1

CRIMINAL LAW -1

PROJECT: Causing Death by

Negligence and dowry death

ASSIGEND BY: - DR. Pawan kumar Mishra

SUBMITTED BY: - MUKESH RANJAN,

B.A.LLB (H.) 3rd SEMESTER

ENR. NO.:- CUSB1513125026

2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

It is a matter of great pleasure for me to present this

project. This project has provided me with an opportunity
to revise the subject matter and bring it up to date.
The statutory and case laws available in this project.
In this project an effort has been made to put the related
provision at one place and explain the principal in as simple
language as possible.
I appreciate the help and cooperation rendered by my
honorable sir. dr. Pawan kumar mishra and my friend Mr.
Shubham kumar, without which the project could not have
been brought out in the present form.
At the end I apologize, I have hurt feeling of any person
while making comments or observation while expressing
my views in the project. I take entire responsibility for any
error or omission in the project.

MUKESH RANJAN

BA.LLB , 3RD SEMSTER .

3

CONTENT

SL. NO. TOPIC PG. NO.

01 INTRODUCTION 04-05

02 06-07
Causing death by
negligence

03 07-08
INGREDIENT OF THIS
SECTION 304A

04 08-10
CASES RELATED OF
THIS SECTION 304A
05 10-11
Dowry death section
304b
06 12-13
CASES RELATED OF
THIS SECTION 304B
07 CONCLUSION 14-15
4

08 BIBLOGRAPHY 16

INTRODUCTION
The intent of the nineteenth century drafters of the section 304-A
was not to create a license to kill but in the present scenario due to
lack of evidence and at times due to some magical advocacy one
can avail illegitimate benefits of this section. But such a situation is
very much nominal and is rarely found. It has been said that in
cases falling under this section it is dangerous to attempt to
distinguish between the approximate and ultimate cause of death.
But there is a negligible chance that the judiciary will get confused
between section 304-A and the sections 299 to 302 of the I.P.C.

Thus it must be concluded that the said section doesn’t endow a

“License to kill” but is to protect the persons who had no intention
to kill and due to an act of negligence did become guilty of a
homicide.

The word "dowry" in Section 304-B IPC has to be understood as it

is defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Act. Thus, there are three
occasions related to dowry. One is before the marriage, second is at
the time of marriage and the third "at any time" after the
marriage.
5

The third occasion may appear to be unending period. But the

crucial words are "in connection with the marriage of the said
parties".

As was observed in the said case "suicidal death" of a married

woman within seven years of her marriage is covered by the
expression "death of a woman is caused ... or occurs otherwise than
under normal circumstances" as expressed in Section 304-B IPC."
6

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.

The provisions of this section apply to cases where there is no

intention to cause death, and no knowledge that the act done in all
probability would cause death. The Supreme Court has clarified
that the section 304-A of I.P.C. is applicable only when death is
caused due to rash and negligent act of the accused, which is an
essential element to attract said provision. But a colossal group of
legal scholars have always questioned whether this section provides
punishment for manslaughter without intention or is it a ‘license to
kill’ in disguise of a rash and negligent act.

Section deals with homicide by negligence and covers that class of

offences, where death is caused neither intentionally nor with the
knowledge that the act of the offender is likely to cause death, but
because of the rash and negligent act of the offender.

FOOTNOTE
7

1. The Indian penal code bare act,universal law publishing pg.

no.117(sec.304A)
2. www.legalserviceindia.com
This clause limits itself to rash and negligent acts which cause
death, but falls short of culpable homicide of either description.
When any of the two elements, namely, intention or knowledge, is
present this section has no application. Intentional shooting at a
fleeing person and hitting someone else to death comes under the
section 300 read with section 301 of the I.P.C. It is not a negligent
act so as to come under section 304-A.

This section applies to rash and negligence acts and does not apply
to cases where death has been voluntarily caused. 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.P.C.

INGREDIENT OF THIS SECTION 304A

Thus it’s clear that the facts which must be proven in order to
invoke the applicability of this section are essentially three folds:

(1) Death of a human being;

(2) The accused caused the death;
(3) The death was caused by the doing of a rash and negligent act,
though it did not amount to culpable homicide.
8

The ‘rash or negligent act’ referred to in this section means the act
which is the immediate cause of death, and not any act or omission,

which can utmost be said to be a remote cause of death. If an act is

intended to hurt and injure a specific person or object, the
perpetrator of the act must be imputed with an intentional act
done with consideration and cannot amount to a ‘rash’ and
‘negligent’ act. It is imperative to note that there is difference
between rashness and negligence.

A rash act is primarily an overhasty act. Negligence is a breach of

duty caused by omission to do something, which a reasonable
guided, by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the
conduct of human affairs would do.

CASES RELATED OF THIS SECTION 304A

(1). Kanaiyalal Arjandas v. Tribhuvandas the prosecution was
unable to prove that the accused was driving the vehicle. Another
connotation regarding the applicability of this section is that if the
driver of a motor vehicle does not blow the horn because of the
prevailing traffic rules prohibit him in doing so, it can neither be
said that he failed to exercise reasonable and proper care nor that
the duty to blow horn was imperative upon him, so as to hold him

FOOTNOTE
9

3. https://indiankanoon.org
4. www.the-laws.com

guilty of negligence under this section. Further the Supreme Court

has laid down that, to render a person liable for neglect of duty
there must be such a degree of culpability as to amount to gross
negligence on his part. It is not every little slip or mistake that will
section creates such conditions, whereby one can use it as a
defensive and protective measure in order to escape from the
clutches of culpable homicide amounting to murder.

(2). State of Karnataka v. Mohd. Ismail, where a 28 year old

motor-cyclist pushed from behind an old man of 85 years who
sustained head injuries and died on the spot, the death was held to
be result of rash and negligent conduct. 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 tank when filled with water collapsed killing seven villagers.
The tank collapsed because the material used in the construction
was of low quality.

The question here is that can someone kill a person in the disguise
of a rash or negligence act. The very best example which strikes
everyone’s mind is that of automobile accidents.

FOOTNOTE
5. https://books.google.co.in
6. https://lawdb.in/
10

In this regard the investigation and the role of witnesses are of

great importance. Coming to the question of whether there was any
rash and negligence involved, the evidence of the RTO is relevant.

Dowry death section 304b

Dowry death - (1) where the death of a woman is caused by any
burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal
circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown
that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or
harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or
in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be
called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed
to have caused her death.

Explanation. - For the purpose of this sub-section, "dowry" shall

have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).
(2)Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years
but which may extend to imprisonment for life. FOOTNOTE

FOOTNOTE
11

7. The Indian penal code bare act,universal law publishing pg.

no.177 & 118(sec.304B)
8. www.legalserviceindia.com

The definition of dowry as stated in s2 Dowry

Prohibition Act 1961

'Dowry' means any property or valuable security given or

agreed to be given either directly or indirectly-

(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage;or

(b) by parents of either party to a marriage or by any other to

either party to the marriage or to any person; at or before or any
time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said
parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case of person to
whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies.

ESSENTIALS INGREDIENT OF THIS SECTION 304B

(i) Whether the accused has committed the dowry death of a

woman. So the presumption can be raised if the accused is being
tried for an offence under s 304B, Indian Penal Code.

(ii) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her

husband or his relatives.

(iii) Such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with the

any demand for dowry.
12

(iv) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death.

CASES RELATED OF THIS SECTION 304B

(1)Mangal Ram & Anor v State of Madhya Pradesh, the wife
committed suicide within five years of her marriage. She was living
with her parents for about two-three years. Within one month of
returning to her matrimonial home, she jumped in to a well, and
committed suicide. Harassment by husband and her in-laws during
this month has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. In these
circumstances, the presumption cannot be raised against the
husband.

(2)Prem Singh v State of Harayana, there was, unnatural death of

married woman in her husband's house within seven years of her
marriage. Evidence showed that the husband had harassed her for
not bringing sufficient dowry. Further, the medical evidence
showed that the deceased died due to asphyxia as a result of
smothering which is an unnatural death. No explanation offered by
the husband as to how the deceased sustained several injuries on
her body. The Court held, in the circumstances, the presumption of
dowry death could be raised against the husband. As a result the
High Court was justified in reversing his acquittal.
13

FOOTNOTE
9. www.legalserviceindia.com CASE 1
10. /indiankanoon.org CASE 2
(3) Pawan Kumar v State of Harayana the deceased and the
appellant were married in 1985. After a few days of the marriage
there was demand of scooter and fridge. On account of not
satisfying the demand, she was repeatedly taunted, maltreated and
mentally tortured. In April 1987 when deceased's maternal uncle
died, she along with her husband visited Delhi to offer condolences.
And by evening on the same day instead of returning to her
husband's place came to her sister's house. She remained there for a
few days. When her husband came to take her back she was
reluctant but her sister brought her down and sent her with her
husband. She went with the husband but with the last painful
words that' it would be difficult now to see her face in the future'.
On the very next day, she committed suicide.
14

FOOTNOTE

11. www.advocatekhoj.com/ CASE 3

conclusion

Suggestions of this section 304A

 Nevertheless death is caused (by rash or negligent act not
amounting to culpable homicide ) by a minor who is below 18
years of age, the victim should not be suffered and hence
section 304-A of IPC should be made non-bailable, or at least
compensation should be paid to the victim. Yet, it should not
be an escape route to the offender.
 Each death must be counted separately for claiming
compensation.
 In case of minor commits accident under purview of section
304-A of IPC, the parents of minor/ R.C owners should not be
excused and parents/R C owners must be made vicariously
liable to pay the compensation to the victims.
 If the offence under section 304-A of IPC is made punishable
more than 7 years, it autometically becomes non-bailable.

 There must be some speed break to stop deaths by rash or

negligent act.

 When section 326 of IPC is non-bailable, there will be no

surprise to amend Section 304-A as non-bailable offence
15

inasmuch as grievous hurt is rather serious than causing

death by rash or negligent act.

Suggestions of this section 304B

the above-mentioned section the court would to some extent stop
the violence and the atrocities committed to women. The
presumptions has helped a lot in solving the problem of dowry
death because in such cases it difficult to get evidence. The
presumption is favorable to men at the same the courts could se
that the women folk did not misuse this presumptions because in
order to attract these presumptions the existence of certain facts
have to be proved. The credit of trying to eradicate this evil should
not be given to court alone; the legislature has also done a
considerable amount of work. While enacting this provision it did
not leave any loophole in order the convict to escape.
16

BIBLOGRAPHY

Texts in the above project have referred and copied from the following-

Websites referred:

 www.legalserviceindia.com
 M.C. Sarkar, Law on Evidence, 16th ed, wadhwa and company, Nagpur 1991
 2. Sr. John Woodroffe & Syed Amir Ali, Law of Evidence, 17th ed.,Vol II,
Sreepada Venkata Ganmga Rao, New Dellhi, India,2002

Vijayarao Mohite & Vandana Chavan, Law on Cruelty, Abetment of Suicide by a
Married Woman 1st ed., 1993 Akshar Chintamani Pune

 www.merriam-webster.com

 www.advocatekhoj.com/ CASE 3
 /indiankanoon.org CASE 2
 www.the-laws.com