Section 304A IPC and Section 106 BNS: Causing Death by Negligence
Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 dealt with causing death by a rash or negligent act that does not amount to culpable homicide. Its principal counterpart under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is Section 106(1), in force from 1 July 2024.
What did Section 304A IPC provide?
The original statutory provision stated:
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.
This provision concerned criminally punishable rashness or negligence causing death, without the intention or knowledge required for culpable homicide. It remains relevant to acts committed before the new criminal laws commenced, subject to the applicable savings and transitional provisions.
Section 106 BNS: Current statutory framework
Section 106(1): Death by rash or negligent act
Section 106(1) BNS penalises causing death by any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide. The general punishment is imprisonment of either description for a term extending to five years, and fine.
Registered medical practitioners
Where such an act is committed by a registered medical practitioner while performing a medical procedure, Section 106(1) provides imprisonment extending to two years, and fine. The statutory explanation defines the relevant registered medical practitioner by reference to recognised medical qualifications and registration under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019.
Section 106(2): Special provision concerning certain road accidents
The enacted text of Section 106(2) addresses causing death by rash and negligent driving, followed by escape without reporting the incident to a police officer or Magistrate soon after the incident. It provides imprisonment extending to ten years and fine. However, Section 106(2) was expressly excluded from the 1 July 2024 commencement notification. Do not assume it is operative without checking the latest commencement notification. Other applicable road-safety and criminal-law provisions may still apply.
Section 304A IPC versus Section 106 BNS
| Issue | Section 304A IPC | Section 106 BNS |
|---|---|---|
| Offence | Causing death by rash or negligent act, not culpable homicide | Same core offence under Section 106(1) |
| General maximum punishment | Two years, or fine, or both | Five years and fine |
| Medical procedure | No separate statutory sentencing category in Section 304A | Two years and fine for qualifying registered medical practitioners acting during a medical procedure |
| Specified hit-and-run provision | No equivalent subsection within Section 304A | Section 106(2) enacted but excluded from initial commencement notification |
Essential ingredients of criminal negligence
- Death: A person must have died.
- Rash or negligent act: The accused must have engaged in conduct sufficiently rash or negligent to attract criminal liability, not merely an unfortunate accident.
- Direct causal connection: The conduct must have caused the death; the act must be a proximate and effective cause, assessed on the facts.
- Not culpable homicide: The evidence must not establish the intention or knowledge necessary for the more serious homicide offences.
Criminal negligence ordinarily requires a materially higher degree of culpability than a mere error of judgment or civil negligence. The applicable standard depends on the circumstances, including the specialised medical-negligence principles considered by the Supreme Court.
Bail and criminal procedure
The classification of an offence depends on the applicable penal provision and the First Schedule of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). Under the original IPC/CrPC framework, Section 304A was generally classified as cognizable and bailable, triable by a Magistrate of the First Class. For cases governed by Section 106(1) BNS, consult the current BNSS First Schedule for the applicable classification and trial court. The applicable law may differ for conduct predating 1 July 2024.
Section 304A IPC: Supreme Court and High Court case-law references
These historical references are preserved from the original page. Some names, dates and citations in the source appear incomplete or contain typographical errors; verify each citation and its continuing relevance against an authoritative judgment before relying on it in court.
- Sukaroo Kaviraj (1887) 14 Cal 566
- Emperor v. Omkar Rampratap 5 Bom. LR 679
- In Re Nidamarti Nagabhusham (1872) 7 MHCR 119
- Bhalchandra AIR 19678 SC 1319
- Istlingappa v. Emperor 17 IC (Bom) 542
- Shakir Khan AIR 1931 Luck 54
- Akbar Ali (1936) 12 Luck 336
- Chamman Lal 1954 Cri LJ 405
- Parthasarathy 1959 cri. LJ 405
- Hari Singh AIR 1969 Raj 86
- Ratnam Mudaliar AIR 1934 Mad 209
- P. Rajappan v. State of Kerala 1986 Cri Lj 511
- Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab 2005 Cri. LJ 3710 (SC)
- Idu Beg (1881) 3 All 776
- Swindall (1846) 2 C & K 230
- Juggan Khan AIR 1965 SC 831
- De Souza 1920 42 All 272
- Cherubin Gregory AIR 1962 SC 205
- Sahu AIR 1917 s 42 18 Cri LJ 1003
- Hari SinghAIR 1969 Raj 86
- Waziruzama Khan (1881) 1 AWN 156
- B.P. Ram v. Sate of MP 1991 Cri. LJ 473 (MP)
- Suresh Gupta v. Government of NCT of Delhi 2004 Cri LJ 3870 (SC)
- Vasant v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1998 SC 699
Selected judicial principles
Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1, is a leading Supreme Court decision discussing criminal negligence in the medical context and the threshold separating criminal culpability from mere civil negligence. Suresh Gupta v. Government of NCT of Delhi, (2004) 6 SCC 422, is another important decision on criminal medical negligence; read it together with subsequent Supreme Court authority.
Official legislation and further reading
- India Code: Central Acts and statutory text (search for the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 106).
- Ministry of Home Affairs (criminal-law commencement notifications and updates).
- India Code: Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (First Schedule).
- IPC offences, punishment and case law.
Frequently asked questions
Is Section 304A IPC still relevant?
Yes. It remains important for interpreting cases arising under the former IPC, including matters involving conduct before the BNS came into force.
What is the punishment for causing death by negligence under the BNS?
Under Section 106(1), the general punishment extends to five years' imprisonment and fine. A qualifying registered medical practitioner acting during a medical procedure faces a separate maximum of two years and fine.
Is every accidental death a criminal offence?
No. The prosecution must prove the required rashness or negligence and the necessary causal link to the death. An accident alone does not establish guilt.
Is Section 106(2) BNS in force?
It was excluded from the commencement notification effective 1 July 2024. Check subsequent official notifications for its operative status at the relevant time.
Legal information only. Application of the law depends on the date of the incident, statutory notifications and the facts of the case.