Skip to main content

Rash and Negligent Act

 Rash and Negligent Act

The Indian Penal Code section 304A deals with causing death by negligence or hasty action. This section states that if a person causes the death of another person via a careless or reckless conduct that does not amount to culpable murder, the offender will be penalised with a maximum sentence of two years in jail, a fine, or both. We must first comprehend the phrase negligent act in order to comprehend the entire notion presented in Section 304A. It became critical to have a thorough understanding of this phrase. In the legal world, "negligence" is defined as an act or omission that results in damage to another person's property. The phrase rash or hasty is used in this section of the Indian Penal Code. negligent act can be defined as an act that is the immediate cause of death. There is a difference between these terms( rash and negligent) also. By ‘rash act’ we mean any act which is done restlessly. By the term ‘negligent act’ we mean a breach of duty due to omission to do something, which a reasonable man will do.

There are four basic elements that a person has to fulfill in order to do a negligent act. These elements are as follows:

There must be some responsibility on the side of the defendant to conduct a negligent act. It's crucial to know if the defendant owes the plaintiff a legal duty of care in this case.

Breach of Obligation: Once the plaintiff has met the first two elements, the plaintiff must show that the defendant has violated the legal duty that has been placed on him or her. It discusses the defendant's violation of duty, which he or she is required to accomplish since he or she has a legal obligation to the plaintiff.

The act of causing something to happen: It signifies that the plaintiff suffered harm as a result of the defendant's actions. In this case, the defendant may commit an act that was not expected of him or her, or the plaintiff may commit an act that was not expected of him or her.

Damages:  At last what matters is, there must be some damage/injury that is caused to the plaintiff and this damages should be the direct consequence of the defendant’s act.

To apply Section 304A it becomes very important to show that there is no intention on the part of the defendant to commit a crime. For understanding the ‘rash act’ one should understand that it is an act which is done hastily and is opposed to any intentional act. A rash act is done without any deliberation or with caution. It depends on the level/degree of recklessness.

After proving the person liability under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code it becomes very important to punish those offenders. The punishment for death which is caused due to the negligent or rash act of the accused is prescriber under Section 304 A of the IPC itself. According to this Section, a person who is held liable for causing the death by negligence can be punished for the two-year jail or can be fined for the same or can be punished by both. The term of imprisonment depends on the gravity of the crime and imprisonment can be rigorous in nature or can be simple in nature. Its nature is also defined by the gravity of the crime and it varies from situation to situation as it depends on the situation. It is a cognizable offense and has been put in the category of a heinous crime. Here the police officer can arrest the accused without a warrant. It is a bailable offense and a bail can be granted by the police and the court.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

POONAM VERMA VS. ASHWIN PATEL & ORS (10 MAY, 1996)

     POONAM VERMA VS. ASHWIN PATEL & ORS (10 MAY, 1996) INTRODUCTION The medical profession is perhaps the noblest profession among any remaining professions in India. For a patient, the specialist resembles God. What's more, God is trustworthy. In any case, that is the patient's opinion. As a general rule, doctors are individuals. Furthermore, to fail is human. Doctors might submit a slip-up. Doctors might be careless. The care staff might be imprudent. Two demonstrations of carelessness might bring about a lot more pressing issue. It very well might be because of gross carelessness. The sky is the limit. In such a situation, it is basic to figure out who was careless, and under what conditions. For this situation, the Supreme Court separated carelessness, impulsiveness, and foolishness. An individual is supposed to be a careless individual when he/she unintentionally submits a demonstration of exclusion and disregards a positive obligation that he/she ought to ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur ...
1 comment
Read more

Effects of Non-Registration

 Effects of Non-Registration The Companies Act, 2013 evidently highlights that the main essential for any organization to turn into a company is to get itself registered. A company cannot come into existence until it gets registered. But no such obligation has been imposed for firms by the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. If a firm is not registered it does not cease to be called as a firm, it still exists in the eyes law. Certainly, such a big advantage is not absolute but is subjected to a lot of limitations which we will study further. Non-registration of a firm simply means that the business skips the formalities of incorporation and ceases to exist in the eyes of the law. section 58 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 deals with the procedure of incorporation. Likewise, the meaning of non-registration is the exact opposite of registration, meaning when a firm does not go through the procedure of incorporation or start carrying on activities without getting registered. Effects of ...
Post a Comment
Read more