Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(ii) ‘Rash’ or ‘Negligent’ – Meaning of:

47. Section 304A of the IPC makes any act causing death by a rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both. It reads:

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

48. The terms ‘rash’ or ‘negligent’ appearing in Section 304A extracted above have not been defined in the Code. Judicial pronouncements have all the same given a meaning which has been long accepted as the true purport of the two expressions appearing in the provisions. One of the earliest of these pronouncements was in Empress of India v. Idu Beg ILR (1881) 3 All 776, where Straight J. explained that in the case of a rash act, the criminality lies in running the risk of doing an act with recklessness or indifference as to consequences. A similar meaning was given to the term ‘rash’ by the High Court of Madras in In Re: Nidamarti Negaghushanam 7 Mad HCR 119, where the Court held that culpable rashness meant acting with the consciousness that a mischievous and illegal consequence may follow, but hoping that it will not. Culpability in the case of rashness arises out of the person concerned acting despite the consciousness. These meanings given to the expression ‘rash’, have broadly met the approval of this Court also as is evident from a conspectus of decisions delivered from time to time, to which we shall presently advert. But before we do so, we may refer to the following passage from “A Textbook of Jurisprudence” by George Whitecross Paton reliance whereupon was placed by Mr. Jethmalani in support of his submission. Rashness according to Paton means “where the actor foresees possible consequences, but foolishly thinks they will not occur as a result of his act”.

78. To the same effect are the decisions of this Court in Rustom Sherior Irani v. State of Maharashtra 1969 ACJ 70; Balchandra @ Bapu and Anr. v.

State of Maharashtra AIR 1968 SC 1319; Kishan Chand v. State of Haryana (1970) 3 SCC 904; S.N Hussain v. State of A.P. (1972) 3 SCC 18; Ambalal D. Bhatt v. State of Gujarat (1972) 3 SCC 525 and Jacob Mathew‘s case (supra).

79. To sum up: for an offence under Section 304-A to be proved it is not only necessary to establish that the accused was either rash or grossly negligent but also that such rashness or gross negligence was the causa causans that resulted in the death of the victim. As to what is meant by causa causans we may gainfully refer to Black’s Law Dictionary (Fifth Edition) which defines that expression as under:

103. In the case of gross negligence prosecution and damages may be claimed simultaneously and not necessarily in the alternative. We may at this stage refer to a few pronouncements to illustrate that the duty to care and the nature of care expected of any person accused of committing an offence under Section 304A IPC has always been seen in the fact situations in which the question arose. In Bhalchandra Waman Pathe v. State of Maharashtra 1968 Mah. L.J. 423 (SC) this Court was dealing with a case where the regulations framed by the Commissioner of Police, under the Bombay Police Act, required the driver of car to look ahead and see whether there was any pedestrian in the crossing and if there was one to wait till he crossed the carriage way. The accused in that case had failed to take care and do that, resulting in the death of a pedestrian who was crossing the road. The question that fell for consideration was whether the driver was rash or negligent. This Court held that since the speed limit was 35 miles per hour, and since the accused was driving the car at 35 miles an hour, there was no rashness on his part in the absence of any other circumstance showing that he was driving at a reckless speed. Even so the charge of negligence was held proved against the accused as he had breached the duty cast upon him to see whether there was any pedestrian to the pedestrian crossing. Law, observed this Court, enjoined upon him and ordinary human prudence required him to do so. Failure of the accused to exercise that reasonable care and caution rendered him liable in criminal law to a conviction under Section 304A of the IPC. This Court approved the ratio of the decisions in Idu Beg and Nidamarti cases (supra), that distinguished ‘rashness’ and ‘negligence’, and held that while rashness implies recklessness or indifference to consequences, negligence arises from neglect of a civic duty of circumspection, “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.” Rashness, observed this Court, was undoubtedly a graver offence.