of the IPC and render him guilty of the offence of murder although only single injury was caused. (2) Even when the intention or knowledge of the accused may fall within Clauses (1) to (4) of Section 300 of the IPC, the act of the accused which would otherwise be murder, will be taken out of the purview of murder, if the accused's case attracts any one of the five exceptions enumerated in that section. In the event of the case falling within any of those exceptions, the offence would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder, falling within Part 1 of Section 304 of the IPC, if the case of the accused is such as to fall within Clauses (1) to (3) of Section 300 of the IPC. It would be offence under Part II of Section 304 if the case is such as to fall within Clause (4) of Section 300 of the IPC. Again, the intention or knowledge of the accused may be such that only 2nd or 3rd part of Section 299 of the IPC, may be attracted but not any of the clauses of Section 300 of the IPC. In that situation also, the offence would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 of the IPC. It would be an offence under Part I of that section, if the case fall within 2nd part of Section 299, while it would be an offence under Part II of Section 304 if the case fall within 3rd part of Section 299 of the IPC. (3) To put it in other words, if the act of an accused person falls within the first two clauses of cases of culpable homicide as described in Section 299 of the IPC it is punishable under the first part of Section 304. If, however, it falls within the third clause, it is punishable under the second part of Section 304. In effect, therefore, the first part of this section would apply when there is ‘guilty intention,’ whereas the second part would apply when there is no such intention, but there is ‘guilty knowledge’. (4) Even if single injury is inflicted, if that particular injury was intended, and objectively that injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the requirements of Clause 3rdly to Section 300 of the IPC, are fulfilled and the offence would be murder. (5) Section 304 of the IPC will apply to the following classes of cases: (i) when the case falls under one or the other of 51 the clauses of Section 300, but it is covered by one of the exceptions to that Section, (ii) when the injury caused is not of the higher degree of likelihood which is covered by the expression 'sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death' but is of a lower degree of likelihood which is generally spoken of as an injury 'likely to cause death' and the case does not fall under Clause (2) of Section 300 of the IPC, (iii) when the act is done with the knowledge that death is likely to ensue but without intention to cause death or an injury likely to cause death. To put it more succinctly, the difference between the two parts of Section 304 of the IPC is that under the first part, the crime of murder is first established and the accused is then given the benefit of one of the exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC, while under the second part, the crime of murder is never established at all. Therefore, for the purpose of holding an accused guilty of the offence punishable under the second part of Section 304 of the IPC, the accused need not bring his case within one of the exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC. (6) The word 'likely' means probably and it is distinguished from more 'possibly'. When chances of happening are even or greater than its not happening, we may say that the thing will 'probably happen'. In reaching the conclusion, the court has to place itself in the situation of the accused and then judge whether the accused had the knowledge that by the act he was likely to cause death. (7) The distinction between culpable homicide (Section 299 of the IPC) and murder (Section 300 of the IPC) has always to be carefully borne in mind while dealing with a charge under Section 302 of the IPC. Under the category of unlawful homicides, both, the cases of culpable homicide amounting to murder and those not amounting to murder would fall. Culpable homicide is not murder when the case is brought within the five exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC. But, even though none of the said five exceptions are pleaded or prima facie established on the evidence on record, the prosecution must still be required under the law to bring the case under any of the four clauses of Section 300 of the IPC to sustain the charge of murder. If the prosecution fails to discharge this onus in establishing any one of the four clauses of Section 300 of the IPC, namely, 1stly to 4thly, the charge of murder would not be made out and the case may be one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder as described under Section 299 of the IPC. (8) The court must address itself to the question of mens rea. If Clause thirdly of Section 300 is to be applied, the assailant must intend the particular injury inflicted on the deceased. This ingredient could rarely be proved by direct evidence. Inevitably, it is a matter of inference to be drawn from the proved circumstances of the case. The court must necessarily have regard to the nature of the weapon used, part of the body injured, extent of the injury, degree of force used in causing the injury, the manner of attack, the circumstances preceding and attendant on the attack. (9) Intention to kill is not the only intention that makes a culpable homicide a murder. The intention to cause injury or injuries sufficient in the ordinary cause of nature to cause death also makes a culpable homicide a murder if death has actually been caused and intention to cause such injury or injuries is to be inferred from the act or acts resulting in the injury or injuries. (10) When single injury inflicted by the accused results in the death of the victim, no inference, as a general principle, can be drawn that the accused did not have the intention to cause the death or that particular injury which resulted in the death of the victim. Whether an accused had the required guilty intention or not, is a question of fact which has to be determined on the facts of each case. (11) Where the prosecution proves that the accused had the intention to cause death of any person or to cause bodily injury to him and the intended injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, then, even if he inflicts a single injury which results in the death of the victim, the offence squarely falls under Clause thirdly of Section 300 of the IPC unless one of the exceptions applies. (12) In determining the question, whether an accused had guilty intention or guilty knowledge in a case where only a single injury is inflicted by him and that injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the fact that the act is done without premeditation in a sudden fight or quarrel, or that the circumstances justify that the injury was accidental or unintentional, or that he only intended a simple injury, would lead to the inference of guilty knowledge, and the offence would be one under Section 304 Part II of the IPC.

Reappreciating the evidence on record, the bench concluded that the appellant could only be attributed with the knowledge that it was likely to cause an injury which was likely to cause the death. It is in such circumstances that we are inclined to take the view that the case on hand does not fall within clause thirdly of Section 300 of the IPC, the bench observed while altering conviction from Section 304 Part 1 IPC to Section 304 Part 2 IPC.

Case details

Anbazhagan vs State | 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 550 | 2023 INSC 632

Indian Penal Code, 1860 ; Sections 299, 300, 304 -  Difference between the two parts of Section 304- Under the first part, the crime of murder is first established and the accused is then given the benefit of one of the exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC, while under the second part, the crime of murder is never established at all. Therefore, for the purpose of holding an accused guilty of the offence punishable under the second part of Section 304 of the IPC, the accused need not bring his case within one of the exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC  - If the act of an accused person falls within the first two clauses of cases of culpable homicide as described in Section 299 of the IPC it is punishable under the first part of Section 304. If, however, it falls within the third clause, it is punishable under the second part of Section 304. In effect, therefore, the first part of this section would apply when there is ‘guilty intention,’ whereas the second part would apply when there is no such intention, but there is ‘guilty knowledge’. (Para 60)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

• Law of torts – Complete Reading Material
• Weekly Competition – Week 4 – September 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 1 October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 2 – October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 3 – October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 4 – October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 5 October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 1 – November 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 2 – November 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 3 – November 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 4 – November 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 1 – December 2019
• Sign in / Join

• Indian Penal Code 1860
• Section 304 IPC

All about Section 304 IPC

The following article has been written by Ishani Samajpati , pursuing B.A. LL.B. (Hons) under the University of Calcutta. This article contains a detailed discussion of Section 304 IPC which lays down the punishments to be awarded for ‘culpable homicide not amounting to murder’.

This article has been published by Sneha Mahawar .

Table of Contents

Introduction

Section 304 is one of such important yet little-known sections which lays down the detailed directions for punishments to be awarded to anyone guilty of ‘culpable homicide not amounting to murder’ ( Sect ion 299 of IPC).

Chapter XVI of IPC deals with such offences where the human body is affected or the offence costs an individual’s life and the punishments to be awarded in such cases. Section 304 of IPC provides the punishments for one of such offences of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

This article seeks to give an exhaustive view of Section 304 of IPC through the following paragraphs along with a few of the relevant case laws. Before that, for the sake of clarity, a brief discussion of homicide and its classification, culpable homicide, murder and the distinction between them is enumerated below.

Homicide and its classification

Apart from natural death, it is also classified in another five categories. They are – 

• death caused by accident 
• commitment of suicide or being abated to commit suicide 
• conduction of homicide (where one individual causes the death of another) 
• undetermined death when the cause of the death cannot be ascertained, and 
• pending when the cause and nature of death is yet to be determined. 

The term ‘homicide’ has been derived from two Latin terms – ‘homo’ meaning man and ‘cida’ meaning killing. Therefore, homicide means the killing of an individual by another. Homicide is further classified into two types:

Lawful homicide

Lawful homicides include homicides which involve ‘justifiable’ and ‘excusable’ homicides. Examples include performing homicide in self-defense, executing an individual under the death penalty, killing under euthanasia in countries where it is legal etc.

Unlawful homicide

Unlawful homicides include those homicides which are illegal in the eyes of law in a civilised society. Two of the most common unlawful homicides include:

• Culpable Homicide

Definition of culpable homicide according to IPC

The term, culpable homicide, has been defined in Section 299 , the very first Section under Chapter XVI of IPC. The offence of culpable homicide is committed when an individual causes death to another intentionally or by an act with the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death.

According to Section 299 of IPC, an individual commits the offence of culpable homicide when:-

• That individual does an act which causes another individual’s death intentionally.
• That individual causes any ‘bodily injury’ which results in the death of another.
• That individual acted with the intention to cause death; or with the knowledge that the act may amount to death but without intention.

Murder : definition in IPC

The definition of murder has been provided in Section 300 of IPC. It is the gravest form of offence committed. According to Section 300, a murder is a type of culpable homicide where the death is caused intentionally or a bodily injury is caused with the intention to cause death.

Public Prosecutor v. Suryanarayana Moorty (1912) 

In this one of the earliest cases , a sensitive question of whether an offence is to be categorised under culpable homicide or murder was decided.

Facts of the case

The public prosecutor, representing the government appealed against Suryanarayana Murthi, who was acquitted against the charge of murdering a girl, Rajalakshmi.

The accused took out considerable insurance on Appala Narasimhulu. In order to obtain those large sums of money, he decided to kill him. The accused asked Appala to meet at his brother-in-law’s house and gave him sweetmeat mixed with poisons containing arsenic and mercury. Appala, on the other hand, ate a portion and threw the rest of it after realising. 

Rajalakshmi, the accused’s niece and daughter of the brother-in-law, a girl of 8 or 9 years of age, took the thrown away sweetmeat without the knowledge of the accused. She then shared it with another child.  While Appala recovered, the two children died from poisoning.

Two accounts of this incident were presented to the Court. One was that Rajalakshmi asked the accused for sweetmeat. The other account was that Rajalakshmi took the remaining sweetmeat thrown away by Appala without the accused’s knowledge. The Court accepted the second account as true.

Issue of the case

While the accused was awarded transportation (relocation to a secluded place, especially to the Andaman Islands as punishment during British Rule) for an attempt to murder Appala Narasimhulu, the main issue was to decide whether the accused was guilty of murdering the children or was guilty of committing culpable homicide.

Observations

The Madras High Court held that the accused had the intention to cause death undoubtedly.

The question of whether the accused is guilty of murdering Rajalakshmi or not is based on inferences drawn from the presented facts.

The Court held that at the time of eating, the accused was absent from the scene. He could have prevented Rajalakshmi from eating if he was present. However, the mixing of poison with sweetmeat was the main reason from which death was caused. So the accused is not absolved from the responsibility. 

It was also discussed and widely debated whether his offence falls under Section 299,  Sec t ion 301 of IPC which deals with culpable homicide causing the death of another person other than whose death was originally intended or under Section 302. 

But since the accused originally intended to cause death, it was held that the accused was liable for the murdering of the children even though he only intended to kill Appala.

The order of acquittal of the charge of murder by the Sessions Judge was set aside. The accused was convicted under Section 302 of IPC instead of Section 304. However, the accused was not sentenced to death but was awarded ‘transportation for life’.

Differentiation between Murder and Culpable Homicide as illustrated in IPC

Both the cases of murder and culpable homicide involve the killing of any individual. Hence, for any accused to be tried under either of these, one common essential is DEATH. The basic differences between them are as follows:

“All murders are culpable homicide, but all culpable homicides are not murders.”

In any specific case, it is first examined whether a culpable homicide amounts to murder or not. While the culpable homicide is the ‘genus’ and the murder is the ‘specie’. Hence, it can be inferred that “all murders are culpable homicide, but all culpable homicides are not murders”. 

This statement has been reiterated in several cases by the Supreme Court of India.

State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya & Another (1976) 

The Supreme Court of India in this case stated that the distinction between ‘murder’ and ‘culpable homicide not amounting to murder’ “has vexed the courts for more than a century”. It was also stated that ‘culpable homicide’ is genus and ‘murder’ is the specie . All ‘murder’ falls under the category of culpable homicide’ but the vice-versa is never true.

• There were factions between three major communities namely Reddys, Kammas and Bhatrajus in Rompicherla village.
• A clash, political in nature, took place between two communities namely Reddys, supporting Congress and Kammas, supporting Swatantra Party in the Panchayat election of 1954. A member of Kamma community was murdered and nine from the Reddy community were prosecuted for the murder.
• In another incident, the deceased, Sarikonda Kotamraju, leader of the Bhatrajus, had a meeting with his party-men to protect themselves from the aggressions of the opponents in the cattle shed belonging to one of the partymen. The opposition members blocked the wall.
• The deceased went to the police station with the owner of the cattle shed (PW 1) to lodge a report on July 22, 1968.
• The deceased, PW1 & PW2, boarded a bus on the next day and the accused persons also boarded the same house after some time. On seeing the accused persons, the PW1 saved himself.
• The deceased, a man of 55 years, requested the accused persons to leave him but they started beating him mercilessly. He became unconscious and succumbed to his injury which was grievous in nature. He gave a dying declaration to the Judicial Magistrate.
• The trial judge convicted the first two of the accused persons under Section 302 and under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
• The High Court, on appeal, altered the conviction under Section 304, Part II, IPC and sentenced each of them to ‘five years rigorous imprisonment’.

The State appealed in the Apex Court after obtaining special leave.

The first accused (Respondent 1) died during the pendency of the appeal. The decision of whether another accused should be tried under offence of murder or culpable homicide was to be decided.

Observations of the Supreme Court

The Apex Court held that the fact the attack was premeditated or planned earlier is incorrect. 

The injuries sustained by the deceased were also of compound nature. The death was due to “shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries” which was caused by the accused. 

The Apex Court opined that the High Court passed an erroneous order by altering the convictions and that the accused should be sentenced to life imprisonment.

Rampal Singh v. State Of U.P (2012)

In this case , the Supreme Court also held the same opinion regarding the distinction between murder and culpable homicide.

• Ram Kumar Singh, the deceased and Rampal Singh, the appellant both served in the Army as Lans Naik. 
• The deceased came to his village on leave from Agra, his posting. 
• He erected a Ladauri on his vacant land. Rampal Singh broke the constructed Ladauri and started throwing garbage. 
• The deceased again came to his village on leave. 
• Before returning, they were chatting with relatives where Rampal Singh, the grandson of the deceased’s uncle, was also present.
• The deceased asked him the reason for demolishing his Ladauri and throwing garbage. 
• The heated discussion resulted in an altercation. They started grappling and the deceased threw him on the ground.
• The appellant announced his intention to shoot the deceased and the deceased remarked as to whether the appellant had the courage to shoot him, which was confirmed by his wife at the Court. 
• After this, the appellant shot with his rifle and escaped. 
• After primary treatment at the village, he was taken to the army hospital where he died.
• The accused was charged with the offence of murder under section 302 of the IPC.

The issue before the Supreme Court was to decide whether the offence was murder under Section 302 of IPC or culpable homicide amounting to murder after sudden provocation under Section 304 (Part I) of IPC. 

Observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

The Apex Court once again reiterated its decision as held in the case of State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Rayavarapu Punnayya & Another that “the ‘culpable homicide’ is genus and ‘murder’ its species. All ‘murder’ is ‘culpable homicide’ but not vice-versa.”

The Court further held that there was a heated exchange of words between them as well as a provocation on the part of the deceased. 

Hence, the appellant was provoked to shoot his rifle which resulted in the death of the deceased. 

The offence of the appellant was altered from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I and was awarded rigorous imprisonment of ten years along with a fine of Rs 10,000/-

Types of Culpable Homicide under Section 304 of IPC

To determine the level of punishment, in accordance with the gravity of the crime committed, the IPC divides three degrees of culpable homicide respectively. The first degree comes under Section 300 and Section 302 while the rest two degrees of culpable homicide falls under Section 304 (Part I) & (Part II) of IPC respectively : 

• The gravest and most serious form of culpable homicide has been defined in Section 300 as ‘murder’. This is also termed as the ‘culpable homicide of the first degree’. 
• The second is termed as ‘culpable homicide of the second degree’. This is the culpable homicide which amounts to murder. This is less grave compared to the first degree. It is punishable under Part I of Section 304. 
• The ‘culpable homicide of the third degree’ is the least graver type of culpable homicide. This is the culpable homicide which does not amount to murder. The punishment awarded here is the lowest among the three degrees. It is punishable under Section 304 (Part II) of IPC.

Reg. v. Govinda ( 1876)

This is one of the early cases which precisely defined the difference between murder and culpable homicide amounting to murder.

In this case the accused, an 18-year-old man, had kicked his 15-year-old wife, kept a knee on her chest and struck her several times with a fist on her face. This act produced ‘extraversion of blood’ on her brain and the wife died. 

The Session Judge found the accused guilty of murder and sentenced him to death.

The issue before the Bombay High Court was to decide whether the accused was guilty of murder or of culpable homicide.

Observations of the Court

Justice Melvill was of the opinion that the offence amounts to culpable homicide, and not murder since there was an intention to cause death and the bodily injury was not sufficient to cause death ordinarily. 

Hence, it was held that the bodily injury was not sufficient to cause death and further the act was not committed with the intention to cause death. Hence, the accused was liable to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

The accused was ordered to be convicted under culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and was sentenced to transportation (relocation to a secluded place as punishment during British Rule) for seven years.

Punishments according to Section 304 of IPC

According to the IPC, Section 304, as mentioned beforehand, explains punishments for ‘culpable homicide not amounting to murder’. 

Section 304 of IPC can be separated into two parts: Section 304 (Part I) and Section 304 (Part II). The level of punishment is different and is given accordingly considering the gravity of the crimes committed.

Section 304 (Part I) IPC

A person who has committed a crime falling under the category of ‘culpable homicide not amounting to murder’ is to be awarded a punishment of life imprisonment or imprisonment of a term extending up to ten years and a fine. The act of crime has to be committed with both intentions along with knowledge.

Section 304 (Part II) IPC 

It lays down that an act which causes death is committed, or the act itself is committed with an intention to cause death or a bodily injury which ‘is likely to cause death’ is to be punished with imprisonment of the term extending up to ten years or fine or both imprisonment of ten years and fine altogether. Furthermore, it must be maintained that the act has been committed with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death or any bodily injury resulting in causing death.

It can be specified that Section 304 of IPC stresses two factors namely knowledge and intention to determine the amount of punishment. If an act is committed with both the intention and knowledge, Section 304 (Part I) of IPC awards a punishment of imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years and a fine.  On the contrary, if it is committed with knowledge but without intention, under Section 304 (Part II) of IPC, a person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of ten years or a fine or with both ten years imprisonment and a fine.

Classification of Offences under Section 304 of IPC 

The classification of offences under both the Part I and Part II of Section 304 of IPC are: 

Cognizable 

Section 2(c) of CrPC lays down the definition of cognisable offences. A cognizable offence is such an offence where a police officer may arrest an individual without any arrest warrant or without the orders of the Magistrate. The arrest is to be made in accordance with the First Schedule of CrPC or any other relevant law in force.

A cognizable offence is serious in nature.

Non-bailable 

Non-bailable offences refer to those serious and grave offences where an accused person, arrested and taken into police custody cannot be released on bail by the police. The Investigating Officer should provide the accused to the Judicial Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest. The accused can file an application for bail and it can only be granted by the Court at its own discretion by the Judicial Magistrate with a bail bond, i.e. an amount of money against the freedom of the individual until the trial.

Some non-bailable offences include offenses such as Rape, Murder, Dowry Death, Attempt to murder, and Kidnapping.

Non-compoundable 

Section 320 of CrPC provides a detailed list of offences which have been termed as compoundable offences, meaning that a compromise can be sought between the complainant and the accused. Apart from these, the rest offences are termed as non-compoundable. Here, either the State or State elected officials such as police files complaints and it is not officially possible to enter into any compromise.

Triable by Court of Session 

The offences as mentioned in Section 304 of IPC can be tried by a competent Court of Sessions under Section 9 of CrPC.

Relevant case laws relating to Section 304 of IPC

There exists a catena of judgments and orders relating to Section 304 of IPC. A few of the important cases are discussed below. However, the discussion cannot be made exhaustive considering the vastness of the number of cases.

Harendra Nath Mandal v. State of Bihar (1993)

This was an appeal , where the appellant was convicted under Section 304 (Part I) of IPC and the High Court sentenced him to two years of rigorous imprisonment for two years. The appellant along with two others, Sitaram Mandal and Tribhanga Mandal were charged under Section 307 read with Section 34 . They had also been charged under Section 379 of IPC for theft of paddy.

The appellant along with two others was harvesting paddy. The Prosecution Witness 9 (PW 9) and his brother protested because, apparently, the appellants were harvesting paddies from their land. The appellant assaulted the PW 9’s brother with a tangi. The three persons were charged with murder and theft of paddy.

Harendra Nath Mandal and Sitaram Mandal were convicted by the Session’s Judge under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and five years respectively. 

They appealed to the High Court where one of the accused died during the pendency. The appellant was convicted under section 304 Part I of IPC.

The issue before the Supreme Court was to decide whether the appellant can be tried under Section 304 of IPC.

The Court held that Section 304 Part I of the IPC, in which the accused was convicted, does not create or define any offence. Rather, Section 304 lays in detail the punishments to be awarded for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Further, Section 300 defines murder along with the exceptions.

It was held that for holding an accused guilty and punishing under Part I & Part II of Section 304, a death must be caused under any of five exceptions mentioned in Section 300 of IPC.

Kedar Prasad v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1992) 

The accusations of this c a se were based on the dying declaration of the deceased.

The deceased, Altaf, was attracted to a commotion. When he reached the spot, he saw a woman was beaten and asked to stop. 

The three accused, Kedar Prasad, Ramlal and Rambali in turn, started giving blows to the deceased. Kedar Prasad, one of the accused, gave a fatal blow on the head of the deceased which resulted in his death. The other accused person injured the deceased with a spear on his knee and arm.

Kedar Prasad and Ramlal were convicted under Part I of Section 304 of IPC and sentenced with rigorous imprisonment of five years. The three also were convicted under Section 323 of IPC.

The issue before the Court was to decide whether the appellants can be convicted under Section 304 (Part I) of IPC.

Observations & Judgement

Based on the dying declaration, the Court decided that the fatal blow given in the head by Kedar Prasad was the sole reason behind the death. Hence the court confirmed his conviction and sentence. 

However, the conviction of Ramlal was altered under Section 324 , IPC.

Mirza Ghani Baig v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1996) 

In this case , according to the dying declaration of the deceased, the husband came home in a drunken state and the wife offered him food. After having food, the husband set the deceased wife ablaze by pouring kerosene.

The brother-in-law and sister, after hearing cries, saved the accused and took her to the hospital where she died.

The lower court convicted him and awarded punishment under section 302 of IPC.

The issue before the Court was to decide whether the accused should be convicted under Section 302 of IPC.

Observation

It was observed that there was no evidence that the accused was harassing his wife for dowry or having an unhappy married life. It was further held that even though the accused was in a drunken state, and he had the knowledge that his act would be dangerous to the life of the deceased, he had no intention. Though he was responsible for the death of the deceased, he is guilty under Section 304 Part II of IPC and not under Section 302.

The accused was convicted under Section 304 Part II of IPC and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of five years.

S.D. Soni v. State Of Gujarat (1990)

Here , the deceased wife informed her parents that she was not happy in her marital life and wrote a letter informing her parents that she was being ill-treated by her husband, inlaws and other relatives. In the meantime, the wife was found dead in her matrimonial house.

It was informed to the Court that there was a suicide note found under the pillow of the wife and the medical officer also concluded it to be a suicidal death.

The accused was convicted under Section 302 of IPC by the Trial Court and was sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court found him punishable under Section 304 Part II of IPC and punished him with rigorous imprisonment.

Both the appellant and the State of Gujarat appealed challenging his conviction and to convict him under Section 302 of IPC. It was to be decided by the Apex Court the section under which he is to be convicted.

The Supreme Court held that the suicide theory was invented as a defence and also to mislead the Court. It was further held that the deceased did not die by taking any substances which may cause her death.

The guilt of his husband was inferred based on ‘circumstantial evidence’ since no direct evidence was found to establish whether it was suicide or murder. Since he was aware of the situation of his wife and had knowledge, he was held guilty under Section 304 (Part II).

The Apex Court upheld the decision of the High Court and convicted him under Section 304 Part II of IPC and awarded him rigorous imprisonment of five years

Randhir Singh Alias Dhire v. State Of Punjab (1981)

In this case , the accused Randhir Singh hit the deceased Mohan Singh with a blow of kassi. The deceased immediately fell on the ground. He died while being rushed to the hospital. The accused was convicted under Section 302. According to the autopsy report, one of the injuries caused to the deceased was sufficient to cause him death. 

The appellant was convicted under Section 302, and Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC. respectively by the Sessions Judge and sentenced with life imprisonment. 

In an appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana confirmed the conviction and the sentence.

The issue was to decide whether the offence falls under the ambit of murder since there was no premeditation.

The Supreme Court held that the appellant was a college student and there was no premeditation. It was further held that the appellant must have the knowledge that his injury is likely to cause death. Hence his offence falls under the category of Section 304 Part II of IPC.

The conviction of the appellant was altered from Section 302 to Section 304, Part II, IPC. The appellant was given five years of rigorous imprisonment instead of life imprisonment.

The distinction between Section 304 (Part I) and (Part II) of IPC 

An elaborate explanation of Sec 304 of IPC has been precisely provided by the High Court of Gujarat in the case of Rameshkumar Shankarlal Shah v. State Of Gujarat in 2016.

Rameshkumar Shankarlal Shah v. State Of Gujarat (2016) 

The facts, issues, observations and the order of the case are as follows:

Brief facts of the case 

A writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed to quash an FIR under Sections 304, 120B read with 114 of the IPC.

The petitioner along with two co-accused purchased land on 13th May, 2014. Thereafter, the accused no 1 applied for an electric connection to Central Gujarat Electricity Company to shift High Tension Electric Line over the property and made the required payment.

On 19th July, 2014, due to some excavation work, the excavated soil was dumped in a part of the land. The dumped soil formed a big heap.  Another person was passing through the land with his cattle. When he climbed the heap of soil, he came into contact with the High Tension Electric Line and was electrocuted.

An FIR was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 304, 120B read with 114 of the Indian Penal Code and the applicant was sought to be prosecuted based on such accusation, for the offence of  ‘culpable homicide not amounting to murder’ which is punishable under Section 304 of the IPC. 

Issue of the Case 

The issue before the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat was to be decided whether the offence amounts to ‘culpable homicide not amounting to murder’ and whether the accused can be tried under Section 304 of the IPC.

Observations of the Court 

Justice J.B.Pardiwala of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat provided a concise explanation of Section 304 through the order. He held that: “A plain reading of the above Section makes it clear that it is in two parts. The first part of the Section is generally referred to as “Section 304   Part ­I”, whereas the second part as “Section 304, Part­ II”.”

It was also mentioned that if a bodily injury likely to cause death is done intentionally and the victim dies, it would fall under  Part I. Subsequently if such an injury is caused with the knowledge that it may result in death but without the intention of causing death. “A person who intentionally causes bodily injury with the knowledge that such an act is likely to cause death must   necessarily be a person who does an act with the intent to cause bodily   injury likely to result in death.” 

Order 

It was held that the accused persons cannot be tried under Sec 304 and the application to quash the FIR was allowed.

Detailed discussions of elements of Section 304 of IPC with some relevant case laws 

Section 304 of IPC have also been applied in the following circumstances. They are discussed below with relevant case laws:

Spur of the moment  

It literally means an impulsive act which is done without any premeditation or without any further planning done earlier.

Manjeet Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2014) 

In the case of Manjeet Singh v. State Of H.P , Jai Pal, a person involved in the taxi business, went to hotel Apsara to inquire from the manager Budhi Singh regarding the booking of his taxi by some passenger. He found the accused Manjeet Singh drinking liquor. On asking him about the whereabouts of the manager, the accused started verbal abuse followed by physical assault. Jai Pal’s companions, whom he met on the road, came to inquire about him.

The accused, on being instigated by his friends, shot Carbine which left one of Jai Pal’s companions dead while being rushed to the hospital.

The accused was not held guilty under Section 302 but under Section 304 (Part II) of IPC and sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 5,500/-. The Court also affirmed conviction and sentences for the offence under Section 324, IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act passed by the Trial Court.

• Alteration of charges from Section 302 to Section 304 (II): 

Considering the gravity of the situation and the nature of offence, sometimes the charges are altered at the discretion of the Court after considering necessary facts and circumstances.

 Kalu Ram v. State of Rajasthan (1999)

In the case of Kalu Ram v. State of Rajasthan , the convictions of the accused were altered by the Supreme Court of India after careful examination of facts.

The accused, Kalu Ram, kept two wives in two different places. It was costly for him and he burnt one of his wives, Vimla to death.

It was admitted that he approached his wife in a drunken state and asked for her ornaments. When she refused, he poured kerosene and lit a matchstick but later frantically poured water to save her.

Hence, it was held that he was probably not aware of such grave situations. The offence from first-degree murder was altered to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Thus, the convictions were altered from Section 302 to Section 304 (Part II).

• Exceeded right of private defence under Section 304 (Part I):  

The IPC guarantees the right of private defence from Section 96 to Section 106 . However, if an act exceeds the right of private defence, it will attract convictions under Section 304 (Part I) of IPC.

Furthermore, the right to self-defence cannot be used as a defence in the Court of Law if it exceeds certain quanta.

Suresh Singh v. State of Haryana (1999)

In the case, Suresh Singh v. State of Haryana , the appellants Suresh Singh and Mohinder Singh were convicted under Section 302 while another accused Chander Pal was convicted under Section 304 (Part I).

The appellants killed Mahipal by giving blows to different body parts. The accused were also injured but to a minimum extent compared to the deceased.

Hence it was held that the accused persons had exceeded the right of private defence. Charges of all the accused were altered to Section 304 (Part I).

Self-defence must arise 

If the accused sustains nominal injuries while the deceased receive grievous injuries, it is held that the accused was the aggressor under Section 304 (Part I).

Murali v. State of TamilNadu (2000)

In the case of Murali v. State of TamilNadu , the deceased was stabbed in the stomach by the accused. The deceased had bought 2/3rd share in the well and the pump set belonging to the accused. He further dragged the deceased to the house and assaulted him to death. After some time he opened the door with a bloodstained knife and escaped.

The Supreme Court held that he was guilty under Section 304 (Part I) and stated, “ Right of private defence undoubtedly, a defence available to an accused but the Court while dealing with the defence, ought to act with proper circumspection and caution….”

Sudden scuffle during the course of altercation – Alteration of Section 304 (I) to Section 300 (II) 

If an individual creates a sudden sight in a small scuffle and it subsequently results in death or any bodily injury causing death, it should fall under Section 300 (II) and not Section 304(Part I)

Sukhdev Singh v. Delhi State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) (2003)

In the case of Sukhdev Singh v. Delhi State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) , an altercation regarding the parking of a scooter followed by scuffle took place between the accused and Devender Singh, the deceased. The accused fired a pistol and shot him dead, leaving one injured.

The Supreme Court of India concluded that no reasonable person would be so provocative to lose self-control and fire a pistol. Hence the conviction should be altered to Section 300 (Part II) instead of Section 304 (Part II). 

Rash and negligent act with knowledge and likelihood of its dangerous consequences 

If a person commits a ‘despicable aggravated offence’, he is liable to punishment under Section 304 (Part II) instead of  Section 304A of IPC dealing with death caused by negligence.

Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra (2012)

In Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra , a car ran into a pavement killing seven persons and causing injury to another eight persons near Bandra, Mumbai. The appellant, Alister Anthony was driving the car. He was convicted under Section 304 (Part II) along with Section 338 and Section 337 of IPC. He was found to be under the influence of liquor. 

The Apex court concluded that the High Court was quite considerate for convicting under Section 304 (Part II) where seven persons were killed helplessly.

Death in custody

If a police officer assaults or tortures a prisoner in police custody and as a result of the prisoner succumbs to death, the conviction should be held accordingly to Section 304 (Part II) of IPC.

Along with framing a list of guidelines to be maintained for an individual in police custody, the Court also held the same in the landmark case of Shri DK Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) .

A comparative analysis between Section 304 and Section 304A of IPC

While Section 304 of IPC deals with the punishments to be awarded for the offences of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, Section 304A deals with the deaths caused by negligence. Several judgments by many of the High Courts and that of the  Hon’ble Supreme Court have reinstated the transparent distinction between Section 304 and Section 304A of IPC. 

A noteworthy case, in this regard, is the case of Mahadev Prasad Kaushik v. State of U.P. & Anr (2008) where the Apex Court discussed the distinctions between Section 304 and Section 304A of IPC from paragraphs 26 to 29 of the Order:

• Section 304A does not create a new offence. Rather, it deals with homicidal death by rash or negligent acts. It defines those offences which do not fall in the category of offences as specified in Sections 299 and 300 of IPC.
• It was further held that unlike Section 304, where there is either ‘knowledge’ or both ‘knowledge’ and ‘intention’, there is no involvement of both ‘knowledge’ and ‘intention’ in the case of Section 304A.
• Section 304A deals with those offences where the rash and negligent act has caused the death of another person.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled, “There is thus the distinction between Section 304 and Section 304A.”

Critical analysis 

The fine line of difference between murder and culpable homicide is often confusing while determining the quantum of punishment in case of an offence committed. To ensure fair trial and justice, the difference must be properly comprehended.

If the true scope, meaning and applicability cannot be comprehended by the Court minutely in case of an offence,  it may fail to ensure justice.

Concluding remarks

To determine an offence, it is of great importance to determine whether it falls under ‘murder’ or ‘culpable homicide’. If the offence is further determined to be under culpable homicide, there comes the responsibility to determine whether it amounts to murder or not and whether there was any presence of knowledge and intention or both. 

While theoretically, it is easy to distinguish, in real-life scenarios, it is not as easy to determine and distinguish them. To ensure justice, the keywords of the relevant sections should be focused on properly.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on Section 304 of IPC

Which offence is defined under section 304 of ipc.

Section 304 of IPC itself does not define any offence but details the punishment to be awarded for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The offence of culpable homicide has been defined under Section 299 of IPC and murder in Section 300 of IPC.

What is the difference between culpable and non-culpable homicide

Culpable homicide is the unlawful killing of human beings either with both knowledge and intention or with knowledge but without intention. 

Non-culpable homicide is the killing done mostly in self-defense or consensual killing, i.e. killing an individual with his or her own consent, such as in cases of euthanasia, assisted suicide or mercy killing, though the legality of consensual killing is still widely debated in India.

When does culpable homicide amount to murder

In short, ‘First Degree Murder’ is the culpable homicide amounting to murder. First-degree murder is the offence committed with the sole intention of causing death to an individual. The gravest form has been defined under Section 300 of IPC and its punishments under Section 302 of IPC.

Does mercy killing or euthanasia in India come under the ambit of culpable homicide

The legal position of mercy killing is still vague in India. The Supreme Court for the very first time in the case of Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug vs Union Of India & Ors (2011) legalised passive euthanasia and held the right to die as important as the right to life provided under Section 21 and it does not amount to culpable homicide.

What are the essential ingredients of Section 304 of IPC

The essential ingredients of Section 304 of IPC are:

• There must be a death caused to an individual in question.
• The death caused either should be with both intention and knowledge or with knowledge but without intention.
• The punishment of the offence is decided accordingly.

Is it possible to get bail under Section 304 of IPC

Section 304 of IPC is non-bailable. However, an individual may approach the Court and it can only be granted by the Court at its own discretion by the Judicial Magistrate with a bail bond.

What are the punishments awarded in Section 304 of IPC

Depending on the severity of the offences, the punishments awarded under Section 304 of IPC are life imprisonment, life imprisonment up to ten years and a fine or both life imprisonment up to ten years and a fine. However, Section 304 of IPC does not award the death penalty.

Which Court is competent to try offences under Section 304 of IPC

The offences under Section 304 of the IPC is triable in the Court of Sessions.

• https://lawrato.com/indian-kanoon/ipc/section-304
• https://www.mondaq.com/india/crime/988662/difference-between-murder-and-culpable-homicide
• https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-3192-scope-and-applicability-of-part-1-and-2-of-section-304-for-culpable-homicide.html#:~:text=Section%20304%20of%20IPC%20provides,Homicide%20not%20amounting%20to%20Murder
• https://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/1-50/report42.pdf

Students of  Lawsikho courses  regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/lawyerscommunity

Follow us on  Instagram  and subscribe to our  YouTube  channel for more amazing legal content.

RELATED ARTICLES MORE FROM AUTHOR

Custom as source of hindu law, state of west bengal vs. union of india (1963), section 13 of negotiable instruments act, 1881, leave a reply cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

How to kickstart your career as a corporate lawyer

Participants from more than 85 countries have attended our bootcamps so far

Register now

Thank you for registering with us, you made the right choice.

Congratulations! You have successfully registered for the webinar. See you there.

Medical Negligence and Criminal Law: An Indian Perspective

7 Pages Posted: 16 Apr 2010

Prashant R. Dahat

National Law Institute University, Bhopal

Puneet Satbir Yadav

National Law Institute University (NLIU)

Date Written: April 16, 2010

The word “negligence” is always damaging to the reputation of doctors, related to some damage to the patient and a challenge before the judges. In recent years, sudden spurt in the cases of “Criminal negligence” and decision of the Supreme Court raises a fresh debate. This paper deals with current scenario of “Criminal Negligence”, applicability of Section 304 & 304-A IPC in cases of death of patient during treatment, remedial measures available to a doctor facing the charge of ‘Criminal Negligence’ and a brief discussion of important cases related to the issue, including recent case. Negligence is a term of art, but has distinct meanings in different jurisdictions. In ‘Tort’, damage is an essential ingredient but that element is not necessary in the law of master and servant. In criminal law, there are series of offences based on negligence in which loss or injury is not material; it is enough if the act is likely to cause injury or endanger life. Operation of patient without consent is an example of negligence (Statutory Damage) even without actual apparent damage. Dictionary meaning of term ‘Negligence’ is ‘Lack of Proper Care’. As defined by Baron Alderson negligence means: “Omission to do something which a reasonable man guided by those consideration which regulate conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something which a reasonable man would not do”. Same definition is quoted in many decisions of the court. ‘Criminal Negligence’ is an offence against the State while ‘Civil Negligence’ is an offence against the individual act, which leads to injury i.e. physical injury, hurt- Section 319, grievous hurt- Section 320 Indian Penal Code (IPC). Loss of property (financial loss) due to some negligent act is always a civil negligence. The decision of the Supreme Court delivered on last years raises a fresh debate on the issue of ‘Criminal Negligence by the Doctors’. In this case the Supreme Court relied on various decisions of the House of Lords.

Keywords: Indian criminal laws on medical negligence, An Indian Perspective on Medical Negligence

Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation

Prashant Ramdas Dahat

National law institute university, bhopal ( email ).

108-A, Boy's Hostel, Kerwa Dam Road, Bhopal - 462044. ( M.P.), Madhya Pradesh 462044 India 09770338751 (Phone)

Puneet Satbir Yadav (Contact Author)

National law institute university (nliu) ( email ).

Kerwa Dam Road Kerwa Dam Road, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462044 India

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics, related ejournals, english & commonwealth law ejournal.

Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic

Torts & Product Liability Law eJournal

Health law, policy & ethics ejournal, international, transnational & comparative criminal law ejournal, india law ejournal.

Scope and Applicability of Part 1 and 2 of Section 304 for Culpable Homicide

• If the act by which death is caused is done with intention of causing death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the punishment is imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description of a term which may extend to ten years and fine.  
• If the act is done with knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the punishment is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years, or with fine, or with both.[i]

Cases and Circumstances falling under Part 1 of Section 304 (IPC)

Cases and circumstances falling under part 2 of section 304 (ipc).

• Section 304 (Indian Penal Code, 1860).
• Jgriti Devi v State of Himachal Pradesh, (2009) 14 SCC 771 : AIR 2009 SC 2869.
• 1989 CrLJ 718 (Punj).
• 1992 CrLJ 687.
• Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 34TH Edition (Volume 2).
• 2006 CrLJ 2517 (Jhar).
• Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 34TH Edition (Volume 2)
• (2014) 7 SCC 316.
• 2017(6) ALL LJ 17 (ALL) (DB)
• Harekrushna Sahu v State of Orissa, 2015 CrLJ 2965 (Ori)
• Gudu Ram v State, 2013 CrLJ 481 (SC)
• (1992) 2 Crimes 611 (MP)
• 2015 CrLJ 2989 (Ker) (DB)
• 1993 CrLJ 3669 (SC)

Law Article in India

Please drop your comments, you may like.

Analyzing The Ramifications...

Buds Act: Banning Of Unregu...

From AI To Jurisprudence: E...

Analysis of Standalone Saur...

Whitehat Education Technolo...

Stay of Suit under Section ...

Legal question & answers, lawyers in india - search by city.

Law Articles

How to file for mutual divorce in delhi.

How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi Mutual Consent Divorce is the Simplest Way to Obtain a D...

Increased Age For Girls Marriage

It is hoped that the Prohibition of Child Marriage (Amendment) Bill, 2021, which intends to inc...

Facade of Social Media

One may very easily get absorbed in the lives of others as one scrolls through a Facebook news ...

Section 482 CrPc - Quashing Of FIR: Guid...

The Inherent power under Section 482 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (37th Chapter of t...

The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in India: A...

The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is a concept that proposes the unification of personal laws across...

Role Of Artificial Intelligence In Legal...

Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing various sectors of the economy, and the legal i...

File caveat In Supreme Court Instantly

Medical Negligence During COVID 19: Did We Successfully Implement Section 304 A IPC?

Medical negligence during Covid affected people who were already grieving the lives of their loved ones. This article will relook at specific instances where medical negligence cost lives. It will explain the meaning and use of medical negligence laws in India, citing several cases that serve as decent examples to be reapplied in Covid cases. Aryaman Tripathi explains how Section 304(a) Indian Penal Code provided some respite to those subjected to medical negligence during Covid.

By Aryaman Tripathi, a second-year BBA LLB student from KIIT Law School

Introduction

The sudden rise of covid 19 cases alerted nations against a global health emergency. As a result, every country made efforts to stop the increase of infection, including bringing awareness and using technology to ramp up medical facilities.

Despite these preparations, no one can deny that the medical system exposed its vulnerabilities, pushing many into the cobweb of illegal medical practices, which cost heavily on patients.

The following article focuses on medical negligence in the medical field and the implementation of 304(A) IPC during a pandemic like covid 19. Further, it will bring to light the malpractices that raise a concern on the commercialisation at the hands of healthcare providers.

What is Medical Negligence? How is it Related to the pandemic?

Anyone working in medicine knows that even a slight misjudgment could lead to hazards and risks, eventually costing someone’s life.

The standard of care needed in a particular case depends on the professional skill expected from persons of a particular class.

A surgeon or anaesthetist will be judged by the standard of an average practitioner of class to which he belongs or holds himself out to belong. In the case of specialists, a higher degree of skill is needed .

Professionals such as lawyers, doctors, architects fall within the ambit of the law of negligence, as they all own special skills.

Any task which is required to be performed with a special skill would generally be admitted or undertaken to be performed only if the person possesses the skill necessary for performing the task. ( Law of Torts #)

Under the view of the Hon’ble court, referring to the decision of Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee ,  Judge Mc Nair expressed

“Where you get a situation which involves the use of some special skill or competence, then the test as to whether there has been negligence or not is not the test of the man on the top of a Clapham omnibus, because he has not got this special skill. The test is the standard of the ordinary skilled man exercising and professing to have that special skill”.

The statement gives us an idea that medical negligence can occur at a stage where the professional is either not at par with the knowledge of the patient’s health or does the act knowingly.

Negligence in legal terms means and barred breach of a duty of care that results in damage. The following three ways make the constituents for negligence :

(1) a legal duty to exercise due care on the part of the party complained of towards the party complaining the former’s conduct within the scope of duty;

(2) Breach of the same duty; and

(3) Consequential damages.

Following this, the landmark case of bolon was held, and it stated that the liability of negligence rests on the reasonable man. The judge described a reasonable man as not any ordinary person but someone who can either threaten society or save it. Therefore, in any ordinary circumstances, the reasonable man shall prevent any negligence from happening, and this could happen if that person has enough knowledge from his field.

The job of a doctor is to ensure that his patients are treated properly and with utmost care. Further, it has been cited in many cases like Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab that a practitioner can be judged for negligence only if he does not possess the required skill to complete the job or does not exercise caution while treating the patient.

It must be noted that a profession is different from an occupation. While the first requires a degree for a job, the latter may not be mandated upon such conditions.

Doctors do not enjoy any immunity from torts or contracts because the medical profession requires a degree under which the doctor is liable to his client a duty in torts and contract that he exercises reasonable care in giving advice performing services. ( Law of Torts #)

Medical Negligence During Covid 19 and Section 304 (A) IPC

India has one of the poorest medical infrastructures around the globe. (Indiaspend)

Even with very few covid 19 cases in certain states, hospitals experienced a shortage of beds, wards and oxygen cylinders.  As numbers rose, it became difficult to access medical aid, especially in smaller cities. The same was also due to a scant doctor to patient ratio in hospitals, which also aggravated due to insufficient medical health professionals. While many doctors risked their lives during this time, a few doctors indulged in forgery and malpractices.

On June 25, 2021, two associates from Kanpur were found guilty of causing the death of a patient by negligence . The police lodged FIR and barred the two under the provision of 304(A) (causing death by negligence which does not amount to culpable homicide).

A probe was ordered as the doctor and his associate ransacked the accused and extracted nineteen lakh. Further, as the bill was overpriced, the deceased’s son went on to ask the doctor for the same. However, the doctor and his staff denied any such accusations and threatened dire consequences. This upset the family and they reported the matter. Finally, the police filed the FIR under  304A IPC , 506 IPC , 504 IPC  and 352 IPC and section 56 of the disaster management act.

Later, It was also observed that the doctor gave the patient a wrong injection, resulting  in her death.

Many cases of black marketing of oxygen cylinders were reported when cases spiked again during the second wave. One such incident is from Karnataka, where the man tried selling cylinders at exorbitant prices and the police later arrested him.

With an upsurge in cases, many people were struggling to find beds and wards, and at their expense, private hospitals were charging thrice the amount than usual. Meanwhile, those who failed to comply with such unreasonable prices lost their family.

The government at its end was also not so swift since the lockdown was not pre-announced, and even when it opened up, the cases were on the rise, leading to an increase in deaths.

Even vaccines were being given at a higher price in private hospitals. However, after the government’s interference, the vaccine is now administered free, at least in government facilities.

But even during these challenging times, some businesses have maintained a steady rise in their income by not giving accurate details of their products. For example, Patanjali, a renowned brand, claimed that their ayurvedic ‘Coronil Kit’ was tested by WHO. Believing this narrative, many opted for the same instead of relying on allopathic medicines, which was the actual need.

Although medical professionals and researchers rebuked these claims, it was already too late as many blindly consumed these ‘medicines’. It was much later that Patanjali was also called out for spreading lies during the pandemic.

Due to the under-reporting of covid -19 deaths, the medical fraternity could not provide adequate facilities, and because of this, the hospitals became overcrowded.

Due to such overcrowding, many succumbed to black markets and outrageous demands by medical professionals. However, even after charging exorbitant prices, proper medical treatment was not extended.  Unfortunately, at the time, not many attorneys were willing to provide medical negligence on families’ health and couldn’t raise awareness in society, leading to the deaths of innocent people.

In a non-Covid case, Sishir Rajan Saha v. The state of Tripura , the petitioner’s son, Ashim Saha, while coming from Agartala to Udaipur on a scooter, met with an accident. He was admitted to the emergency ward of the GB Hospital, Agartala. The senior specialist doctor, Dr P.Roy, was not available in the hospital. He repeatedly called to attend to the patient. However, he was busy attending to his private patients and did not bother to come to the hospital to attend to the accident victim. Unfortunately, Ashim Saha succumbed to his injuries. Due to the same, Dr Roy was held liable to pay Rs. 1,25,000 as compensation for the death of the deceased. Directions were also issued to all the government hospitals to upgrade the medical services.

Thus, going by this case, if a specialist doctor does not care to attend to a patient admitted to the hospital’s emergency ward and the patient dies, the doctor would be liable to pay in compensation.

To protect the rights of every individual’s law and order should go through checks and balances at regular intervals. Seeing the plight of doctors and how they still manage to treat patients, some kind of immunity should be provided.

To resolve many disputes monetarily, terms shall be used more than civil liabilities. There is also a contrary view that doctors shall be relaxed from criminal liabilities during the pandemic. Still, the question arises: will it violate the patient’s right to law and order?

It becomes difficult to conclude any decision through the grey areas of medical litigation, but criminal liability can be lowered down to keep everything in balance.

Bangia, R. K. (2018). Allahabad Law Agency’s Textbook On Law Of Torts . Eastern law house.

Correspondent, S. (2021, May 5). Man arrested for black marketing oxygen cylinder . The Hindu. Retrieved from https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/karnataka/man-arrested-for-black-marketing-oxygen-cylinder/article34491066.ece. 

Rawat, M. (2021, May 3). Just before the 2nd Covid Wave hit India, ICU beds decreased by 46%, oxygen ones by 36% . India Today. Retrieved from https://www.indiatoday.in/coronavirus-outbreak/story/just-before-2nd-covid-wave-hit-india-icu-beds-decreased-by-46-oxygen-ones-by-36-1796830-2021-05-03.

Chattopadhyay, S. (2021, June 25). Doctor booked under IPC 304 after Covid Patient Death in UP . Medical Dialogues. Retrieved from https://medicaldialogues.in/news/health/doctors/up-doctor-booked-under-ipc-304a-after-covid-patient-death-79043.

Related Posts:

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Give it a try, you can unsubscribe anytime :)

Thanks, I’m not interested

SECTION 304(A) OF IPC- Death by Negligence

SECTION 304(A) OF IPC

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 both.

Introduction :

Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ) has always been a focal point of discussions in legal circles and among the general public. Often surrounded by myriad interpretations, it deals with the offense of causing death by negligence. This provision has been used in numerous judgments, making it crucial for legal enthusiasts, practitioners, and the public to grasp its essence. In this blog, we’ll deconstruct Section 304A, delving into its scope, interpretations, and implications.

• Understanding the Core of Section 304A The primary focus of Section 304A is on acts of negligence that lead to the death of a person. Such acts do not amount to culpable homicide. The punishment for this offense can be imprisonment extending up to two years, a fine, or both.
• Historical Context of Section 304A The introduction of Section 304A into the IPC was a response to the evolving societal understanding of negligence. As societies progressed and became more complex, the need to address deaths resulting from carelessness became paramount. This section was introduced to fill the legal void that existed in cases where death resulted from negligence but didn’t amount to murder.
• Negligence : Central to this section is the element of negligence. It comes into play when there’s a deviation from the standard of care expected in a given situation, leading to unforeseen consequences.
• Rash Acts : Beyond mere negligence, the section also covers rash actions, which are reckless or heedless to the consequences.
• Culpable Homicide vs. 304A : It’s essential to distinguish between “culpable homicide not amounting to murder” and causing death by a “rash or negligent act”. The latter does not have the intent or knowledge that the act could result in death, making it less severe.
• Landmark Judgments : Courts have provided clarity on this section through various judgments. Notably, in the case of Dr. Suresh Gupta, the Supreme Court held that simple lack of care is insufficient for this section. Gross negligence is required to attract criminal liability.
• Legal Consequences : Convictions under 304A can lead to imprisonment up to two years, a fine, or both. The quantum of punishment often depends on the degree of negligence and the circumstances surrounding the offense.
• Medical Negligence : One of the significant areas where this section finds applicability is in cases of medical negligence. However, not every error or mishap during medical treatment amounts to an offense under this section. There needs to be a flagrant violation of the duty of care.

The Thin Line between Negligence and Intent

While Section 304A deals with deaths caused by negligence, it’s essential to understand the fine line that separates negligence from intent. In legal terms, negligence is the breach of a duty of care, leading to damage, whereas intent involves a conscious decision to bring about a particular outcome.

Real-world Applications and Case Studies

Over the years, Section 304A has been invoked in numerous situations:

• Road Accidents: Many cases involve rash driving where the driver did not intend to cause harm but ended up causing a fatal accident due to negligence.
• Medical Cases: Medical professionals, due to negligence in surgeries or treatments, have faced charges under this section.
• Industrial Accidents: In cases where safety protocols are not followed, leading to fatal accidents, employers or supervisors may be charged under Section 304A.

The Societal Impact of Section 304A

The existence of this section serves as a deterrent for individuals and entities, making them more cautious in their actions. It emphasizes the importance of life and the responsibility every individual has in ensuring the safety of others.

Criticisms and Calls for Reform

While Section 304A serves a crucial purpose, it has faced criticism. Some legal experts believe the penalties are too lenient, especially in cases of gross negligence. There have been calls to amend the section to introduce varying degrees of negligence, each with its own set of penalties.

Conclusion :

Section 304A of the IPC , while concise in text, carries profound implications in the domain of criminal law. It serves as a deterrent against acts of negligence that could endanger life. By understanding its scope and significance, one gains a clearer perspective on the intricate balance between personal liberty and societal safety in the eyes of the law.

Popular Posts

• Section 86 Indian Penal Code (IPC) – All you need to know
• Section 302 IPC: Detailed Analysis, Punishment for Murder, and Legal Implications
• Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code : Dishonestly receiving stolen property – All You Need to Know | IPC

Related Posts

Defamation | Best Lawyer for Defamation

Murder and culpable homicide – complete explanation ipc.

Evidentiary value of fir: First version of the incident narrated by police witness has to be treated as fir and the subsequent information lodged by the informant is hit under section 162 Cr.P.C

Interim compensation (section 143a n.i act): broader interpretation that authorized signatory is accountable for sections 143a and 148 n.i act would lead to unjust liability and not supported by the statute, discharge petition: section 227 cr.p.c: courts must refrain from considering the grounds referring the case of the accused in discharge petition, investigation officer cannot release the case property without any court’s order also currency recovered was not produced before the court and the court convicted without the case property, hostile witness contradiction: public prosecutor has to confront relevant portions to the witness and contradict as required by section 145 iea, dr.subbiah case: death penalty to acquittal – a journey, madras high court settled that confession could be used in favour of the accused to reduce the sentence (is sudalaimani overruled), ratio decidendi: failing to inform the accused of the grounds of arrest, denying the opportunity to defend through counsel, and failing to provide information about the proposed remand is unconstitutional, pmla & section 88 cr.p.c: an order accepting bonds under section 88 cr.p.c from the accused does not amount to a grant of bail – a detailed discussion on arrest, summons, warrant, bail and bond under section 88 cr.p.c in complaint cases (particularly ed cases), twist the throttle: legal wrangles in motorcycle touring.

End of Content.

share this post:

Section 304a ipc: awarding sentence under section 304 a ipc is not mandatory.

• Ramprakash Rajagopal
• May 28, 2024
• One Comment

Points for consideration

Assailing the judgment dated 08th April, 2022, passed by the High Court confirming the conviction of the appellant for the charge under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ for brevity) and directing to undergo sentence of six months with amount of fine of Rs.5000/and in default, to undergo two months simple imprisonment, the appellant is before us. The appellant was granted exemption from surrendering vide this Court’s order dated 29.07.2022.

 …… x ……

Family of the deceased after receiving the compensation requested court to take lenient view for appellant

In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that the family of the deceased, after receiving a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/­ (Rupees Two Lakhs) towards compensation requested the Court to take a lenient view in favour of the appellant who is said to be a person of good conduct.  It is also stated that by such an act, the soul of the deceased would feel happy.

Awarding sentence under section 304 A IPC is not mandatory

We have gone through the provisions of Section 304A IPC whereby the award of sentence is not mandatory. In the present case, appellant has paid a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/. However, considering the willingness of the family of the deceased, we reduce the sentence to the sentence already undergone and to the payment of compensation as recorded hereinabove.

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant stands allowed in part; while maintaining his conviction under Section 304A IPC, the sentence is reduced as directed hereinabove, modifying the impugned judgment.

HANUMANTHAPPA Appellant(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondent(s) – CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1194 OF 2023 – May 16, 2024.

https://www.sci.gov.in/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php?action=get_court_pdf&diary_no=198582022&type=o&order_date=2024-05-16&from=latest_judgements_order

Further study section 304A IPC

• Juvenile Justice Act, 2015: Though offences POCSO and Murder have been proved accused acquitted based on procedural illegalities
• SECTION 41 Cr.P.C – ARREST IS THE PREROGATIVE OF POLICE AND NOT MANDATORY EVEN AFTER DISMISSAL OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL
• Class 2 – Principles on Sentencing Policy & Victim Compensation
• SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 357(2) Cr.P.C
• BAIL – NO INTERIM COMPENSATION
• 304A further study further study 304A

Related Posts

Murder case: Acquittal: Though homicidal death is not disputed accused has successfully disproved the Extra-judicial confession through defence witness

The appellant was suspected of believing that the deceased had an illicit relationship with his wife and hence…

Burden of Proof & Public Prosecutor: While explaining the principles of 106 IEA in criminal cases Hon’ble Supreme Court has…

There is a challenge against a conviction made under section 302 IPC before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The…

PC Act: FIR quash: High Court would not have entered into the observation that there is no direct evidence for…

An appeal was made against the quashing of an FIR (First Information Report) for the offence under PC…

[…] Section 304A IPC: Awarding sentence under section 304 A IPC is not mandatory […]

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

buy generic lasuna – generic himcolin buy himcolin online

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe For News

Get the latest sports news from News Site about world, sports and politics.

Subscribe For More!

Get the latest and creative news updates on criminal law…

Disclaimer:

Contents of this Web Site are for general information or use only. They do not constitute any advice and should not be relied upon in making (or refraining from making) any personal or public decision. We hereby exclude any warranty, express or implied, as to the quality, accuracy, timeliness, completeness, performance, fitness for a particular page of the Site or any of its contents, including (but not limited) to any financial contents within the Site. We will not be liable for any damages (including, without limitation, damages for loss of business projects, or loss of profits) arising in contract, tort or otherwise from the use of or inability to use the site or any of its contents, or from any action taken (or refrained from being taken) as a result of using the Site or any of its contents. We shall give no warranty that the contents of the Site are free from infection by viruses or anything else which has contaminating or destructive user’s properties though we care to maintain the site virus/malware-free.

For further reading visit our ‘ About ‘ page.

© 2023 Developed and maintained by PAPERPAGE INTERNET SERVICES

Section 304 a – Death by Negligence : Law and Legality

Indian penal code: section 304 a.

India’s criminal system follows the Indian Penal Code in matters of dealing with crime. The framework of the Indian Penal Code governs crime with justice and punishment. Owing to the influence of English Law, the original Indian Penal Code had provisions for culpable homicide under Section 299. Section 299 deals with any act or bodily injury caused by any person with the intention of causing death. Section 304 of IPC deals with the provision of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This section involves crimes perpetrated with the knowledge of causing death but without any intention of doing the same.

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 and b as an amendment. The following article is going to discuss Section 304 (a) under IPC in detail.

Section 304(a) states as follows:

“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 both.”

Any act under Section 304(a) is a bailable offence under the IPC. In such a case, the Court allows the defendant to make bail by paying a surety amount along with a bail bond at the police station. This offence is also compoundable which means that the plaintiff and the defendant can reach an agreement between themselves through their counsel and avoid trial. This often occurs in cases involving powerful Companies who would settle instead of going through a public trial.

Negligent Homicide: The Parameters of Law

The law sets parameters but also keeps spaces open for interpretation because each case has a different context.  Section 304(a) uses the words “rash or negligent act” as the deciding elements to charge any person under this section Therefore it is important to understand these terms and its various connotations.

Firstly, the Act being mentioned above should be causa causans ,i.e, the primary cause of death and not merely causa sine qua non ,i.e, an indirect act . Therefore, the relationship between the act and the death or injury resulted by it should be direct for the plaintiff to win the case.

Secondly,  there is a difference in the responsibility of the defendant vis-i vis the plaintiff between a negligent act and a rash act. A negligent act is a breach of duty that causes harm/damage to another person unintentionally. On the contrary, a rash act is the culmination of overhasty decisions and recklessness on the part of the defendant.

Thirdly,  a rash act is generally a criminal act. A negligent act could be civil or criminal depending on the gravity and the nature of the crime along with the degree of intention or lack thereof in a particular case.

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:

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.

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.

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 its 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;
• harming or cheating the shareholders’ out of their profit.

The burden of Proof and Defense against Section 304(a)

In claims of negligence, it is extremely important to prove that there was indeed a breach of duty . In many cases of medical negligence, the professional might make a decision based on the complicated nature of the case presented to him/her. The burden of proof lies with the doctor to prove that they behaved in a reasonable way only in the interest of the patient.

The other arguments on which the defendant relies are as follows:

• contributory negligence: proving there was negligence on the part of the plaintiff;
• inevitable accident: proving that the death or injury caused was inevitable depending on the circumstances of the action;
• dangerous recreational activity: proving that the plaintiff’s injury is a result of partaking in a dangerous recreational activity like drugs. In such a case, the defendant will not be liable for any damages.
• illegal activity – proving that both the plaintiff and the defendant were engaged in an illegal business when the plaintiff was injured . This renders the case void.

In civil negligence cases, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to prove that there was a breach of duty by the Company/Corporate. The breach of duty has to directly damage the plaintiff. In the case of powerful Companies, the plaintiffs should be ready to show concrete proof, including reliable testimonies and documents to reach a favourable verdict.

Section 304a IPC: Judgements

Some of the landmark judgements in cases related to Section 304(a) IPC:

  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.

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 sessions 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.

The provision of Section 304(a) under the IPC is important to offer a measure of justice to the claimants. It might give them some closure or at the very least compensate them if there has been a breach of duty that led to irreversible damage or loss of life/property.

Try our Debt Resolution solutions today       Request a Demo

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

• Submit Article for Publication

Death by Negligence as discussed in Section 304A, IPC

Published by asamanja chattopadhyay on 03/07/2020 03/07/2020, introduction:.

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 entails different kinds of crimes, their nature, scope and punishment thereof. The Indian Penal Code was drafted by Thomas Babington Macaulay in 1837; he was also the Chairman of the First Law Commission. The code is influence by British Law however; various elements have also been derive from the Napoleonic Code (1804) and also from Edward Livingston’s Louisiana Civil Code (1825).

Chapter XVI of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with offences affecting the human body. The act of causing death by negligence is covered under Section 304A of the Code. This section insert in the Indian Penal Code through the Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Act, 1870; Section 12 of the Amendment Act contained the provisions relating to the insertion of Section 304A.

In this article, I’ll be mentioning about the various aspects of the section. Its landmark cases bringing about changes in the interpretation of the section. 

About Section 304A IPC

Section 304A clearly states that “Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act; not amounting to culpable homicide; shall be punish with imprisonment of either description for a term; which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”

This section does not define any new offence it rather covers an offence falling outside the purview of sections 299 (Culpable Homicide) and 300 (Murder) of IPC. Because in cases of offences involving Section 299 or Section 300; there is an intention or knowledge of the act committed. However in the case of Death by Negligence the element of knowledge or intention is absent, i.e. This section recognizes the criminality of an act even in the absence of mens rea.

In the case of Shankar Narayan Bhandolkar v. State of Maharashtra, [1] the court clearly stated that to be encompassed the protection under Section 304-A there should be neither intention nor knowledge to cause death. When any of the two elements is present, Section 304-A has no application.

Thus, the essentials of Section 304-A are:

• Accused causes death of a person
• Death is cause by any rash or negligent act
• The act committed should not amount to culpable homicide.

Rash and Negligent Act

Section 304-A states the causing of death of any person by any “rash or negligent act”.  There is a difference between “Rash Act” and “Negligent Act”. By Rash Act we mean some act which is cause restlessly and by a Negligent act. We mean a breach of duty in doing something or omitting to do something; which a reasonable man would have done.

However, the Supreme Court differentiates between Rash and Negligent Act in the context of this section in the landmark case of Cherubin Gregory v. State of Bihar [2] . Here, in this case, the appellant was charge under Section 304A for causing the death of a woman who live near his home. The deceased was using the latrine of the appellant for a few weeks; the appellant gave oral warnings to the deceased about not using the latrine. However, the oral warnings were in vain and they didn’t stop the lady from using his latrine. Finding his oral warnings to be insufficient he put a live naked wire on the path of the latrine. The lady went to the latrine and was electrocute leading to her death.

The Supreme Court held that the lady being a trespasser does not entitle the owner of the land. It is to inflict personal injury on the trespasser. The same principle also applies to the fact that the owner inflicted the injury by indirect ways of doing something. The owner should know that it may cause a serious injury to the trespasser. Here the Apex Court also held that in this case, the appellant would be liable for his rash act (as the act was considered to be reckless). The accused was liable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code.

Further, in the case of JugganKhan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [3] the Supreme Court discussed the facts of the case where a Homeopathic doctor administered a drug to a patient who was suffering from guinea worm with a drug which was poisonous and simultaneously caused the death of the patient. The doctor had administered the medicine to the patient without studying its effects. The Court held the accused guilty under section 304A. As the negligence of the accused was evident through his act of administering the drug without studying the effect of such administration.

In the case of Bhalachandra Waman Pathe v. State of Maharashtra, [4] the court differentiated rash and negligent act very closely. Here the appellant charge under section 304A of IPC. It was for causing the death of a 21-year-old lady by driving her car rashly and negligently. Here the appellant questioned her conviction which was suo motu by the High Court. In this case, two sisters were crossing the road through the pedestrian crossing; when the car of the appellant knocked them down. As a result which the elder sister suffered a brain haemorrhage and she died. 

The question that was ask by the Court was regarding the rash and negligent driving of the car by the appellant. Here, the High Court found that there was negligence on the part of the appellant as his conduct was not as reasonable or prudent a man would have. It was that the appellant fail to discharge the duty impose by law on him. It is to take care of the pedestrian in pedestrian crossings while driving.

However, the appellant was not to drive his car rashly. It is because the prescribe limit of the speed of that in the street was 35 km/hr. Here, in this case, the car to be drive within the speed prescribe by law. Also, the time at which accident took place was in the morning and as a result, the driver does not need to take extra care regarding the speed of the car.

 An important thing to be noted here is the rash or negligent act must be the immediate cause of death and not a remote cause. To impose criminal liability under section 304A of IPC it is necessary that the death should have been the direct result of the rash and negligent act of the accused, and that act must be proximate and efficient cause without the intervention of another’s negligence.

Absence of Mens Rea or Intentional Violence

As mentioned earlier Section 304A of IPC recognises the criminality of the action even though there is no presence of mens rea or the intention to commit the crime. This makes it different from the definition of culpable homicide or murder under IPC. This essential of the Section is define by the court in the famous case of Sarabjeet Singh and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh [5] , here the court questioned the intention of a person during the commission of a crime. In this case, the appellant Sarabjeet Singh along with 17 other people were put on trial for having commit the crime of murder of an infant Radhey Shyam. The accuse Sarabjeet Singh has lift the child and had throw him on the ground. It was later find that the act result in the death of the child.

However, it was found that the accuse had no intention to kill the child Radhey Shyam. Now the next question that arose was about the knowledge of the consequences of the act. It was held that the accused might not have the intention to commit the wrong. But he certainly know that if a child is throw from a height on the ground he will ultimately die.

Now the Court say that he would be liable under Section 299 which states of Culpable Homicide. However, the counsel from the appellant side argue that it was a rash act from the accused. Though it had the knowledge and thus it must come under the purview of Section 304A. The Court says that though it was a rash act; the accused had knowledge of the consequences of his action. Thus he shall be liable under the second part of Section 304 which speaks of adequate knowledge during a crime without any regard to the intention in causing the violence.

In Arun v. State of Madhya Pradesh [6] , the Madhya Pradesh High Court observed the difference between the offence of culpable homicide as defined under Section 299 and death caused due to rash or negligent act as defined under Section 304A of IPC.

The court observed that one of the essentials in culpable homicide is the presence of an intention to cause injury along with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death. However in case of an offence committed under Section 304A of the IPC the death should have been caused without any intention of committing the offence and also without any knowledge of the consequences of the same [7] .

As mentioned earlier, even though mens rea is not present this section recognises the criminality of an offence. The section states that whoever causes the death of another person by doing any rash or negligent act which does not amount to culpable homicide, shall be punish with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both. The offence committed under this section is cognizable, bailable and a non-compoundable offence.

This section deals with the death caused by rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide and it helps distinguish between offences committed with an intention and also with the knowledge of the consequence of the said offence. This section needs to have stringent punishment and this was called for by the Supreme Court in a case [8] in 2016.

References:

[1] AIR 2004 SC 1966: 2004 Cr LJ 1778

[2] See, AIR 1964 SC 205

[3] AIR 1965 SC 831

[4] Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 1965

[5] AIR 1983 SC 529

[6] Cr. R. No. 4869/2018

[7] Arun v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Cr. R. No. 4869/2018

[8] https://www.financialexpress.com/india-news/death-by-negligence-supreme-court-for-stringent-punishment-under-section-304/358863/

Share this:

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Related Posts

Criminal Law

Substantive law prevails over technicalities.

As a general enigma of law, it is known that substantive law takes precedence over procedural law such cannot give which it does not provide.

Marijuana: Should it be Criminal to Use?

The question of legalization in India of marijuana becomes tricky and a complex issue to be discussed even openly.

Secondary Victimization of Victims under Criminal Justice System in India

Secondary victimization is when a victim’s family speaks out and is re-victimized through words or actions of other members of the public.

To join our WhatsApp community

• UK & Ireland

How is this helpful for me?

• Claim the judgments where you have appeared by linking them directly to your profile and maintain a record of your body of work.
• Interact directly with CaseMine users looking for advocates in your area of specialization.
• Creating a unique profile web page containing interviews, posts, articles, as well as the cases you have appeared in, greatly enhances your digital presence on search engines such Google and Bing, resulting in increased client interest.
• The cases linked on your profile facilitate Casemine's artificial intelligence engine in recommending you to potential clients who might be interested in availing your services for similar matters.

  Know more  

SUGGESTIONS

• Visual Try our Visuals feature which gives you an instant snapshot of the most relevant and landmark case laws.">

Cases cited for the legal proposition you have searched for.

• Judgments 3004

...gross negligence. Therefore, he was rightly convicted under Section 304A Indian Penal Code. 8. This takes us to the question of sentence. The trial magistrate...it would have imposed a slightly higher or heavier sentence. 9. Dealing with the question of sentence for an offence under Section 304A Indian Penal Code, Beaumont...sight of the fact that causing death is a necessary ingredient of an offence under Section 304A Indian Penal Code. Yet the legislature in its wisdom has left it to the...

... 304A IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months under Section 279 IPC and Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo...further Simple Imprisonment for seven days under Section 304A IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have also carefully perused...negligent driving by the present petitioner. Considering the facts of the case and the circumstances, the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for two years under Section 304A IPC is reduced from two years...

...submitted that the First Information Report was lodged under section 304A I.P.C. by the opposite party no.2 against the applicants at Police Station Sikanderabad, District Bulandshahr bearing Case Crime No....318 of 2002. The Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet under section 304A I.P.C. in the aforesaid case. The court below has committed error of law in framing the charges against the applicant...under section 304 I.P.C. and not admitted the case of First Information Report as true, the offence is made out only under section 304A I.P.C. against the applicants. Neutral Citation No. - 2019:AHC:1361...

...Petitioner has filed this petition challenging FIR No.7/2011 registered by respondent No.2-complainant in R.T. Nagar Police Station for offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC... Section 304A of IPC. 5. In view of undisputable facts that petitioner has pleaded guilty before the learned Magistrate and the injured victim passed away due to grievous injuries...sustained in the accident involving petitioners vehicle, I find no ground to interfere with regard to registration of FIR No.7/2011 for offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC. Resultantly, this petition fails and it is accordi...

...registered at Police Station Bajaj Nagar, District Jaipur for the offence under Section 304A Indian Penal Code 1860. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that...facts of the present case no offence under Section 304A IPC could be said to have committed by the petitioners. However, now parties have amicably settled their dispute. Learned counsel for respondents...under Section 304A IPC. As per the opinion of the Medical Board Annexure-2 cause of death of deceased Mamta Sharma appeared to be cardiac arrest. Deceased had undergone tubectomy. She had approached the...

...Ganga Nath, J.:— This is an appeal by Chhallu against his conviction and sentence under section 304A of the Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced to six...the appellant under section 304A of the Indian Penal Code. Section 304A must be read along with sections 336, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code... section 304A is illegal. I therefore set aside his conviction under section 304A of the Indian Penal Code and in lieu thereof convict him under section 326...

...Magistrate framed the charges against the petitioner Under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 92 of the Factories Act. 2. Mr. S.K. Goswami... Section 304A , I.P.C. and Section 92 of the Indian Factories Act. It is against this order that the present petition Under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed...Act and/or Under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code are made out. He, therefore, prayed that the charges, framed against the petitioner, may be quashed. The learned...

...Veerabhadraiah, J.:—This appeal is by the State in so far as the inadequancy of sentences for the offence under Section 304-A IPC imposed on the respondent-accused by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Dharwad in Crim...with both.”12. The punishment prescribed for the offence under section 304A IPC is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine or with...offence punishable under Section 304A , the respondent be taken into custody to undergo a simple imprisonment for six months. As regards offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC no separate sentence has...

...under section 304a and 323 of the indian penal code. Sentences awarded are rigorous imprisonment for one year and three months respectively. (2) deceased, Aged 75, And the appellant...is out of question. Rightly he was not convicted for that offence. Conviction was only under section 304a . (5) section 304a penalises only causing of death by doing any rash or...only under section 304, He convicted the accused under section 304a . Section 304a cannot apply when intention to cause death or knowledge that the act done will likely or in all probability cause death...

...P. Ubaid, J.:— The appellant herein is a driver of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (K.S.R.T.C). He challenges the conviction and sentence against him under Section 304A I.P.C...prove the essentials of the offence, there cannot be a conviction under Section 304A I.P.C, because the offence under Section 304A I.P.C is not a lesser offence. The learned counsel cited... 304A I.P.C stands well proved in this case.10. Now let me see the legal issue raised by the petitioner. The question is whether the accused can be convicted under Section 304A I.P.C in...

...and 304A , IPC. According to him, the maximum punishment for committing offence under Section 491, IPC is three months, hence, the challan should have been filed within one month from the date of...under Section 304A , IPC is concerned, the limitation is three years. According to him, on the date of the framing of the charge three years were already over. At the same time, according to him, the...limitation. 5. As regards the case under Section 304A is concerned, the limitation for filing the challan is three years and the challan is filed within that period. Hence, the bar of...

...1. The prisoners in this case were acquitted by the jury of culpable homicide, and convicted under Section 304a of the Indian Penal Code of causing the death of...charged the jury with reference to Section 304a in the following terms: "If you do not think that the act amounted to culpable homicide, but that the circumstances...accused under Section 304a ." 4. It appears to us that the Judge has not put the matter before the jury with sufficient precision. The mere circumstance of the...

...lodged by the complainant on 12-3-1997, the police registered an offence and also filed a charge-sheet under Section 304A of IPC. The applicant, accordingly, filed an objection application under...dearth of materials constituting a prima facie offence under section 304a of i.p.c. against her. 5. A part from relevant documents filed with the revision, a report of the Office of Civil...at 06.00 p.m. and none else. Thus, there was no such call to attend to Smt. Manisha Jain wife of the complainant. 6. As far as the ingredients of section 304a , i.p.c. are concerned...

...1. Petitioner Haridas has been convicted under Section 304A , IPC and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment, and fine of Rs. 1000/-, and further convicted under section 279, IPC...undergone five months, rigorous imprisonment and looking to the circumstances of the case the sentence under section 304A , IPC may be reduced to that already undergone. In support of this contention, he has.... The convictions of the petitioner under Sections 304A and 279, IPC are maintained. However, the substantive sentence under Section 304A is reduced to the already undergone by him, and in liew of the...

.... After filing of the first information report, no action was taken by the respondent police to file a final report for offence under Section 304A of I.P.C. 3.... According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the victim died on 08.04.2021, due to the accidental injuries and so, offence under Section 304A of I.P.C is made out, but FIR is altered only under...Sections 279 and 337 of I.P.C. / 4. Whether the offence under Section 304A of I.P.C is made out or not is a question of further investigation...

...petitioner Under Section 304A IPC and sentences passed against him by the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Ajmer were maintained. 2. The facts of the case are that a report was lodged at police...criminal case Under Section 304 IPC. After usual investigation a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner Under Section 304A IPC and the petitioner was prosecuted in the Court of learned Judicial...Magistrate No. 1, Ajmer. The learned Magistrate after recording the statement of the witnesses and completion of the trial convicted the petitioner Under Section 304A IPC and sentenced him to undergo 11/2...

...1. Musammat Jamna has been convicted of an offence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment. She...flour. It is, however, not proved that she knew that the powder was arsenio or any other deleterous substance. The Court below has found her guilty of an offence under section 304a of the indian penal...accused must be acquitted. The question whether the act of the accused in that case did not come under Section 304A was not considered. There is a case much more in point, Q.E. v. Musammat Bhakhan (1887...

...complainant certain provisions of the M.M.D.R, Act were not followed. Secondly, there is a clear-cut distinction between Sections 304 and 304A IPC. Section 304 IPC deals with punishment for culpable...homicide. Section 299 defines the term “culpable homicide”. Culpable homicide entails the existence of “intention and knowledge”, whereas Section 304A speaks of death by “rashness and negligence”. In...consequences, but they have ignored the consequences. Therefore, the case falls under the category of “rashness”. Hence, they would be liable under Section 304A and not under Section 304 IPC. Thirdly...

...under Section 304A , Indian Penal Code, in two trials as there were two deaths as a result of their negligence while working as such "Overman" and "Sirdar" (Criminal Cases Nos...unsuccessfully contended in the Courts below, that their prosecution under Section 304A , Indian Penal Code, is incompetent, since the negligence attributed to them is made...within the mischief of Section 304A , Indian Penal Code, but attracts, if at all, the provisions of the mines act and the Regulations framed thereunder. It was also pointed out...

... Section 304A of Indian Penal Code, which was registered in Crime No. 259/2012 by Subramanyapura Police Station, Bangalore.2. On investigation, chargesheet is filed...in this matter on 11.11.2012 for an offence under Section 304A of IPC and registered as C.C No. 24039/2012 on the file of II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. It is stated in the...

Keyword Alert(s)

Create alert, update courts.

• Supreme Court & High Court

Overruled By

Our algorithms sense that you may get better results by trying out the same excerpt in our CaseIQ interface.

UPPSC Exam 2024 UPPSC Syllabus UPPSC Application Form 2024 UPPSC Eligibility Criteria UPPSC Admit Card​ UPPSC Study Plan & Strategy UPPSC Previous Year Questions UPPSC Cut Off Marks UPPSC Salary And Posts

UPPSC RO ARO Qualification UPPSC RO ARO Exam 2023 UPPSC RO ARO Post and Salary UPPSC RO ARO Previous Year Paper

BPSC 69th Notification BPSC 69th Prelims Result BPSC 69th Cut Off 69th BPSC Prelims Answer Key BPSC Syllabus​ BPSC Exam Pattern BPSC Cut Off Marks 67th BPSC Mains Admit Card 2022 67th BPSC Mains Exam Date 2022

Bihar APO Mock Interview

APSC CCE Exam Notification APSC CCE Prelims Answer Key 2023 APSC CCE Syllabus & Exam Pattern APSC CCE Prelims Result 2023 APSC CCE Admit Card 2023 APSC CCE Eligibility Criteria APSC CCE Previous Year Papers APSC CCE Cut Off 2023 APSC CCE Salary & Job Profile

MPPSC Calendar 2024 MPPSC Syllabus MPPSC Exam Pattern MPPSC Admit Card 2023 MPPSC Eligibility Criteria MPPSC Previous Year Paper MPPSC Cut Off MPPSC Salary And Job Profile

HPSC Notification HPSC Syllabus HPSC Exam Pattern HPSC Admit Card HPSC Cut Off HPSC Previous Year Paper HPSC Salary And Job Profile

WBPSC Syllabus WBPSC Eligibility Criteria WBPSC Application Form WBPSC Previous Year Questions WBPSC Salary & Job Profile

MPSC Notification MPSC Syllabus And Exam Pattern MPSC Application Form MPSC Eligibility Criteria MPSC Age Limit

CGPSC Syllabus And Exam Pattern CGPSC Question Paper 2023 CGPSC Answer Key 2023 CGPSC Admit Card 2023 CGPSC Eligibility Criteria CGPSC Salary And Job Profile

UKPSC Notification UKPSC Exam Calendar 2023 UKPSC Syllabus And Exam Pattern UKPSC Eligibility Criteria UKPSC Application Form 2023

JPSC Syllabus & Exam Pattern JPSC Eligibility Criteria JPSC Previous Year Papers

JKPSC Notification JKSC Syllabus And Exam Pattern JKSC Eligibility Criteria

RPSC RAS Syllabus RPSC RAS Exam Pattern RPSC RAS Eligibility Criteria RPSC RAS Cut Off

HPPSC Syllabus And Exam Pattern HPPSC Eligibility Criteria HPPSC Previous Year Question Papers and cut off

End of Content.

• Why IAS NEXT ?
• How to Choose Best IAS Coaching ?
• How to Choose Best Judiciary Coaching ?
• Admission Procedure
• Download Brochure

Clear Prelims 2024

• Sociology Optional
• Geography Optional
• UPSC Mentorship Program
• IAS With Graduation Degree
• UPPSC Mentorship Program
• Sociology by Sudhanshu Mishra
• Intensive IAS Program (Prelim + Mains)
• Intensive PCS Program (Prelim + Mains)​
• Intensive PCS-J / Judicial Services Program
• UPSC IAS Mock Interview
• Interview Guidelines
• Interview Transcripts
• Interview Material PCS - J
• Civil Services Test Series
• NCERT TEST SERIES
• Sociology Test Series
• UPSC Prelims Test Series 2024
• UPSC Mains Test Series 2024
• UP PCS Mains Test Series 2024
• Judiciary Test Series
• PCS-J Test Series
• DJS Preliminary Exam
• Latest Current Affair Blogs
• Daily Current Affairs 2024
• March Current Affairs
• Daily Current Affairs 2023
• December Current Affairs
• November Current Affairs
• October Current Affairs
• September Current Affairs
• August Current Affairs
• July Current Affairs
• June Current Affairs
• May Current Affairs
• April Current Affairs
• February Current Affairs
• Down to Earth Summary
• Prelims Special
• UPSC Topper's Notes
• Previous Year Question

     History

  Geography

  Indian Polity

  Indian Economy

  Science & Technology

 Indian Culture and Heritage

  Art & Culture

  Psychology

  Chemistry

  Political Science

    About Civil Services

  CSE Prelims Syllabus

  GS Prelims Strategy

  UPSC Preparation Strategy

  Civil Services Aptitude Test

  Previous Year Questions

• Study Materials

Indian Heritage & Culture

Ancient Indian History

Medieval Indian History

Modern Indian History

World History

World Geography

Indian Geography

Geography by Maps

Internal Security

Social Justice

Indian Polity

International Relations

Agriculture

Environment & Ecology

Science Technology

Disaster Management

  World History

  Ancient History

  Medieval History

  Modern History

  Indian Society

  Art and Culture

  Indian Geography

  World Geography

      Indian Polity

  Governance

  International Relations

  Social Justice

  Social Issues

  Agriculture

  Security Issues

  Disaster Management

  Environment & Ecology

IPC Section 304

• Law/ PCS-J Notes , PCS J Examination , PCS-J LAW , PCS-J STUDY MATERIALS , UPSC Examination , UPSC Optional
• Tap For Tech

According to section 304 of Indian penal code :-

Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life , or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death;

or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.

Classification of Offence

304 IPC Case Laws (Supreme Court and High Courts)

FAQs on Section 304 of IPC

Culpable homicide not amounting to murder refers to cases where a person causes the death of another but does not fall under the specific circumstances defined as murder under Section 300 of IPC. The act may be done either with the intention to cause death or with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death.

Under Section 304 of IPC, if the act is done with the intention of causing death or causing bodily injury likely to cause death, the punishment is imprisonment for life or imprisonment of up to ten years, along with a fine. If the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, the punishment is imprisonment for up to ten years or a fine or both.

The main difference lies in the intention behind the act. If the act meets the specific criteria mentioned in Section 300 of IPC, i.e., done with intention or knowledge of causing death, it is considered murder under Section 302. If it does not meet these specific criteria but still results in death, it is categorized as culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304.

No, culpable homicide not amounting to murder is a non-bailable offense. Bail can only be granted by the Court of Session after considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

No, like murder cases, the offense of culpable homicide not amounting to murder is also non-compoundable. This means the victim’s family cannot enter into a compromise with the accused to withdraw the case.

Read also:- IPC Section 302: Punishment For Murder

• IPC Section 304 , PCS J Examination , PCS-J LAW , upsc examination , UPSC Optional

Demo Class/Enquiries

Clear pcs-j program ( pre + mains ), clear prelims - cap for upsc 2024, weekend programme for upsc- ias, upsc mains answer writing program, weekly pcs-j answer writing, current affairs magazine.

Environment, Ecology & Biodiversity Current Affairs Series (Class -1) by Sudhanshu Sir

Free Environment, Ecology and Biodiversity Lecture Series by Sudhanshu Sir

Loss of Biodiversity

Green Hydrogen

Key Biodiversity Areas

World Anti-Doping Report 2022

Right To Information Act

Black Carbon

Digital Governance in India

Upsc study materials.

• Answer Writing
• Career Guidance
• Current Affairs
• Down to Earth
• General Studies- Paper I
• General Studies- Paper II
• General Studies- Paper III
• General Studies- Paper IV
• Indian Penal code
• Landmark Judgements
• Law Entrance Exams
• LEGAL TERMS
• Legal Updates
• Miscellaneous
• Notification
• Other Topics
• PCS J Examination
• PCS-J STUDY MATERIALS
• Reports & Indices Current Affairs
• Sucess Story
• UGC NET Law
• UPPSC Examination
• UPPSC SYLLABUS
• UPSC Examination
• UPSC Prelims

Ancient India -for UPSC and other State PCS Examination

Art &Culture : for UPSC & State PCS (Mains)

Environment and Ecology : for UPSC and state PCS

Geography: Hand book for UPSC & State PCS

Indian Economy (GS) for IAS Prelims and Mains

Indian Constitution and Polity

Medieval History : For UPSC & State PCS

Medieval India : For UPSC & State PCS

Science & Technology for UPSC & State PCS

Modern History : For UPSC & State PCS

• General Enquiry : +91 9454721860
• Admin Enquiry : +91 7991861111
• Alternate Number : 05224241011
• [email protected]
• Monday to Friday: 9.00am - 8.00pm
• Free Download
• Test Series
• Study Material
• Topper's Notes
• Previous Year Questions
• IAS Next Franchise
• Web Stories

Copyright ©  C S NEXT EDUCATION. All Rights Reserved

Causing Death by Negligence: Section 304A IPC

This Article is written by Advocate Satish Khandal, practicing before the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur Bench touching various aspects of death caused by rash and negligent acts. He has also remained Gen. Secretary Rajasthan High Court.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

Object - The Code as it originally stood contained no adequate provision for the punishment of what the English law called manslaughter by negligence. In the draft Code, there was a section that punished this offence, but by some accident, it had been omitted from the Code when it was passed into law.

Scope - The provisions of this section seem to apply to cases where there is no intention to cause death and no knowledge that the act done in all probability will cause death. It only applies to such acts as are rash or negligent and are directly the cause of death of another person. It must be read along with ss. 336, 337 and 338. All these sections are confined in their operation to acts done without any criminal intent, apart from rashness or negligence which is their essential ingredient. The rash or negligent act mentioned in this section means the act which is the immediate cause of death and not any act or omission which can, at the most, be said to be a remote cause of death. In order that a person may be guilty under this section, the rash or negligent act must be the direct or proximate cause of the death. For conviction under this section, proof of rashness or negligence is essential.

This provision does not apply to a case in which there has been the voluntary commission of an offence against the person. If a man intentionally commits such an offence, and consequences beyond his immediate purpose result, it is for the Court to determine how far he can be held to have the knowledge that he was likely by such act to cause the actual result. If such knowledge can be imputed, the result is not to be attributed to mere rashness; if it cannot be imputed, still the wilful offence does not take the character of rashness, because its consequences have been unfortunate. Acts, probably or possibly, involving danger to others, but which in themselves are not offences, may be offences under ss. 336, 337, 338 or 304A, if done without due care to guard against the dangerous consequences. Acts which are offences in themselves must be judged with regard to the knowledge, or means of knowledge, of the offender, and placed in their appropriate place in the class of offences of the same character. In other words, violence inflicted intentionally or knowingly or caused directly and willingly is excluded from the ambit of s. 304A.

This section does not apply to cases where the death has arisen, not from the negligent or rash mode of doing the act, but from some result supervening upon the act which could not have been anticipated.

Rash or negligent act - A rash act is primarily an overhasty act, and is not supposed to be a deliberate act, but it also includes an act which, though it may be said to be deliberate, is yet done without due care and caution. Illegal omission is an 'act' under this section and may constitute an offence if it is negligent. Criminal rashness "is hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that 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. Negligence is the omission to do something which 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. The Supreme Court has observed to the same effect. In order to establish a criminal liability the facts must be such that the negligence of the accused goes beyond a mere matter of compensation between citizens and shows such disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime against the State and conduct deserving punishment.

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 precautions to prevent their happening. The imputability arises from acting despite the consciousness (luxuria). 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. The imputability arises from the neglect of the civic duty of circumspection. It is manifest that personal injury, consciously and intentionally caused, cannot fall within either of these categories, which are wholly inapplicable to the case of an act or series of acts, themselves intended, which are the direct producers of death. To say that because, in the opinion of the operator, the sufferer could have borne a little more without death following, the act amounts, merely to rashness, because he has carried the experiment too far, results from an obvious and dangerous misconception. It is clear, however, that if the words 'not amounting to culpable homicide' are a part of the definition, the offence defined by this section consists of the rash or negligent act not falling under that category, as much as of its fulfilling the positive requirement of being the cause of death. Negligence is the genus of which rashness is a species.

Rashness and negligence are not the same things - Mere negligence cannot be construed to mean rashness. There are degrees of negligence and rashness and in order to amount to criminal rashness or criminal negligence one must find that the rashness has been of such a degree as to amount to taking hazard knowing that the hazard was of such a degree that injury was most likely to be occasioned thereby. The criminality lies in running the risk or doing such an act with recklessness and indifference to the consequences. The words "rashly and negligently" are distinguishable and one is exclusive of the other. The same act cannot be rash as well as negligent.

The question whether the accused's conduct amounted to culpable rashness or negligence depends directly on the question as to what is the amount of care and a circumspection which a prudent and reasonable man would consider it to be sufficient considering all the circumstances of the case. Moreover, in applying the above criterion it is necessary to avoid being influenced by the prejudice arising out of the loss of a life which is so dominant a factor in accident cases. The distinction between the negligence which is sufficient ground for a civil action and the higher degree which necessary in criminal proceedings is sharply insisted on in several cases. In criminal cases, the amount and degree of negligence are the determining factors. There must be mens rea in the criminal negligence also. In order to establish criminal liability the facts must be such that the negligence of the accused sent the case beyond a mere matter of compensation and showed such disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime. Simple lack of care such as will constitute civil liability is not enough.

A person driving a motor car is under a duty to control that car; he is prima facie guilty of negligence if the car leaves the road and dashes into a tree and it is for the person driving the car to explain the circumstances under which the car came to leave the road. Those circumstances may be beyond his control, and may exculpate him, but in the absence of such circumstances, the fact that the car left the road is evidence of negligence on the part of the driver. But in a case before the Mysore Court, it has been held that simply because the vehicle goes out of the road, there is no presumption that it was due to the rash or negligent driving of the accused. A vehicle may leave the road or collide against some fixed structure under a variety of circumstances. There can be no burden on an accused to prove that he was not driving the vehicle in a rash or negligent manner. Merely because the prosecution proves that the vehicle left the road, it does not follow that the accused drove the vehicle rashly or negligently. There may be innumerable circumstances, such as defect in the mechanism which might have resulted in the vehicle going out of the road, If the driver of a motor vehicle does not blow the horn because the prevailing traffic rules prohibit him from doing so, he cannot be said to be negligent. The mere velocity of a vehicle is not the only criterion of rash and negligent driving, which may also consist in talking while driving, risks which by the exercise of a little diligence could be avoided. Driving a car recklessly until it comes so close to a pedestrian that it becomes impossible to save the collision cannot but be characterised as rash and negligent driving. As between a pedestrian and a driver of a motor vehicle, the responsibility of the latter is greater as the duty to use care increases in proportion to the danger involved in dealing with the instrument that a person brings for his own purpose in close proximity to others. Ordinarily, pedestrians using the road are not exempt from the duty to take care of themselves, but negligence, if any, on the part of a pedestrian cannot excuse negligence on the part of the driver of a motor car. If a person suddenly crosses the road, without taking note of the approaching bus, the bus driver, however slowly he might be driving may not being a position to save the accident. Therefore, it will not be possible to hold that the bus driver was negligent. Where, according to the prosecution, the deceased had crossed half the width of the 50 feet wide road and had then become stationary in order to let the vehicular traffic pass before he crossed the road and he was then suddenly hit by the motorcycle which the respondent was riding while the latter was trying to overtake a bus and the result of the impact was such that the deceased was dashed to the ground and was run over by the bus between which and the deceased there was only a distance of to 5 feet, and the respondent was convicted under s. 304A by the trial court, but on appeal, the High Court found from the evidence on record that the deceased had suddenly taken a step backward as a result of which the fatal impact with the respondent's motorcycle came about and so, holding that the respondent was not to be blamed as he could have easily bypassed both the bus and the deceased, had not the deceased taken the erratic step backward, the High Court had taken a very well reasoned view of the evidence in holding that no rash or negligent act had been brought home to the respondent and so the State appeal was dismissed. A person who is driving a motor car owes a duty to the members of the public to keep a look-out on the road and more so when approaching a pedestrian crossing where he would normally expect a pedestrian to cross the road. He should be able to stop the car when it reaches the crossing, if necessary; in other words, he must not continue the normally high speed when nearing a crossing. The driving of a double bullock cart by letting loose the reins of the bullocks and racing with another double bullock cart at a time of the day when the road was likely to be used frequently by others, amounts not only to rashness but also to negligence on the part of the driver. In the course of such driving a child came under the wheel and died due to a basal fracture of the skull. Death was directly attributable to the act of the driver. The driver was held guilty under this section.

It is the duty of the driver to drive his vehicle at a speed which will not imperil the safety of others using the roads. In 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. It is not sufficient if it is only found that the accused was driving the vehicle at a fast speed. A motor vehicle is intended to be driven in speed. The relationship between speed and rashness or negligence depends upon the place and time. On a straight wide road, where obstructions from other vehicles or pedestrians are not there, it cannot be said that driving in speed or absence of sounding horn by themselves will amount to rashness or negligence. The speed may be moderate but still the accident may be the result of rash and negligent act. It is the duty of everyman who drives a vehicle on public highway to drive it with care and caution and to avoid as far as possible any injury to any person. The condition of the road and the nature of the traffic are also circumstances to be considered in order to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the accident was the result of rash or negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver. The driver of a vehicle will be guilty, if it is proved that he drove the vehicle at an excessive speed over a wet and zigzag road deviating from right side of the road to the wrong side, not keeping a proper look-out and putting himself in such a position as not to be able to apply the brake in time.  Supreme Court has held in catena of judgments that the important criteria for deciding whether the driving which led to the accident was rash or negligent would include not only the speed of the vehicle but also the width of the road, the density of the traffic and the attempt, if any.to overtake other vehicles, resulting in coming to the wrong side of the road and being responsible for the accident. Where the evidence showed that it was the accused respondent who came over to the wrong side of the road in his car while over taking other vehicles and was responsible for knocking down a scooterist fatally and the car driven by him then travelled another 45 feet, hit against the parapet wall on the wrong side and overturned, killing one of the occupants of the car, it was held that on these facts, his conviction under s. 304A and other sections as found by the trial court must be restored.

Death must result from rash or negligent act - "Death should have been the direct result of a rash and negligent act of the accused and that act must have been the proximate and efficient cause without the intervention of another's negligence. It must have been the causa causans; it is not enough that it may have been causa sine qua non. This view has been approved by the Supreme Court. Merely because a person contravenes some rules and regulations he does not make himself liable for rashness or negligence. Carrying human beings in a truck meant for carrying goods cannot be said to be the causa causans of the accident. The rash or negligent act 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. In one case an accused was driving a motor cycle with the deceased sitting on the back seat. A bus in front of the motor cycle struck an electric pole as a result of which electric wire passing over the road broke down. The accused seeing the electric wire bowed down his neck but the said electric wire struck against the neck of the deceased as a result of which he fell down and was electrocuted. It was held that the death had occurred on account of the direct act of the driver of the bus for which the accused could not be held guilty. Where the accused-appellant, a chemist in the department of injections of a chemical industry, was charged along with five others under s. 304A for rashly or negligently manufacturing a solution of glucose in normal saline, which contained more than the permitted quantity of lead nitrate as result of which 13 persons to whom it was administered died, and it was alleged that the accused-appellant was responsible for the giving of a single batch number for all the five lots of solution manufactured on a particular day, but for which the defect in the solution would have been discovered, the Supreme Court held that the Court must determine whether the appellant's act was the causa causans or whether there had been a causa intervenient which had broken the chain of causation so as to make his act, though a negligent one, not the immediate cause. After a re-appreciation of the evidence on record, the Court held that even though one batch number was given to the several lots prepared by the appellant on the same day, as the evidence disclosed that such was the practice uniformly followed in the established concern, the appellant alone could not be held liable. It was the duty of the analyst to test the materials before they were issued to the injection department. If the materials and the prepared solution had been properly tested, lead nitrate would have been detected. Where there had been a total dereliction of duty by the Chief Analyst, non-compliance with the rules forgiving batch numbers to every lot would not make the act of the accused the causa causans of the death of the persons who were injected with the glucose solution prepared by him. To hold the appellant alone responsible for the contravention of the rules would be to somehow find a scapegoat for the deaths. His conviction under s.304A was therefore, set aside? (In such cases of structural offences, the company itself as a legal entity should have been made criminally liable under this section and made to pay a heavy fine and/or compensation ordered to be paid to the victims' dependents).

Not amounting to culpable homicide - Section 304A is directed at offences outside the range of ss. 299 and 300, and obviously contemplates those cases into which neither intention nor knowledge enters. For the rash or negligent act which is declared to be a crime is one 'not amounting to culpable homicide,' and it must therefore be taken that intentionally or knowingly inflicted violence, directly and wilfully caused, is excluded. Section 304A does not say every unjustifiable or inexcusable act of killing not hereinbefore mentioned shall be punishable under the provisions of this section, but it specifically and in terms limits itself to those rash or negligent acts which cause death but fall short of culpable homicide of either description. According to English law, offences of this kind would come within the category of manslaughter, but the authors of our Penal Code appear to have thought it more convenient to give them a separate status in a section to themselves, with a narrower range of punishment proportioned to their culpability. It appears to me impossible to hold that cases of direct violence, wilfully inflicted, can be regarded as either rash or negligent acts. There may be in the act an absence of intention to kill, tocause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or of knowledge that death will be the most probable result, or even of intention to cause grievous hurt, or of knowledge that grievous hurt is likely to be caused. But the inference seems irresistible that hurt at the very least must be presumed to have been intended; or to have been known to be likely to be caused. If such intention or knowledge is present, it is a misapplication of terms to say that the act itself, which is the real test of the criminality, amounts to no more than rashness or negligence.  Death caused by person practising surgery or medicine- Where a person practising medicine or surgery, whether licensed or unlicensed, is guilty of gross negligence, or criminal inattention, in the course of his employment, and inconsequence of such negligence or inattention death ensues, it is manslaughter, but if there is no gross negligence it is not. Where a person acting as a medical man, whether licensed or unlicensed, administers to a patient a poisonous medicine without any intent of doing any bodily harm but with an intent to prevent or cure a disease and it kills the patient, he is guilty of an offence under this section." The fact that a person totally ignorant of the science of medicine or practice of surgery undertakes treatment or performs an operation is very material in showing his gross ignorance from which an inference about his gross rashness and negligence in undertaking the treatment can be inferred. 

Contributory negligence - The doctrine of contributory negligence does not apply to criminal liability where the death of a person is caused partly by the negligence of the accused and partly by his own negligence. The doctrine of contributory negligence has no place in an indictment of criminal negligence. Where a person is charged with the offence of causing loss of life by a negligent omission it is not open to him to rely on the plea of contributory negligence which is distinctly recognized in the law of torts but finds no place in an indictment for criminal negligence. In such a case the question is what was the proximate cause of the accident. If the accused is charged with contributing to the death of the deceased by his negligence, it matters not whether the deceased was deaf, or drunk, or negligent, or in part contributed to his own death. A driver cannot absolve himself from the consequences of rash driving by merely showing that the person to whom or to whose property he has caused injury was himself negligent.9 If the negligent act or omission of a motor driver was the proximate and efficient cause of death, the fact that the deceased was himself negligent and so contributed to the accident or other circumstances by which the death was occasioned, does not afford therefore a defence to a charges under this section.

Res ipsa loquitur - The Supreme Court has observed that the rule of res ipsa loquitur in reality belonged to the law of torts. Where negligence was in issue, the peculiar circumstances constituting the event or accident, in particular case might themselves proclaim in concordant, clear and unambiguous voices the negligence of somebody as the cause of the event or accident. If the cause of the accident was unknown and no reasonable explanation as to its cause was coming forth from the defendant, in such cases the maxim res ipsa loquitur might apply. The event or accident must be of a kind which did not happen in the ordinary course of thing if those who had the management and control of the thing had exercised due care. Further, the event which caused the accident must be within the defendant's control.  In India, the rules of evidence were governed by the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, under which the general rule was that the burden of proving negligence as to the cause of that accident lay on the party who alleged it but that party could take advantage of presumptions, which might be available to him to lighten the burden. They are (i) permissive presumptions or presumptions of fact; (ii) rebuttable presumptions law; and (iii) irrebuttable presumptions of law. Presumptions of fact were inferences of certain fact patterns drawn from the experience and observation of the common course of nature, the constitution of the human mind, the springs of human action and the usages and habits of society and ordinary course of human affairs. Section 114, Evidence Act, was general section dealing with presumptions of that kind. The court had discretion on the facts of each case to draw such presumptions of fact. There was no such discretion in case of presumptions of law. In criminal cases, because of the rules of burden of proof, presumption of innocence and proof beyond reasonable doubt, the maxim res ipsa loquitur could only create an aid in the evaluation of evidence, "an application of the general method of inferring one or more facts in issue from circumstances proved in evidence". In this view, the maxim did not require the raising of any presumption of law which must shift the burden on the defendant. It only, when applied properly, allowed the drawing of a permissive inference of fact, as distinguished from mandatory presumption, properly so called, having regard to the totality of the circumstances and probabilities of the case. The maxim was only a means of estimating logical probability from the circumstances of the accident.

Rash or negligent act - Where a railway official, after being instructed to move some trucks down an incline uncoupled and singly, disobeyed the instruction and lost control over them, and a coolie in trying to stop the trucks fell under the wheels and was killed; where a train collision had occurred owing to the driver ignoring the first signal and following the second; where an engine-driver failed to sound his whistle before starting the engine, and the engine having been put in motion caused a boy, who was painting a wagon, on the line, injury, which resulted in his death; where there was collision between two passenger trains resulting in the death of some people and damage to railway property, the accused, an Assistant Station Master, was held guilty mere direction to subordinate staff for making due arrangement for arrival was not sufficient. It was the duty of the accused to see that arrangements were made according to his direction and requirement of situation.

Mistake of fact - Where a person believing in good faith that the object of his assault was not a human being but a ghost, caused fatal injuries on another which resulted in the death of the latter, it was held that in view of the provisions of s. 79 of the Penal Code, the accused was not guilty of an offence under this section. Where the accused entertained a belief that a stooping child whom he caught sight of in the early gloaming was a spirit or demon, the child being in a place which the accused and his fellow villagers deemed to be haunted, and acting on this belief caused the death of the child by blows he inflicted before he discovered his mistake, it was held that the accused was guilty under this section.

To get Legal Advice on Death by Negligence Click here

Share this News

More articles, the water (prevention and control of pollution) act, 1974: a detailed analysis, guardians of justice: analyzing india's unique collegium system, the concept and types of divorce: india and major countries, navigating cyber laws in india: key legislation and influential court rulings, family courts and their jurisdiction, latest news, subramanian swamy moves delhi hc, seeks mha decision on cancelling rahul gandhi's indian citizenship, delhi hc restrains youtube channels, websites from infringing taarak mehta ka ooltah chashmah's ip, sc designates eight retired high court judges, including former acting chief justice, as senior advocates, madras hc rejects petition to declare thiru kural as 'national book', delhi hc restores mandate of ioa's ad-hoc committee to oversee wrestling federation of india.

Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy

• Dermatology
• Anesthesiology
• Cardiology and CTVS
• Critical Care
• Diabetes and Endocrinology
• Gastroenterology
• Obstretics-Gynaecology
• Ophthalmology
• Orthopaedics
• Pediatrics-Neonatology
• Pulmonology
• Laboratory Medicine
• Paramedical
• Physiotherapy
• Doctor News
• Government Policies
• Hospital & Diagnostics
• International Health News
• Medical Organization News
• Medico Legal News
• Ayurveda Giuidelines
• Ayurveda News
• Homeopathy Guidelines
• Homeopathy News
• Siddha Guidelines
• Siddha News
• Unani Guidelines
• Yoga Guidelines
• Andaman and Nicobar Islands
• Andhra Pradesh
• Arunachal Pradesh
• Chattisgarh
• Dadra and Nagar Haveli
• Daman and Diu
• Himachal Pradesh
• Jammu & Kashmir
• Lakshadweep
• Madhya Pradesh
• Maharashtra
• Uttar Pradesh
• West Bengal
• Ayush Education News
• Dentistry Education News
• Medical Admission News
• Medical Colleges News
• Medical Courses News
• Medical Universities News
• Nursing education News
• Paramedical Education News
• Study Abroad
• Health Investment News
• Health Startup News
• Medical Devices News
• CDSCO (Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation) News
• Pharmacy Education News
• Industry Perspective

How to deal with medical negligence complaints received against doctors under IPC 304A: TN DGP issues guidelines, check out details

Chennai: Taking note of the fact that criminal cases under section 304 (A) of the Indian Penal Code, which is culpable homicide not amounting to murder, are being registered against medical practitioners for alleged medical negligence, the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu has now issued guidelines for the police personnel to follow proper protocol before booking doctors in such cases.

"Such extreme action is unjustified as it causes damage to the reputation of the medical practitioner. It also demoralises the entire health care fraternity, who take care of the health of people," noted the DGP in a recent Circular Memorandum dated 21.06.2023.

Referring to the Guidelines issued by the Supreme Court and previous guidelines issued by the Tamil Nadu Government, the Head of the Police Force of the State reiterated that whenever a complaint of death due to negligence on the part of Medical Practitioners is received, the investigating officers should comply with the following guidelines:

a) Make thorough enquiry and collect all oral and documentary evidences.

b) Obtain the opinion of another competent Government doctor preferably from the Medical College Hospital.

c) Obtain Legal opinion if a criminality under 304(A) is made out with the available evidences.

d) The doctor accused of rashness or negligence, shall not be arrested in a routine manner.

e) The CoPs and SPs should personally review and weigh the evidences before registration of case.

f) An express report on registration of cases, facts and circumstances with details of evidence of the case shall be sent to the DGP/HoPF within 24 hours of registration of case.

Issuing these guidelines, the DGP also pointed out that "It may be borne in mind that, complications during treatment especially surgery are likely to happen independent of the procedures and in spite of the best efforts taken by the doctors in good faith."

In the Memorandum, the DGP also referred to the guidelines issued by Courts and mentioned, "The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the Hon’ble High Court have issued guidelines time and again in this regard to the effect that the doctors shall be held criminally responsible only if a prima facie case is made out and after getting an expert opinion from a qualified doctor, preferably a Government doctor of adequate qualification and training."

Also Read: Gross negligence needed for IPC 304 A: HC relief to doctor blamed for death during DnC

Guidelines Issued by the Supreme Court:

The Apex Court in its judgment in Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab dated 05.08.2005, had framed temporary rules/observations for holding a doctor guilty for "criminal negligence" under Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 304A.

The important guidelines issued by the Supreme Court that have been mentioned by the Tamil Nadu DGP are as follows:

i) A simple lack of care, an error of judgement or an accident, is not proof of negligence on the part of a medical professional.

ii) So long as a doctor follows a practice acceptable to the medical profession of that day, he cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative course or method of treatment was also available.

iii) Simply because a more skilled doctor would not have chosen to follow or resort to that practice of procedure which the accused followed.

iv) It is not possible for every professional to possess the highest level of expertise of skills in that branch which he practices.

v) A highly skilled professional may be possessed of better qualities, but that cannot be made the basis or the yardstick for judging the performance of the professional proceeded against on indictment of negligOpinionsOpinionsence.

vi) Simply because a patient has not favourably responded to a treatment given by a physician or a surgery has failed, the doctor cannot be held liable.

vii) Human body and medical science both are too complex to be easily understood. To hold in favour of existence of negligence, associated with the action or inaction of a medical professional, requires an in depth understanding of the working of a professional as also the nature of the job and or errors committed by chance, which do not necessarily involve the element of culpability.

viii) The investigating officer and the private complainant cannot always be supposed to have knowledge of medical science so as to determine whether the act of the accused medical professional amounts to rash or negligent act within the domain of criminal law under section 304-A IPC.

ix) A private complaint may not be entertained unless the complainant has produced prima facie evidence before the Court in the form of a credible opinion given by another competent doctor to support the charge ofrashness or negligence on the part of the accused doctor.

x) The investigating officer should, before proceeding against the doctor accused of rash or negligent act or omission, obtain an independent and competent medical opinion preferably from a doctor in Government service qualified in that branch of medical practice who can normally be expected to give an impartial and unbiased opinion applying Bolam's test to the facts collected in the investigation..

xi) A person is not liable in negligence because someone else of greater skill and knowledge would have prescribed different treatment or operated in a different way; nor is he guilty of negligence if he has acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men skilled in that particular art, even though a body of adverse opinion also existed among medical men.

xii) A mere deviation from normal professional practice is not necessarily evidence of negligence. Let it also be noted that a mere accident is not evidence of negligence. So also an error of judgment on the part of a professional is not negligence per se.

xiii) No sensible professional would intentionally commit an act or omission which would result in loss or injury to the patient.

Guidelines Issued by Tamil Nadu Health Department:

Apart from the Supreme Court directions, the Memorandum also referred to a previous guidelines issued by the Tamil Nadu Government. In its order dated 04.07.2008, the Health Department of Tamil Nadu had issued the following guidelines to be followed strictly while registering case against the Medical Practitioners:

“A private complaint may not be entertained unless the complainant has produced prima facie evidence before the Court in the form of a credible opinion given by another competent doctor to support the charge of rashness or negligence on the part of the accused doctor. The investigation officer should, before proceeding against the doctor accused of rash or negligent act or omission, obtain an Independent and competent medical opinion, preferably from a doctor in Government service qualified in that branch of medical practice who can normally be expected to give an impartial and unbiased opinion applying Bolam's test to the facts collected in the investigation. A doctor accused of rashness or negligence, may not be arrested in a routine manner, simply because a charge has been levelled against him, unless his arrest is necessary for furthering the investigation or for collecting evidence or unless the investigation officer feels satisfied that the doctor proceeded against would not make himself available to face the prosecution unless arrested, the arrest may be withheld.”

NMC Guidelines:

Medical Dialogues had reported that back in 2021, with an aim to put an end to the confusion regarding the issue of how the criminal negligence aspect of medico-legal cases has to be treated, the Ethics and Medical Registration Board (ERMB), operative under the National Medical Commission (NMC) had framed some guidelines that spell out the prosecution of doctors for causing death of innocent patients due to gross medical negligence or reckless therapy.

The guidelines were recently communicated by the NMC in a letter to the secretary, Ministry of Health and Family welfare in response to letter filed by Dr Kunal Saha, President PBT demanding the implementation of the directions issued by SC in this regard.

Back in 2005, opining that the investigation officers and the private complaint cannot always be supposed to have knowledge of medical sciences to determine whether the law under Sections 304A of IPC would be applicable, the top court had also held that "Statutory rules or executive incorporating certain guidelines needs to be framed and issued by the Government of India and/or State Governments in consultation with the Medical Council of India."

The Guidelines by NMC spelled out the entire procedure of protection of doctors under IPC 304A and called for a setup of a specific district medical board that will establish negligence.

According to the NMC Guidelines, it is required that after receiving a complaint under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, the matter should be forwarded to the district Medical Council Board for its recommendations before making any arrest. Further, the matter may be recommended to the State Medical Council Board as well and the guidelines have clearly mentioned that a doctor accused of medical negligence may not be arrested in a routine manner.

To view the guidelines by Tamil Nadu DGP, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/tamil-nadu-dgp-212490.pdf

Also Read: IPC 304 A: NMC frames Guidelines for Prosecution of Doctors in Criminal Negligence

Barsha completed her Master's in English from the University of Burdwan, West Bengal in 2018. Having a knack for Journalism she joined Medical Dialogues back in 2020. She mainly covers news about medico legal cases, NMC/DCI updates, medical education issues including the latest updates about medical and dental colleges in India. She can be contacted at [email protected].

Maintenance work is planned from 21:00 BST on Sunday 18th August 2024 to 21:00 BST on Monday 19th August 2024, and on Thursday 29th August 2024 from 11:00 to 12:00 BST.

During this time the performance of our website may be affected - searches may run slowly, some pages may be temporarily unavailable, and you may be unable to log in or to access content. If this happens, please try refreshing your web browser or try waiting two to three minutes before trying again.

We apologise for any inconvenience this might cause and thank you for your patience.

Chemical Society Reviews

Computer-aided nanodrug discovery: recent progress and future prospects.

* Corresponding authors

a Laboratory of Theoretical and Computational Nanoscience, National Center for Nanoscience and Technology of China, Beijing 100190, China E-mail: [email protected]

b University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, No. 19A Yuquan Road, Beijing 100049, China

Nanodrugs, which utilise nanomaterials in disease prevention and therapy, have attracted considerable interest since their initial conceptualisation in the 1990s. Substantial efforts have been made to develop nanodrugs for overcoming the limitations of conventional drugs, such as low targeting efficacy, high dosage and toxicity, and potential drug resistance. Despite the significant progress that has been made in nanodrug discovery, the precise design or screening of nanomaterials with desired biomedical functions prior to experimentation remains a significant challenge. This is particularly the case with regard to personalised precision nanodrugs, which require the simultaneous optimisation of the structures, compositions, and surface functionalities of nanodrugs. The development of powerful computer clusters and algorithms has made it possible to overcome this challenge through in silico methods, which provide a comprehensive understanding of the medical functions of nanodrugs in relation to their physicochemical properties. In addition, machine learning techniques have been widely employed in nanodrug research, significantly accelerating the understanding of bio–nano interactions and the development of nanodrugs. This review will present a summary of the computational advances in nanodrug discovery, focusing on the understanding of how the key interfacial interactions, namely, surface adsorption, supramolecular recognition, surface catalysis, and chemical conversion, affect the therapeutic efficacy of nanodrugs. Furthermore, this review will discuss the challenges and opportunities in computer-aided nanodrug discovery, with particular emphasis on the integrated “computation + machine learning + experimentation” strategy that can potentially accelerate the discovery of precision nanodrugs.

Article information

Download Citation

Permissions.

J. Zheng, Q. Li, Z. Wang, X. Wang, Y. Zhao and X. Gao, Chem. Soc. Rev. , 2024, Advance Article , DOI: 10.1039/D3CS00575E

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence . You can use material from this article in other publications without requesting further permissions from the RSC, provided that the correct acknowledgement is given.

Read more about how to correctly acknowledge RSC content .

Social activity

Search articles by author.

This article has not yet been cited.

Advertisements