Causing Death by Rash or Negligent Act - BNS Section 106

Provision : Section 106

(1) Whoever causes 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 five years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if such act is done by a registered medical practitioner while performing medical procedure, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation - For the purposes of this sub-section, "registered medical practitioner" means a medical practitioner who possesses any medical qualification recognised under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 and whose name has been entered in the National Medical Register or a State Medical Register under that Act.

(2) Whoever causes death of any person by rash and negligent driving of vehicle not amounting to culpable homicide, and escapes without reporting it to a police officer or a Magistrate soon after the incident, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description of a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Introduction

The provision is meant for those situations where death is caused neither intentionally nor with the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death, but because the accused acted in a rash or negligent manner.

The law relating to causing death by negligence occupies a very important place in criminal law because it covers those cases in which a person causes another's death, not by intention and not by the knowledge required for culpable homicide, but because of a rash or negligent act. This is why the provision stands between a pure accident on one side and culpable homicide on the other. In simple words, Section 106 punishes a person whose conduct is so careless, reckless, or blameworthy that it results in death, even though he did not desire that result.

Major Changes Introduced Through Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita

1. Enhanced punishment structure

It introduces a restructured and differentiated punishment model. Under the old IPC, Section 304A generally prescribed imprisonment up to two years, or fine, or both. Under BNS, ordinary negligent death under Section 106(1) now carries punishment up to five years and fine. Therefore, the BNS marks a significant legislative shift toward greater penal severity in negligent death cases.

2. Special Rule for Registered Medical Practitioner

Where the death is caused by such rash or negligent act while performing a medical procedure, the punishment may extend to two years' imprisonment and fine.

Who is a registered medical practitioner

The Explanation to Section 106(1) defines a "registered medical practitioner" by linking it to the National Medical Commission Act, 2019. In essence, the person must possess a recognized medical qualification under that Act, and his or her name must be entered either in the National Medical Register or a State Medical Register. This means the reduced punishment bracket for
medical professionals is not for every person claiming medical expertise, but only for one who is legally recognized and duly registered.

3. Severe Punishment for Hit and Run Cases – Section 106(2)

Section 106(2) which is a newly added provision creates a separate and more severe rule for death caused by rash and negligent driving of a vehicle, where the offender escapes without reporting the incident to a police officer or Magistrate soon after the occurrence. The punishment prescribed is imprisonment which may extend to ten years, along with fine. Thus, this sub-section is not aimed at every case of negligent driving simpliciter, but specifically at negligent driving causing death coupled with failure to report and escape from responsibility.

Legislative Position of Section 106 (2)

All provisions of BNS came into force from 1 July 2024 except Section 106(2). Therefore Section 106(2) as a provision exists in the statute but not yet brought into force.

Essential Ingredients of the Offence

1. Death of a person

According to Section 2(6) "death" means the death of a human being unless the contrary appears from the context.

2. Rash or negligent act of accused

Act of the accused in causing the death must be rash or negligent.

Difference between rashness and negligence

Though the two expressions are often used together, they are not identical. Rashness generally conveys the idea of recklessness. A rash act is one done with awareness of risk, but with the foolish hope that the harmful consequence will not occur. The person runs the risk with indifference to the likely result. Negligence, on the other hand, is failure to take that amount of care which a reasonable and prudent person would have taken in the circumstances. Negligence is not mere harmless inadvertence; in criminal law it must be of such a degree that it becomes culpable.

This distinction was famously explained by the Supreme Court in Bhalchandra alias Bapu v. State of Maharashtra (1968), where the Court drew a careful line between the two ideas. It observed, in substance, that rashness lies in running the risk of doing an act with recklessness or indifference to consequences, while criminal negligence lies in gross and culpable failure to exercise proper care and precaution against injury to others.

Illustration

Suppose a driver sees a crowded crossing and still accelerates, believing that "nothing will happen." That is closer to rashness. But if a driver is not even looking at the road because he is distracted and therefore fails to notice pedestrians, that is closer to negligence. In both

3. Absence of intention or knowledge required for culpable homicide

If the accused had intention to cause death, or such knowledge as makes death likely in the legal sense required for culpable homicide, then Section 106 has no application. The act then crosses into the domain of culpable homicide. The Supreme Court's decision in Sarabjeet Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1982) illustrates this point. There, the accused, in the course of attacking the father of a small child, threw the child to the ground. The Court held that this could not be treated as a mere rash act because the accused had the knowledge that such conduct was likely to cause death. Therefore, the matter did not remain one of negligence; it amounted to culpable homicide.

4. Death must be Direct Result of the Act

Another essential requirement is that the death must be the direct result of the rash or negligent act. The act of the accused must be the immediate cause of death, not merely a remote cause. This principle was emphasized in Suleman Rahiman Mulam v State of Maharashtra (1968), where the Court held that before convicting a person, it must be proved that the accused drove
in a rash or negligent manner and that death was the direct consequence of such act. Mere absence of licence or violation of rules is not enough unless the negligent act itself caused death.

Right of Private Defence is not available while committing Rash or Negligent Act

In Cherubin Gregory v. State of Bihar (1964), the accused had become annoyed because others were using his washroom without permission. To prevent entry, he fixed a naked live electric wire in the passage. A woman who came there touched the wire and died. The defence tried to rely on private defence of property, but the Supreme Court rejected the argument. The Court held that the owner of property cannot, in the name of protecting property, set a deadly trap with reckless disregard for human life. The case powerfully demonstrates that even where the victim is a trespasser, the law does not permit wilful or recklessly dangerous conduct likely to cause death. The conviction was upheld because the death was directly caused by a dangerous and negligent act.

Medical Negligence : Proof of Gross Negligence

In Dr Suresh Gupta v Govt of NCT Delhi (2004), the Court held that for fixing criminal liability on a doctor, the negligence proved must be of a very high degree—gross negligence or recklessness. Mere lack of necessary care, an error of judgment, or an accident during treatment would not by themselves justify criminal prosecution. The Court emphasized that criminal law should not be used to punish every unsuccessful operation or every unfortunate medical outcome.

This was further emphasized in Jacob Mathew v State of Punjab (2005), the Supreme Court explained that a professional may be held negligent either because he did not possess the skill he claimed to have, or because, though he possessed the skill, he failed to exercise it with reasonable competence. But for criminal liability, something more than simple negligence is required. The Court treated medical negligence as an area needing special care, and laid down that criminal prosecution should not be launched lightly against doctors.

In Martin F D'Souza v Mohd Ishfaq (2009), the Court reaffirmed that the standard for criminal negligence in the medical field is much higher than the standard for civil liability. A doctor may be civilly liable for lack of due care, but criminal liability requires proof of such gross negligence as amounts to recklessness. This is why the BNS itself now reflects special legislative treatment by prescribing a lower maximum punishment for registered medical practitioners under Section 106(1) when the death occurs while performing a medical procedure.