Post mortem was conducted by the Medical Officer. He must constantly inform himself that he cannot afford to have a single moment of laxity or inattentiveness when his leg is one the pedal of a vehicle in locomotion. In order to be encompassed by the protection under Section 304A there should be neither intention nor knowledge to cause death. The evidence of eye witnesses showed that the vehicle was being driven at a very high speed and that the road was quite wide and there was no traffic at the time of accident. The conduct of the accused who was trying to take out the wire showed both his intention and knowledge.
The tank when filled with water collapsed killing seven villagers. This offence is cognizable and warrant should ordinarily issue in the first instance. The accused did not attempt to save the deceased by swerving to the other side, when there was sufficient space. Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 304A-- Criminal negligence - Death due to drowning in swimming pool - Deceased himself surreptitiously and unauthorisedly entered pool which was meant for adult trained swimmer and drowned - No reliable evidence regarding any rashness negligence of any accused who were employed at swimming pool - Held,. The Indian Penal Code, 1860, No. The court said that Section 304-A should be revisited so that higher punishment can be provided. The very words of this section indicate that the intent of the legislature was to apply this provision to the acts where a homicide was not culpable, i.
This makes it clear that there can be no circumstances when one's act can be read into this particular section in order to avail him the benefit of not being charged under section 299 to 302 of the I. Complainant and other neighbour reached there. The principle of 'res ispa loquitur' is the only rule of evidence to determine the onus of proof in actions relating to negligence. Under the original English law this is termed as manslaughter by negligence. To render a person liable for neglect of duty it must be such a degree of culpability as to amount to gross negligence on his part. While discussing the scope of this section as a license to kill, one may conceive that the term 'rash' classifies the various events and acts in road accidents, mishandling of hazardous materials or lethal weapons etc.
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 304A-- Medical negligence - Death at operation table - Prosecution failed to prove that respondents 1 and 2 administered thiopental in excess volume or that the administration was not made in accordance with the established procedure - Held, prosecution, thus failed to prove that act of accused amounts. It is very much convincing that this section would have no applicability where the act is in its nature criminal. In order to impose criminal liability under Section 304-A, it is essential to establish that death is the direct result of the rash or negligent act of the accused. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate, holds Ph. This section applies where there is direct nexus between the death of a person and the rash or negligent act. The requirement of section 304-A of I.
Only the act done negligently or rashly invokes the validity of this section and it cannot be applicable to result, which supervenes upon the act which could not have been anticipated. Accused Chhittar due to enmity had fixed naked live electricity wire near the fencing with the intention to kill Ram Kumar. State of Karnataka it was clearly stated that the accident did not occur on account of mechanical defects. Read the full order of the Supreme Court: About Dr. When in the night Ram Kumar came in contact with electric wire he died due to electrocution. Thus this section shall apply where there is neither any intention to cause death nor knowledge that the act would in all probability cause death. She was convicted under Section 304-A considering the act of the accused was rash and negligent.
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 a particular individual. State of Rajasthan it could not be proved that the truck driver deliberately crushed the man on the scooter, thus the conviction was made under section 304-A of I. Negligence, on the other hand, is a breach of duty imposed by law. Again in the case of Ramava v. Currently with modern contemporary home design, room is created available and bright with natural light in the room. To fill in the gap, section 304A was inserted in the Penal Code Amendment Act 27 of 1870 to cover those cases wherein a person causes death of another by such acts as are rash or negligent but there is no intention to cause death or no knowledge that the act will cause death. If that is so what is the difference in the meaning? High Court found that the prosecution itself accepted that two sticks were fixed.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. You may too see more pictures by clicking the following photo or see more at this post:. In fact this aspect has been clearly taken note of by the trial court but it was concluded that merely because the wooden poles were there that did not establish the defence plea that the same was intended to keep away wild animals. If a person, who is sole bread winner of his family, is died in accident by rash or negligent act of a person, such family may become destitute forever. There was also seizure of the wooden sticks which aspect was also accepted by the trial court. .
In this case the prosecution examined 15 witnesses and referred to several documents. Statement of accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in short 'Cr. When Murlidhar went there to give tea to his father he also came in contact with the electric wire and died on the spot. In other words, there must be proof that the rash and negligent act of the accused was the proximate cause of death. After some time uncle of complainant Sua Lal noticed the dead bodies of Ram Kumar and Murlidhar lying in the field, he raised alarm.
These observations of the Supreme Court came from a bench comprising of Justice Dipak Misra and Justice C. It is absence of such proper care and caution, which is required of a reasonable man in doing an act, which is made punishable under Section 304-A. It has been said by the Supreme Court in a case that failure to exercise the required care and caution expected to be taken by a driver in a circumstance, in which he was driving would constitute a negligent driving. The phonograph was invented by Thomas Edison. Therefore, at least immediate compensation must be paid to the victim by the offender besides other benefits to the victim. In another classic example the petitioner was convicted under the same section, where the petitioner constructed a water tank for the use of village people. The courts have no power to direct higher punishment for an offence than is specified in law made by the Parliament or a state legislature.
According to me though both the sentance make sense, they may not be meaning the same. It is not sufficient if it is only found that the accused was driving the vehicle at a fast speed. Where a factory owner neglects the maintenance of the machine, and causes the death of a person, he shall be held liable under Section 304-A. However, the caption is meant to give a general idea about the contents of the section i. The said section reads as follows: 304A. .