Q) Ingredients of section 304A and cases and circumstances where
they have reduced the sentence.
Ingredients of Section 304(A) of IPC, there should be clear and cogent evidence to show
that the death has taken place due to the direct rash or negligent act of the accused.
Secondly, there should be a proximity between the rash or negligent act of accused and
the factum of death. Thirdly and more importantly, there should not be a third party
intervention or contributory negligence.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabhakaran v. State of Kerala, (2007) 14 SCC 269
: (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 873 at page 271 Hon'ble Supreme Court holds that only culpable
negligent act and rashness amounts to an offence under 304 A
"7. 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. The 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 that a
prudent and reasonable man would consider it 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."
AIR 1965 SC 1616, (Kurban Hussein Mohamedalli Rangawalla v. State Of Maharashtra.)
and AIR 1972 SC 221 (Mahadeo Harilokre v. State of Maharashtra) and it has been
observed and held that the death caused must be the direct result of a rash and negligent
act of the accused and that act must be the proximate and efficient cause without the
intervention of another's negligence. In other words, it must be the causa causans: it is not
enough that it must have been the cause sine qua non.
Therefore the yardstick for proving the criminal negligence act under Section 304(A) of
IPC is held to be such that it must be proximate and efficient cause without the
intervention of a third party. The relevant para no.3 is reproduced below:
The Supreme Court in MANISH JALAN v. STATE OF KARNATAKA, CRIMINAL
APPEAL NO. 1066 OF 2008, order dated July 11, 2008, in the present case the court
reduced the sentence as it was just a rash and negligent act without any inebriated
condition.
15. True that in the instant case the appellant has been found to be guilty of offences
punishable under Sections 279 and 304A, IPC for driving rashly and negligently on a
public street and his act unfortunately resulted in the loss of a precious human life. But it
is pertinent to note that there was no allegation against the appellant that at the time of
accident, he was under the influence of liquor or any other substance impairing his
driving skills. It was a rash and negligent act simplicitor and not a case of driving in an
inebriated condition which is, undoubtedly despicable aggravated offence warranting
stricter and harsher punishment.
16. Having regard to all these facts and bearing in mind the fact that the mother of the
victim has no grievance against the appellant and has prayed for some compensation, we
are of the view that a lenient view can be taken in the matter and the sentence of
imprisonment can be reduced. We are of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met
if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone but in
addition thereto, the appellant should be directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the
mother of the deceased by way of compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant, in
fact, indicated that his client was willing to pay that much amount. We order accordingly.
17. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Sections 279 and 304A, IPC is
maintained. However, the substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period
already undergone. Imposition of fine is also affirmed. Besides, the appellant shall pay an
amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the mother of the victim, namely, Smt. H. Sunanda Prabhu, by
way of compensation within three months from today.
The Supreme Court SAGAR LOLIENKAR VERSUS THE STATE OF GOA &
ANR. ,CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1415 OF 2021,order dated NOVEMBER 18, 2021
14. In the instant case, the appellant has been found to be guilty of offences punishable
under Sections 279 and 304A IPC for driving rashly and negligently on a public street
and his act unfortunately resulted in the loss of the precious human life. But it is pertinent
to note that there was no allegation against the appellant that at the time of accident, he
was under the influence of liquor or any other substance impairing his driving skills. It
was a rash and negligent act simplicitor and not a case of driving in an inebriated
condition which is, undoubtedly despicable aggravated offence warranting stricter and
harsher punishment.
15. Having regard to all these factors and bearing in mind the fact that the widow of the
victim has not come forward despite notice being served and the compensation of Rs. 3
lakhs has been deposited by the appellant, we are of the view that a lenient view can be
taken in the matter and the sentence of imprisonment can be reduced.
16. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Sections 279 and 304A IPC is
maintained. However, the substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period
already undergone. Imposition of fine is also affirmed.
