Death as a result of carelessness involuntary manslaughter is a criminal violation that happens when someone causes the death of another person without intending to kill them via ignorance or carelessness. Negligence is defined as failing to exercise reasonable care or take essential precautions to avoid harm.

For example, if a person is driving under the influence of alcohol and causes an accident that kills another person, they may be charged with death by carelessness. To be charged with death by negligence, there must be proof that the offender owed the victim a duty of care and breached that duty through their actions or inaction.

This breach has to have directly resulted in the death of the victim. Death by negligence is regarded a less serious offense in many jurisdictions than murder or intentional homicide. However, it is still a criminal act with serious consequences, including imprisonment and fines.

The original Indian penal code did not have section 304(a); it was included as an amendment to the IPC. This section addresses wrongful death. It's important to note that the Indian legal system recognizes different degrees of negligence, ranging from ordinary negligence to gross negligence. The severity of the offense and the corresponding penalty will depend on the degree of negligence involved.

Death by negligence is a bailable offence. The defendant can be released in bail after paying the surety amount. This offence is also compoundable i.e., both the parties in such cases can avoid the trail by reaching a agreement by their counsel.

Section 304(a) doesn't actually create any new offence it just covers offence which falls outside section 299 and section 304(a) is based on intention or knowledge of the offender.

The term negligence is defined as an act or omission that causes damage to the property of another person. But in IPC it can be said as an act that cause the death of person immediately[1].

Definition:
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 means that if a person causes the death of another person due to their negligence, but without any intention of causing harm, they may be charged under Section 304A of the IPC. The penalty for such an offense is imprisonment for a term of up to two years, or a fine, or both.

The section provides for punishment for causing death by negligence, which means that the person responsible for the death did not intend to cause the death, but it occurred due to their negligent or rash act. The act that causes the death must not amount to culpable homicide, which means that the person did not have the intention to cause death, but their act was so reckless and negligent that it resulted in the death of another person[2].

This section is applicable to cases of death caused by accidents, such as road accidents or accidents in the workplace, where the person responsible for the accident was negligent or reckless in their actions. The punishment under this section is less severe than that under section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), which provides for punishment for causing death with the intention of causing death or with knowledge that their act is likely to cause death[3].

Essential of Rash and Negligent Act
To constitute a rash and negligent act under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, the following essentials must be satisfied:
The accused must have done an act which caused the death of a person- The first essential is the death of a person must have been caused. It is not applicable if, the death of a person hasn't caused death and there is just injury

The act must have been done with rashness or negligence- The third essential is Rash or Negligent act, which means that the person who has performed this act should have no intention or knowledge about the result that will be caused due to the performance of such act and he was negligent or rash while doing that act.

The act must not amount to culpable homicide- The last and foremost important essential is Not Amounting to culpable homicide. This means that the act performed by the person should not be amounting to culpable homicide. The essentials of section 299 should not be present in the act performed by the person. And if all these essentials are fulfilled, then the person shall be liable under section 304A of IPC.

The act must not have been done with the intention of causing death- It is essential to establish that the accused did not have the intention to cause death. This section deals with situations where the accused did not intend to cause the death of the victim.

The act must be the proximate cause of death- that it must have directly caused the death of the person.

Elements to be fulfilled
To establish a negligent act in criminal law, four basic elements must typically be fulfilled. These elements help determine whether an individual's actions or conduct can be considered negligent. These elements are:

• Duty of Care: The person accused of negligence must owe a legal duty of care to the person who suffered harm. Duty of care implies a legal obligation to act reasonably and prudently to prevent foreseeable harm to others. The duty of care can vary depending on the circumstances and the relationship between the parties involved.
• Breach of Duty: The accused must have breached their duty of care, meaning they failed to act as a reasonably prudent person would in similar circumstances. This breach is essentially a failure to meet the standard of care expected in the given situation.
• Causation: The accused's breach of duty must be the actual and proximate cause of the harm suffered by the plaintiff. In other words, there should be a direct connection between the breach of duty and the harm that occurred. The harm must not be too remote or unrelated to the negligent act.
• Damages: The plaintiff must suffer actual damages or harm as a result of the accused's breach of duty. Without damages, there is no basis for a negligence claim. Damages can include physical injuries, emotional distress, property damage, financial loss, or any other harm recognized under the law.

Difference between rashness and negligence
Rashness and negligence are the two terms that are most commonly used when interpreting Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code. Numerous rulings from the Supreme Court discuss the distinction between these two terms. Although these two words might seem similar to the untrained eye, their definitions differ significantly. To get technical, negligence is defined as a mental state in which a person does not anticipate the consequences of their actions. But, when we use the term "rash act," we mean a mentality in which one is aware of the consequences of a decision but chooses to disregard them. One cannot have both at the same time in one person[5].

Illustration when someone throws a stone from the third floor without considering the possibility that someone is on the ground. In this instance, the person acted negligently. Let's consider an additional scenario in which the stone-thrower considers the possibility that his actions could harm someone. For his reckless behaviour, the individual will be held accountable in this case[6].

Case: Bhalachandra Waman Pathe v. State of Maharashtra[7]
the appellant was charged under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code for causing the death of a 21-year woman by driving his car rashly and negligently in the road. In this case, the appellant questioned his conviction which was brought out by the High Court through the Suo moto proceedings. Here the Court tried to establish the difference between rash and negligent act.

According to this case, there were two sisters who were crossing the road through the pedestrian crossings (in order to go to a beach) knocked down by a car of the appellant. As a result, the elder sister died due to a development of Hemorrhage. The question that was asked by the Court was regarding the rash and negligent driving of the car by the appellant. Here, the High Court found that there was definitely negligence on the part of the appellant as his conduct was not as reasonable or prudent man would have.

It was found that the appellant failed to discharge the duty imposed by law on him. Here the duty was imposed to take care of the pedestrian in pedestrian crossings. However, the appellant was not found to drive his car rashly.

It is because of the fact that the prescribed limit of the speed of that in the street was found to be 35 km/hr and here, in this case, the car was found to be driven within the speed prescribed by law. Also, the time at which accident took place was in the morning and as a result, the driver does not need to take extra care regarding the speed of the car.

Absence of intentional violence
The main idea behind section 304A is that an act should not have been performed with the intent to cause death in the case of an individual who has died. Culpable homicide is defined as deliberate and voluntary acts that are performed with the knowledge or purpose to cause death[8].

Sarabjeet Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh[9]
The accused was part of an unlawful assembly and attacked the opposite party. He had come to attack the father of the deceased (who was a small child of about four years). With a view of causing some harm and taking vengeance on the father of the young child, he threw the innocent child on the ground.

The Supreme Court held that the act of throwing the child on the ground could not be called as rash within the meaning of section 304A, as he had knowledge that his act was likely to cause death. Under the circumstances, it would amount culpable homicide under section 299 and punishable under section 304, Pt II, IPC.

Death is direct result
It is important to prove that the accused's rash and negligent act caused the death in order to impose criminal liability under this section. The cause must be causa causans, or the immediate cause; causa sine qua non, or the proximate cause, is insufficient.

Suleman Rahiman Mulam v. State of Maharashtra[10]
The deceased was seriously injured when the accused, who was operating a jeep, struck him. The injured man passed away after the accused put him in the jeep for medical attention. The body was then cremated by the accused. The accused was charged in accordance with IPC sections 201 and 304A.

According to section 304A, there must be a clear connection between the accused's reckless and rash actions, which resulted in the deceased person's death, and the person's death. The prosecution contended that the accused was responsible for the deceased person's death because they only had a learner's license[11].

The Supreme Court ruled that there was no legal presumption that someone with a learner's permit or no license at all was incapable of operating a vehicle. There are a number of reasons why someone might not have obtained a regular license, including simple indifference. There was proof that the accused had driven the jeep to a number of locations on the day before the incident.

Therefore, there must be evidence that the accused drove carelessly and rashly and that the death was a direct result of that carelessness and rashness before the accused is found guilty under section 304A. There was not the slightest indication that the accused had driven carelessly or rashly in this particular case. No offense under section 304A was established in the lack of such proof. The defendant was found not guilty of the allegations[12].

Ambala D Bhatt v. State of Gujrat[13]
In the very famous case of the Supreme Court again explained the concept that a person is liable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code only if the principle of causa causans is fulfilled. Here this case is about medical negligence. Here the appellant who was Chemist

In charge in a chemical industry along with five other members were charged under Section 304A of the IPC. They were found to be negligent in manufacturing the solution of glucose which was later consumed by the patients of different hospitals and 13 patients died by the injection of the solution. It was found that the solution contains more lead nitrate than what was permitted. Here the Prabhakaran was the Chief Analyst of the Testing Laboratory.

He was found negligent in his part as he did not prepare the solution according to the Drug Control Act. Here the Supreme Court held that the appellant can't be liable alone. The court further stated that the appellant was not only negligent, here it was also the duty of several other persons to maintain the quality of the solution.

Under the principle of the causa causans there is the causal chain that consists of many links(acts), it talks about the act which ultimately contributes to the consequence. Here the action of the appellant was found to be the only one of the causes of all causes. In other words, it can be explained that the appellant action was one of the causes of death and it was found to be insufficient to be the ultimate cause of the death of the 13 persons[14].

Case Laws
Mahadev Prasad Kaushik v. State of UP[15]
The term "not amounting to culpable homicide" has been emphasized and given a clear meaning in the case of which stated that the term "Not amounting to homicide" means to the situation where there is neither intention nor knowledge that such act is likely to cause death or cause bodily injury that may cause death, and only then the case will be studied under section 304-A. This case also gave the interpretation of the term "negligence" as the omission of an act that a reasonable man would do in ordinary circumstances or perform any act which a prudent man in ordinary circumstances would not do.

Cherubin Gregory vs. State of Bihar[16]
To understand the concept of 'Rash Act", the case of Cherubin Gregory vs. State of Bihar plays an important role. As in this case, a neighbour started using the washroom of the accused even after many objections made by the accused, the neighbour didn't stop. One day after getting frustrated with this act of the neighbour, accused placed naked wire of electricity at the entrance of the washroom to scare the neighbour. The lady came and touched the wire and died immediately. Court held accused liable for his rash act.

Juggan Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh[17]
It was held by the Supreme Court that, a great care should be taken before imputing criminal negligence to a professional man acting in the course of his profession. A doctor is not criminally responsible for a patient's death unless his negligence shows such disregard for life and safety as to amount to a crime against the State.

Where the accused, who was registered as a Homeopath, administered to the patient suffering from guinea worm, 24 drops of Stramonium and a leaf of Dhatura without studying its effect and the patient died of poisoning. It was held that the accused was guilty under section 304A.

Jagdish Chani case[18]
In Jagdish Chani v. State (Delhi) the fact of the case was without noticing the flow of the traffic on a highway and without giving any signal the accused, an autorickshaw, driver, abruptly took a turn. The rear of his vehicle was hit by a truck coming from the opposite direction and the autorickshaw was thrown some distance away from the road. A lady standing at the bus stop with a baby in her arms was hit by the autorickshaw. The mother and child received injuries but eventually the child died.

Decision:
The courts below came to the conclusion that the entire occurrence was the result of rash or negligent driving of the accused, he was convicted under section 304A.

Before the Supreme Court the argument was that the death of child could on no rational or logical reasoning be considered to be the direct and natural result of the collision between the truck and the autorickshaw, that it was not the proximate and immediate cause of the death and, therefore, the accused was not liable to be convicted.

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction. But said that the police investigation of the case was far from satisfactory in that it did not record the tyre marks of the two vehicles on the road to judge the approximate speed at which both the vehicles were moving. Eyewitness in these cases have to be examined carefully because such witnesses observe accidents after their attention is drawn to the impact resulting from the collision. Their statements are often influenced by what they imagine must have happened.

In this case it could have been argued that the death of the child was a remote and indirect result of the rash or negligent driving of the accused and not the immediate direct, natural and proximate consequence[19].

Conclusion
Section 304A is quite good addition by the policymakers in the Indian penal Code, 1860 as it separates the cases in which neither the intention nor the knowledge of the accused was there but the act causes death. The present punishment under this section is often subject to criticism because of its weaker nature.

The Supreme Court, on several instances favoured a harder punishment[xvii] and at it has also asked the legislature to amend the provision. In the present scenario, there is a need of harsher punishment up to a minimum imprisonment of five years as suggested by Law Commission Report. The number of cases of medical negligence is increasing day by day.

Although the Supreme Court has framed guidelines for a case of medical negligence to come until 304A,there needs to be a clear and concise provision for medical negligence; medical courts need to be established where the medical experts should be appointed to assist the judges.

References:

1. https://lexpeeps.in/rash-and-negligent-act-under-ipc/
2. https://aishwaryasandeep.in/study-on-death-by-negligence-in-ipc/
3. https://p39ablog.com/2023/09/criminal-law-bills-2023-decoded-5-death-by-negligence-mapping-confusions-in-its-definition-under-bns-2023/
4. http://student.manupatra.com/Academic/Abk/Indian-Penal-Code/chapter9.htm
5. https://www.lawtendo.com/indian-kanoon/ipc/section-304a
6. https://blog.ipleaders.in/death-by-negligence-2/
7. AIR 2007 SC 2376
8. https://lexpeeps.in/rash-and-negligent-act-under-ipc/
9. AIR 1983 SC 529
10. AIR 1968 SC 829
11. https://lexpeeps.in/rash-and-negligent-act-under-ipc/
12. https://lexpeeps.in/rash-and-negligent-act-under-ipc/
13. AIR 1972 SC 1150
14. https://www.lawtendo.com/indian-kanoon/ipc/section-304a
15. AIR 2009 SC 125
16. AIR 1964 SC 205
17. AIR 1965 SC 831
18. (1974) 1 SCR 204
19. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1371604/