Section 106, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Causing Death by Negligence
Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) deals with causing death by a rash or negligent act. It replaces the offence that was earlier covered by Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), with some important changes in punishment.
1. Meaning of Section 106
The section applies when:
a person dies;
the death is caused by the accused’s rash or negligent act;
the act does not amount to culpable homicide.
The important point is that the accused did not have the intention to cause death, nor the knowledge required to make the act culpable homicide. However, the accused acted in a manner that was sufficiently rash or negligent and that conduct resulted in someone’s death.
2. Section 106(1)
Section 106(1) provides that a person who causes the death of another person by a rash or negligent act, where the act does not amount to culpable homicide, can be punished with:
Imprisonment up to 5 years and fine.
However, there is an important correction to the text you provided: Section 106(1) carries imprisonment up to five years, not seven years.
The provision essentially requires three things:
Death + Rash/Negligent Act + Causal Connection
There must be a direct connection between the accused’s rash/negligent conduct and the death.
3. Rash Act
A rash act is an act done with conscious disregard for the consequences or with the awareness that the conduct may cause harm, while proceeding without sufficient caution.
For example, a person driving a vehicle at an extremely dangerous speed through a crowded area, without regard for the safety of pedestrians, may be acting rashly.
4. Negligent Act
Negligence means failure to exercise the reasonable care that a person in the circumstances was expected to exercise.
It generally involves a breach of the duty to take reasonable precautions.
For example, if a person handles a dangerous object without taking reasonable safety precautions and another person dies as a result, the conduct may amount to negligence.
5. Causation
Merely proving that the accused was negligent is not enough. The prosecution must establish that the negligent or rash act caused the death.
Therefore, the prosecution generally has to establish:
The deceased died.
The accused committed a rash or negligent act.
The act was the proximate cause of the death.
The conduct did not amount to culpable homicide.
6. Section 106(2)
Section 106(2) deals with a more serious situation involving a person who causes death through rash or negligent driving and then escapes from the scene without reporting the incident.
The provision provides for:
Imprisonment up to 10 years and fine.
This provision is specifically significant in the context of motor vehicle accidents. It targets the additional wrongdoing of leaving the scene rather than stopping and reporting the incident.
7. Difference between Section 106(1) and 106(2)
8. Example
Suppose Akash is cleaning a sharp edge sword/ knife without taking proper precautions. The sword accidentally falls and kills Bindu.
If Akash’s conduct amounts to rashness or negligence and the other requirements of Section 106 are established, Bindu may be liable under Section 106(1).
The important point is that Akash did not intend to kill Bindu. The death resulted from his failure to exercise proper care while handling the sharp edge sword.
However, the mere fact that the falling was accidental does not automatically establish criminal negligence. The circumstances must show that Akash conduct was sufficiently rash or negligent and that it caused Bindu’s death.
9. Difference from Culpable Homicide
Section 106 expressly applies only when the act does not amount to culpable homicide.
The distinction is mainly based on the accused’s mental element.
Section 106: Death caused through rashness or negligence, without the mental element required for culpable homicide.
Culpable homicide: The circumstances satisfy the statutory requirements relating to intention or knowledge under the relevant provision of BNS.
Thus, Section 106 covers deaths resulting from criminal rashness or negligence, rather than intentional killing.
Landmark Cases
1. Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1
This is one of the leading cases on criminal negligence, particularly medical negligence. The Supreme Court explained that criminal negligence requires a higher degree of negligence than ordinary civil negligence. Mere carelessness or an error of judgment is not automatically sufficient to attract criminal liability. The Court emphasised that negligence must be sufficiently serious to constitute criminal negligence.
Importance for Section 106 BNS:
The case helps establish that every accident or mistake resulting in death does not constitute an offence under Section 106. The prosecution must prove criminal rashness or negligence and a causal connection between the accused’s conduct and the death.
2. Rathnashalvan v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 3 SCC 474
In this case, the Supreme Court considered a conviction under Section 304A IPC. The Court recognised that the essential requirements for the offence are: (i) death of a human being, (ii) the accused caused that death, and (iii) the death was caused by a rash or negligent act which did not amount to culpable homicide.
Importance for Section 106 BNS:
The case clearly explains the basic ingredients that must be proved before a person can be held criminally liable for causing death through rashness or negligence.
Short conclusion
Thus, Jacob Mathew establishes the requirement of a sufficiently high degree of criminal negligence, while Rathnashalvan explains the essential ingredients of causing death by rash or negligent conduct. Together, they provide important judicial guidance for understanding Section 106 BNS, which replaced Section 304A IPC.
CONCLUSION
Section 106 BNS Causing death by negligence. It corresponds broadly to Section 304A IPC. Section 106(1) applies to death caused by a rash or negligent act. The act must not amount to culpable homicide. Maximum punishment under 106(1) 5 years + fine. Section 106(2) deals with the aggravated situation involving rash/negligent driving and escaping/failure to report. Maximum punishment under 106(2) 10 years + fine. Causation between the rash/negligent act and death must be established. Mere occurrence of an accident does not automatically mean criminal negligence.
Section 106 punishes a person when someone’s death occurs because the person acted rashly or negligently, even though there was no culpable-homicide-level intention or knowledge. The punishment becomes more severe when the person causes such a death through the specified driving conduct and then flees or fails to report the incident.