304A IPC
Guest
(Querist) 21 August 2009
This query is : Resolved
S.304A of IPC reads - "Whoever causs the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act....."
Suppose the sentance would have been, "Whoever causes the death of any person by any rash or negliggent act...". Would the meaning differ?
Does the use of the word "doing" in the section has any significance
Is there a difference in meaning of the two sentance mentioned in the query. One with the word "doing" and the other without the word "doing".
According to me both the sentance make sense. If both the sentance are making the same sense, then is not the word "doing" in the first sentance redundant?
According to me though both the sentance make sense, they may not be meaning the same. If that is so what is the difference in the meaning?
Kiran Kumar
(Expert) 21 August 2009
in my opinion also the meaning conveyed is the same.
moreover the courts shall not take hypertechnical view of the same if the facts of the case convey the commission of offence under the said section.
there can be few procedural lapses but that shall not cause any deviation from substantial justice.
Guest
(Querist) 22 August 2009
Kiranji & Sarveshji,
I am trying to argue that the use of the word "doing" in the section brings within the fold of S 304A only cases of negligence by doing an act. In other words my contention is that negligence by ommission is not punishable u/s 304A.
Thus negligence by failure to do an act (illegal ommission) is not punishable u/s 304A.
Is there any substance in my arguement if read with s.32 of IPC as I feel that the use of the word "doing" excludes illegal omissions from act?
Kiran Kumar
(Expert) 22 August 2009
what i suppose act includes ommission as well.
failure to act legally or prudently amounts to ommission.
if someone is supposed to take due care and caution in a particular situation but even without doing any adverse act (physically), his conduct may amount to omission.
negligence can be by both doing an act or by not doing an act.
PALNITKAR V.V.
(Expert) 22 August 2009
Mr. Menon is trying to make distinction between the caption of the section and the actual text of the section. However, the caption is meant to give a general idea about the contents of the section i.e. the full text of the section. Hence, there is no need to make any distinction between the two. I support Mr. Kiran kumar that act includes ommission as well depending on circumstances of the case.
charudureja
(Expert) 22 August 2009
Well the word "doing" is significant because it shows the intention of the person. an act done without guilty intention may not constitute an offence and even if a crime has been commotted without intention the punishment given is less harsh than awarded in an offence done with guilty intention. so where rash or negligent act is "done" knowingly it becomes an offence and punishable u/s 304A. But where though act is rash or negligent bt done without intention of doing it, it is nt covered here.
Kiran Kumar
(Expert) 23 August 2009
i am of a bit different opinion from Madam Dureja, in my opinion as far as acts done "RASHLY OR NEGLIGENTLY"....there is no question of intentionally or non-intentionally.
if the act was an intentional act then the case is not covered under S.304-A but under S.302 IPC.
moreover the words 'knowledge' and 'intention' have not been used in S.304-A IPC.
even otherwise i dont consider both the expressions are ingredients of S.304-A, what i think negligence or rashness can not be intentionaly.
if i say in Hindi "JAANBUJH KAR GALTI KAUN KARTA HAI"...if an act is done intentionally then other specific provisions with higher punishment are there.
charudureja
(Expert) 23 August 2009
Well Mr.Kiran if u say so ki " Jaanbhuj kar kaun galti karta ha" and there is no question of intention or knoweldge in sec 304A then wht will you say if a person who is drunk drives rashly and kills someone. he never had the intention to kill, how can u punsih him u/s 302 he will be covered u/s 304 A because though he didnt have the intention to kill BUT he had the knoweldge of the consequences of his act of drinking and driving. to kya ye galti ke jaanbhuj kar nahi hui.......
Guest
(Querist) 23 August 2009
While agree with Kiranji that S.304A does not require any particular intent or knowledge, I am inclned to agree with Ms Dureja that the word "doing" in s.304A has some significance or purpose as you will agree that legislation is not expected to waste its words. Every word contained in a Statute is inserted for some purpose.
Even in S.299 the word "doing" appears.However in the said section the word "doing" is associated with intention or knowledge. Thus while in s. 299 an omission would amount to a punishable act, because the omission is associated with an intent or knowledge.
I feel in s.304A an omission simplicitor would not amount to "doing a rash and negligent act" liable for punishment as the same is not associated with an intent or knowledge.
Kiran Kumar
(Expert) 23 August 2009
conclusively all depends upon the facts and circumstances of a case.
charudureja
(Expert) 23 August 2009
Thankyou Mr Kiran and Mr. Menon
Guest
(Querist) 09 October 2009
Dear friends,
As a result of my research, I have been able to find the following citation:-
Rakesh Ranjan Gupta V/s State of UP & Anr AIR 1999 SC 2115, 1999 CRILJ 3484 which states as follows:-
"If there was delay on the part of the Doctor to attend on the patient that may at the worst be a case of Civil Negligence and not one of Culpable negligence under 304A"
Sarvesh Kumar Sharma Advocate
(Expert) 22 August 2009
