Question: Explain and elaborate the expression “causes death by rash or negligent act” as contemplated under Section 304-A of the I.P.C. [M.P.H.J.S. 2010, U.P.H.J.S. 20121] Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites.  [Explain and elaborate the expression “causes death by rash or negligent act” as contemplated under Section 304-A of the I.P.C.] Answer Section… Read More »

Question: Explain and elaborate the expression “causes death by rash or negligent act” as contemplated under Section 304-A of the I.P.C. [M.P.H.J.S. 2010, U.P.H.J.S. 20121] Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [Explain and elaborate the expression “causes death by rash or negligent act” as contemplated under Section 304-A of the I.P.C.] Answer Section 304A makes the punishable act of Causing death by negligence.— Whoever causes the death of any person by...

Question: Explain and elaborate the expression “causes death by rash or negligent act” as contemplated under Section 304-A of the I.P.C. [M.P.H.J.S. 2010, U.P.H.J.S. 20121]

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [Explain and elaborate the expression “causes death by rash or negligent act” as contemplated under Section 304-A of the I.P.C.]

Answer

Section 304A makes the punishable act of Causing death by negligence.— Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 304A deals with ‘death’ caused by a ‘rash’ or ‘negligent act. However, in both cases, the death caused should not amount to culpable homicide. The doing of a rash or negligent act, which causes death, is the essence of s 304A.

There is a distinction between a rash act and a negligent act. ‘Rashness’ conveys the idea of recklessness or doing of an act without due consideration and ‘negligence’ connotes want of proper care.

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

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

The term ‘negligence’ as used in this section does not mean mere carelessness. The rashness or negligence must be of such nature so as to be termed as a criminal act of negligence or rashness. Section 80 of the IPC provides ‘nothing is an offense which is done by accident or misfortune and without any criminal knowledge or intention in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by a lawful means and with proper care and caution’.

It is the absence of such proper care and caution, which is required of a reasonable man in doing an act, which is made punishable under this act. It is the degree of negligence that really determines whether a particular act would amount to a rash and negligent act as defined under this section.

It is only when the rash and negligent act is of such a degree that the risk run by the doer of the act is very high or is done with such recklessness and with total disregard and indifference to the consequences of this act, the act can be constituted as a rash and negligent act under this section.

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

In the case of Chemelia v. Roop Chand Malik [AIR 1918 All 429], An assistant station master gave a ‘line clear’ signal to a passenger train with the knowledge that a goods train was standing at a particular point, where the train might collide, hoping to remove the goods train before the arrival of the passenger train. The goods train was not removed in time and a collision occurred which was attended with loss of life.

The assistant station master was held guilty of a rash act punishable under this section.


Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

  1. IPC Mains Questions Series Part I: Important Questions
  2. IPC Mains Questions Series Part II: Important Questions
  3. IPC Mains Questions Series Part III: Important Questions
  4. IPC Mains Questions Series Part IV: Important Questions
  5. IPC Mains Questions Series Part V: Important Questions
  6. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VI: Important Questions
  7. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VII: Important Questions
  8. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VIII: Important Questions
  9. IPC Mains Questions Series Part IX: Important Questions
  10. IPC Mains Questions Series Part X: Important Questions
Updated On 2021-07-21T10:06:37+05:30
Admin LB

Admin LB

Next Story