Indian Penal Code, 1860 · Chapter XVI: Of Offences Affecting the Human Body · Of offences affecting life
Section 304A: Causing death by negligence
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to offences and proceedings from before that date.
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.]
State amendments to this section
Himachal Pradesh.— After Section 304 A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in its application to the State of Himachal Pradesh, the following section shall be added, namely: — “304-AA. Causing death or injury by driving a public service vehicle while in a state of intoxication.—Whoever, while in a state of intoxication, drives or attempts to drive a public service vehicle and causes the death of any person not amounting to culpable homicide, or causes any bodily injury likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine, as if the act by which death or bodily injury is caused, is done with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death or cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
Explanation. —“Public service vehicle” means any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward, and includes a maxicab, a motorcab, contract carriage and stage carriage”. [Vide Himachal Pradesh Act 19 of 1997, sec. 2]. In Section 304-AA of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in its application to the State of Himachal Pradesh, —
(a) for the words “a public service vehicle” where ever these occur, the words “any vehicle” shall be substituted; and
(b) the Explanation shall be omitted. [Vide Himachal Pradesh Act 7 of 2012, s. 2]
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 304A
-
Narayan Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh
Whether the High Court erred in passing the impugned judgment relying on the confessional FIR filed by the appellant-accused himself and the medical evidence to uphold his conviction, however, altering it from s.302,…
-
Sanjay Colaro v. State of Karnataka
Matter pertains to the extension of benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the appellant for causing a road accident, resulting in the death of the pedestrian.
-
Ranjit Sarkar v. Ravi Ganesh Bhardwaj and Others
Whether in the instant case, the Judicial Magistrate in terms of s.256, Cr.PC was justified in dismissing the complaint for default vide order dated 16.04.2021.
-
Yuvraj Laxmilal Kanther & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra
Issue arose as to whether the High Court was correct in dismissing the revision application filed by the appellants assailing the order of the trial court dismissing their discharge applications u/s.227 CrPC.
-
Sachin Yallappa Usulkar & Ors. v. Vijayata & Ors.
Whether the impugned judgment and order passed by the Courts below warrant any interference in so far as the award of compensation is concerned. Whether appellant no.2, who was minor at the time of incident, was…
-
Ashok Saxena v. The State of Uttarakhand Etc.
Whether the High Court committed any error in holding the appellant guilty of the offence of murder.
-
P. Manikandan v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors.
Whether the High Court was justified in directing re-investigation and retrial of the same offence on the same set of facts, after acquitting the accused by giving him the benefit of doubt; Whether, in the attending…
- Arvind Kumar v. State of Nct, Delhi
- Mathew Alexander v. Mohammed Shafi and Anr.
- Amod Kumar Kanth v. Association of Victim of
- State of Punjab v. Dil Bahadur
- Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey & Ors.
- Zakia Ahsan Jafri v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
- Ishwarji Nagaji Mali v. State of Gujarat and Another
- Surendran v. Sub-Inspector of Police
- Vinod Dua v. Union of India & Ors.
- Sunil Kumar @ Sudhir Kumar & Anr. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
- The State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Heem Singh
- United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors.
- Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Mukesh Poonamchand Shah
- The State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Ramchandra Rabidas @ Ratan Rabidas & Anr.
- State of Meghalaya v. All Dimasa Students Union, Dima-Hasao District Committee & Ors.
- Thangasamy v. The State of Tamil Nadu
- Gagan Kumar v. The State of Punjab
- Sunita & Ors. v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr.
- Vimla Devi & Ors. v. National Insurance Company Limited & Ors.
- State of Haryana v. Rajesh Aggarwal & Anr.
- State of Uttar Pradesh Through Prinicipal Secretary & Ors v. All U.P. Consumer Protection Bar Association
- Nishan Singh & Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Regional Manager & Ors.
- Mohar Sai and Anr. v. Gayatri Devi and Ors.
- Dinesh Kumar Kalidas Patel v. The State of Gujarat
- Anil & Ors v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors
- Dr. Sou Jayshree Ujwal Ingole v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
- Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy v. Sushil Ansal and Another
- Rakesh Kumar & Etc. Etc. v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. Etc. Etc.
- Dr. (Smt.) Manorama Tiwari and Others v. Surendra Nath Rai
- Rajan v. Joseph & Ors.
- State of Punjab v. Saurabh Bakshi
- State of Himachal Pradesh v. Ram Pal
- State of M.P. v. Mehtaab