OFFENCES AGAINST LIFE

In this research paper Section 304 A and Section 304 B of Indian Penal Code are to be briefly
explained with reference to landmark case judgements. These sections of IPC deals with
“offences against life”.

CAUSING DEATH BY NEGLIGENCE

SECTION 304 A OF INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860:

 304A. 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.

A-DEATH BY NEGLIGENCE:

Essentials for a death to be caused by negligence:

1. There must be death of the person
2. The accused must have caused such death
3. Such act of the accused was rash and negligent and it should not amount to culpable
homicide.

Factors which must not be present for the section to be applicable are: Intention and
Knowledge. None of these two factors must be present for section 304 A of IPC.

B-RASH AND NEGLIGENT ACT:

Rashness refers to committing of an act without any due consideration or in a reckless

manner. The person committing this act is conscious of the consequences of the act which is
committed by him. And the act which is committed by him result in undesirable or unlawful
consequences.
When an act done by a person without taking any adequate or reasonable precautions to
avoiding undesirable or unlawful consequences that act amounts to Negligent act.

EXAMPLE:
In the case of Jagdish Chander v State1, the accused has been driving a scooter rickshaw. He
took a turn negligently without paying heed to the truck travelling nearby. He lost control
which caused the death of fatal injury to a child and a minor injury to a woman. Under
section 304A of Indian Penal Code, the trial and high court held the accused to be guilty. The
Supreme Court found that the accused had performed a rash and negligent act.

C-ABSENCE OF INTENTIONAL VIOLENCE:

As stated there must not be presence of intention by the person who is committing the act.
Else the act which is committed voluntarily or intentionally would certainly amount to
culpable homicide. An act amounting to culpable homicide cannot be a negligent act hence it
doesn’t fall under the purview of section 304 A of IPC.

EXAMPLE:
In the case of Sarabjeet singh v State of Uttar Pradesh 2, the accused had vengeance on the
father of the child who was thrown by the accused on the floor. Here the court held that the
act of the accused of throwing the child on the ground doesn’t amount to rashness as there
was presence of intention in the commission of the act.

D-DEATH MUST BE A DIRECT RESULT:

Another important essential which has to be fulfilled for the act to come under the purview of
section 304 A of IPC is that the death which occurred must be a direct result of the act of the
accused. If this essential is not fulfilled then the act would not be punishable under the above
mentioned section. Thus there must be an establishment of direct nexus between the act of the
accused and the death of the victim.

EXAMPLE:

1 ANR 36 (1988) DLT 272, 1988 RLR 678

2 AIR 1983 SC 529
In the case of Suleman Rhiman Mulam v State of Maharastra3 the accused had struck the
victim with jeep due to negligent driving and he was injured seriously. He was offered
medical treatment but later he died. The accused was charged under section 304 A and 204 of
IPC. But since there is no direct nexus between the accident and the death of the victim , the
court held section 304 A not applicable in this case.

E-DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RASHNESS AND NEGLIGENCE:

An overhasty act and is thus opposed to a deliberate act, where the act is done with
consciousness that the act may result an undesirable or unlawful consequence. This is known
as rashness. But in a negligent act there is no presence of consciousness by the person who
commits the negligent act. Hence in the case of rashness the actor adverts to the
consequences but assumes on insufficient grounds that they will not follow; in the case of
negligence there is a culpable carelessness. Breach of a duty which is caused by omission of
doing some act which a reasonable man would have done or an act which a prudent and a
man who is acting reasonably would not have committed is called a negligent act.

These two acts are differentiated by Austin: “In cases of negligence, the party performs not
an act to which he is obliged. He breaks a positive duty. In cases of rashness the party does an
act from which he is bound to forbear. He breaks a negative duty.”4

In the case of Balachandra Waman Pathe vs State of Maharastra5: the difference between
rashness and negligent act was provided by the supreme court in the judgment. The neglect or
failure of taking proper and reasonable care to guard against injury either to an individual or
general public is called criminal negligence. Whereas rashness is the commission of an act in
such a manner which is running risk of injury as the act is done with indifference to the
consequence. In Culpable rashness the accused acts with consciousness that there will be an
undesirable and illegal consequence, but in Culpable negligence there is no presence of
consciousness which must be present in the act of rashness, whereas the person fails to raise
up to the standards of a reasonable man.

3 AIR 1968 SC 829

4 http://www.shareyouressays.com/knowledge/what-is-the-difference-between-rashness-and-criminal-
negligence/111696

5 (1968)71 Bom LR 634(SC), (1968) SCD 198.

 (f)PUNISHMENT:
The act which is punishable under section 304A of Indian Penal Code is a bailable offence.
The act is a cognizable offence. These cases are tried in the court of Magistrate first class.
When the accused causes death of person by rash or negligent act he is punished with 2 years
of imprisonment or fine or both according to the circumstance of the case.

DOWRY DEATH

In the year 1986, a new offence termed as ‘dowry death’ was inserted into the Indian Penal
Code under Section 304B according to the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act,
1986. Though Section 498A also deals with the same subject (cruelty to married woman), Section
304B is far stricter. The offence of dowry death is cognizable, non-bailable and triable by a
Sessions Court.

A cursory reading of Section 304B of IPC is enough to give us a clear idea that there are
three essential components for a dowry death
1. The death of the married woman should have occurred other than under normal
circumstances
2. The death should have occurred within 7 years of marriage
3. Soon before her death, she should have been subject to cruelty and harassment in
connection to a demand for dowry

A - DEMAND FOR DOWRY

First of all, it is important to understand what ‘dowry’ is. Dowry is an archaic practice in
India which has been prevalent since time immemorial. The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Section
2 defines dowry as “any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or
indirectly
1. by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or
2. by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party
to the marriage or to any other person; at or before or any time after the marriage
in connection with the marriage”
 It is worth noting that dower or mehr is not included under dowry. The Sharia law
deals with maintenance.

Dowry is a huge bane in Indian society which has been the root causes for many a conflict
within families. The increasing lust for dowry amongst Indian families has only led to more and
more crimes being committed. Statistics show that dowry deaths have risen from 19 per day in 2001
to 21 per day in 2016.6 It is not a meteoric rise, yes. However, such figures must be on the decline
and not on the rise in India. So, it is a humongous cause for concern. Statistics also show great
regional and state variance with respect to such deaths7. These statistics highlight the importance of
literacy and education in determining the citizens’ desire for money/dowry which causes such
offences to be committed.

Until 2015, the Supreme Court’s interpretation of ‘demand for dowry’ was quite narrow. It
had ruled in a plethora of cases 89 that a demand for money for urgent family or domestic expenses
does not come under dowry. However, in Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab10 in 2015, the
Supreme Court made it clear that any demand made by husband or in-laws is dowry.

B - CRUELTY/HARASSMENT
Section 304B makes it clear that soon before her death, the woman should have been
subject to cruelty and harassment in connection to a demand for dowry. Cruelty is however a
broad term. What constitutes cruelty can vary from case to case and person to person. The cruelty
itself can be in the form of physical violence or mental torture, both of which can further take
various forms. It could be insulting a woman, poking fun at her, inflicting violence, threatening
her, blackmailing her, restraining her, humiliating her and so much more. It could be any of the
above and anything else, as well. This vagueness in what cruelty exactly is was challenged in
Vungarala Yedukondalu v. State of AP11, however the court dismissed it and ruled that Section
498A is very clear on what cruelty is. The said Section tells that cruelty is
● Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit
suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or
physical) of the woman;
6 Geetika Dang, Why Dowry Deaths have risen in India?, ASARC Publications, 3 (2018).
7 V. Deswal, Dowry Deaths: An Ominous Ignominy for India, THE TIMES OF INDIA, April 03,2019.
8 (2007) 9 SCC 721.
9 (2013) 4 SCC 177.
10 (2015) 6 SCC 477.
11 (1988) Cr LJ 1538 (AP).
 ● Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any
person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or
is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

C - “SOON BEFORE DEATH”

The IPC states that the woman should have subject to cruelty ‘soon before her death’ for it to
qualify as dowry death. There should be a nexus between the cruelty the woman was subjected to
and the death of the woman. The question naturally arises: What is ‘soon before’? How much time
is ‘soon before’? This test is called the ‘proximity test’ which determines whether dowry death
was a result of cruelty or not1213. The Supreme Court has made it clear that there is no specific time
frame for ‘soon before’. What is important is that the death should have been the result or
aftermath of the cruelty meted out to the woman. It should be proved beyond probabilities that
cruelty caused soon before her death was what caused her death. In Satvir Singh v. State of
Punjab14, the court held that the ‘soon before’ could mean any time frame, it could be the same
day, a few weeks or even months ago. What matters is whether the cruelty led to her death or not.

D - PRESUMPTION AS TO DOWRY DEATH

Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act deals with presumption as to dowry death. When it is
shown that the deceased woman was subject to cruelty soon before her death in connection to a
demand for dowry, the court shall presume that the person who subject her to cruelty caused the
dowry death. The burden of proving innocence lies on the accused in such cases to prove he didn’t
cause the dowry death. It is important to read Section 113A along with 113B. 113A deals with
presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman. In such cases, provided the already
mentioned conditions are satisfied the court ‘may’ presume that the person who subject her to
cruelty caused abetment of suicide. In dowry death on the other hand, the court ‘shall’ presume.
The burden of proving innocence by the accused is thus more in case of dowry deaths. However,
presumption in dowry deaths should be backed by proof of cruelty.15

12, (2004) 13 SCC 348.

13 (2005) 2 SCC 388.
14 (2001) 8 SCC 633.
15 (2017) 1 SCC 101.
E - PUNISHMENT

The IPC states that “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”. It is worth noting that there is no death penalty for dowry deaths but if the death is also
covered under Section 300 of IPC, death penalty can be given