Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The learned counsel has vehemently contended that it is a case where according to the 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 criminal jurisprudence, there is a wide difference between intention and knowledge, on the one hand, and rash and negligence, on the other hand. Although rashness contains an element of knowledge, but in rashness despite having the knowledge of the consequences, the act is still done. At worse, even if knowledge were to be attributed to the petitioners, they may have had the knowledge of the 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, illustration C of Section 299 IPC clearly describes when an act does not amount to culpable homicide. According to the said illustration, if a person intends to do a particular act, while doing that act, unfortunately a death is caused, he cannot be held liable for culpable homicide. In the present case, the intention of the petitioners was not to kill the labourers. Their intention, in fact, was to carry out the mining operation. Unfortunately, while carrying out the mining operation, few labourers lost their lives. Since the intention was to carry out mining operation, and not to cause the death of the labourers, clearly the present case falls under illustration c of Section 299 IPC. Therefore, the act allegedly done by the petitioners does not amount to culpable homicide. Since the act does not amount to culpable homicide, it cannot fall within Section 304 IPC. Thus, it is clearly covered by Section 304A IPC and not by Section 304 IPC.

6. Section 304-A applies to cases where there is no intention to cause death and no knowledge that the act done in all probability will cause death. The provision is directed at offences outside the range of Sections 299 and 300 IPC. The provision applies only to such acts which are rash and negligent and are directly cause of death of another person. Negligence and rashness are essential elements under Section 304-A. Culpable negligence lies in the failure to exercise reasonable and proper care and the extent of its reasonableness will always depend upon the circumstances of each case. Rashness means doing an act with the consciousness of a risk that evil consequences will follow but with the hope that it will not. Negligence is a breach of duty imposed by law. In criminal cases, the amount and degree of negligence are determining factors. A 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 circumspection which a prudent and reasonable man would consider to be sufficient considering all the circumstances of the case. Criminal rashness means hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is dangerous or wanton and the further knowledge that it may cause injury but done without any intention to cause injury or knowledge that it would probably be caused.

Furthermore, in order to understand the distinction between Sections 304 and 304A IPC, it is pertinent to note that while the former Section deals with an act 'amounting to culpable homicide', the latter Section deals with an act 'not amounting to culpable homicide'. Therefore, lets first turn to the definition of 'culpable homicide' as contain in Section 299 IPC.
Section 299 IPC along with the illustrations reads as under :
299 Culpable homicide Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.

In the case of Mahadev Prasad Kaushik (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the test of motivating force. Therefore, this Court is required to see what was the motivating force in the mind of the accused persons when death of the five labourers was caused ? According to the prosecution, the petitioners were carrying out illegal mining. Therefore, their intention was to carrying out the illegal mining of the place. Obviously, the motivating force was to extract minerals from the earth. The motivating force was not to cause death of the five labourers. Since their intention was carrying out of illegal mining, and howsoever unlawful it may be to do so, it was certainly not their intention to cause the death of the unfortunate victims. Therefore, their act falls within the ambit of Illustration c of Section 299 IPC. Hence, their act is covered by Section 304A and not by Section 304 IPC.