Criminal Negligence And Gross Negligence
1. Meaning of Negligence
Negligence in law refers to the failure to exercise reasonable care, resulting in damage or injury to another. It represents a breach of a duty owed by one person to another, which causes harm.
In criminal law, negligence rises to the level of a crime only when it is so gross or culpable that it shows a disregard for human life or safety.
2. Distinction Between Civil Negligence and Criminal Negligence
| Aspect | Civil Negligence | Criminal Negligence |
|---|---|---|
| Nature of Wrong | Private wrong – leads to compensation. | Public wrong – leads to punishment. |
| Standard of Proof | Balance of probabilities. | Beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Mental Element (Mens Rea) | Simple carelessness or inadvertence. | Gross negligence or recklessness amounting to culpability. |
| Consequence | Damages (compensation). | Imprisonment, fine, or both. |
3. Criminal Negligence: Definition
Criminal Negligence is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise reasonable care and caution expected of a prudent person, whereby death or injury is caused to another.
In India, it is primarily covered under:
Section 304A, Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Causing death by negligence.
Section 337/338, IPC – Causing hurt or grievous hurt by an act endangering life or personal safety.
4. Gross Negligence: Definition
Gross Negligence means an act done with such recklessness or indifference to the consequences that it borders on willful disregard for human life or safety. It is more serious than ordinary negligence but less than intentional harm.
Gross negligence implies a very high degree of carelessness, showing a “mens rea” of recklessness.
5. Essential Ingredients (of Criminal/Gross Negligence)
Existence of a legal duty of care.
Breach of that duty by omission or commission.
The breach must be gross or reckless.
The act must cause death or injury.
The act must be proximate and not too remote.
6. Landmark Case Laws
Case 1: Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005) 6 SCC 1
Facts:
A patient died in a hospital due to lack of oxygen supply. The oxygen cylinder provided was empty, and the doctor was charged under Section 304A IPC for criminal negligence.
Issue:
Whether the doctor’s act amounted to criminal negligence?
Held:
The Supreme Court held that to constitute criminal negligence, the act must be gross or of a very high degree. A simple error of judgment or accident does not constitute criminal negligence.
Medical professionals cannot be prosecuted for every mishap; there must be proof of gross lack of competence or reckless disregard for life.
Principle Laid Down:
Negligence must be “gross” to be criminal.
The distinction between civil and criminal negligence was clearly demarcated.
A medical professional is liable only when his conduct is such that no prudent doctor would have done the same.
Case 2: Kurban Hussein Mohammedali Rangawalla v. State of Maharashtra (1965 AIR 1616)
Facts:
An explosion occurred in a factory due to the negligent operation of a furnace, leading to the death of an employee. The factory owner was charged under Section 304A IPC.
Issue:
Whether the accused was criminally liable for the death caused by negligence?
Held:
The Supreme Court held that the act must be the direct and proximate cause of death. The owner could not be held criminally liable unless the death was the immediate result of his rash or negligent act.
Principle:
Criminal negligence requires a causal link between the negligent act and the death. Mere administrative negligence or remote connection is not enough.
Case 3: R. v. Bateman (1925) All ER Rep 45 (King’s Bench Division, UK)
Facts:
A doctor was charged with manslaughter due to alleged negligent handling of a patient during childbirth, resulting in her death.
Held:
The Court held that the negligence must show such disregard for life and safety of others as to amount to a crime against the state and conduct deserving punishment.
Principle:
Lord Hewart CJ observed that for negligence to be criminal, it must go beyond mere compensation claims; it must show a “culpable or gross departure” from the standard of care of a reasonable man.
Case 4: State of Karnataka v. Muralidhar (2009) 4 SCC 463
Facts:
A bus driver drove recklessly, causing the death of several passengers. He was convicted under Section 304A IPC.
Issue:
Whether rash and negligent driving resulting in death amounts to criminal negligence?
Held:
The Court upheld the conviction, holding that driving in a manner endangering human life is clear evidence of rashness and negligence.
The driver had knowledge of probable harm and still acted carelessly.
Principle:
Driving without due care and caution that endangers life is a classic instance of criminal negligence.
Mens rea is inferred from the reckless disregard for consequences.
Case 5: Suleman Rehiman Mulani v. State of Maharashtra (1968 AIR 829)
Facts:
A truck driver, while reversing, ran over a person standing behind the truck and killed him. The driver pleaded that he did not see the person.
Held:
The Court held the driver guilty under Section 304A IPC, observing that failure to take reasonable precautions (such as ensuring no one is behind before reversing) constituted gross negligence.
Principle:
Negligence which a prudent man would never commit under normal circumstances becomes criminal when it leads to fatal consequences due to utter disregard for safety.
Case 6: Andrews v. DPP (1937) AC 576 (House of Lords)
Facts:
The accused was driving his vehicle at high speed and attempted to overtake another car, colliding with a pedestrian and killing him.
Held:
The House of Lords held that the offence of manslaughter by negligence requires a very high degree of negligence — a disregard for life and safety equivalent to a crime.
Principle:
Lord Atkin observed:
“A very high degree of negligence is required before the felony is established.”
This case laid down the standard for distinguishing civil from criminal negligence in English law.
7. Key Judicial Principles Summarized
| Principle | Case |
|---|---|
| Criminal negligence must be “gross” and “culpable.” | Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab |
| There must be direct nexus between negligent act and death. | Kurban Hussein v. State of Maharashtra |
| Simple carelessness ≠ Criminal Negligence. | R. v. Bateman |
| Reckless driving causing death is criminal negligence. | State of Karnataka v. Muralidhar |
| Failure to take obvious safety precautions = gross negligence. | Suleman Rehiman Mulani v. State of Maharashtra |
| Very high degree of negligence = manslaughter. | Andrews v. DPP |
8. Conclusion
Criminal Negligence is not mere carelessness — it involves a gross or culpable disregard for human life or safety.
The dividing line between civil and criminal negligence lies in the degree of negligence and the mens rea involved.
Courts have consistently held that criminal liability arises only when the negligence is so flagrant that it amounts to a crime against the state, not just a wrong against an individual.
RELATED Blog
0 comments