Causing death by negligence
Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with causing death by negligence. 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; The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(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 (30 of 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.
Section 106, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 304A Causing death by negligence Text carried over almost unchanged 95%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
How this offence is classified
From the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which classifies every offence under the Sanhita. Cognizable means a police officer may arrest without warrant; bailable means bail is a matter of right rather than of the court's discretion. This section is classified 3 ways.
| Offence | Punishment | Cognizable | Bailable | Triable by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Causing death by negligence. | Imprisonment for 5 years and fine. | Cognizable. | Bailable. | Magistrate of the first class. |
| Causing death by negligence by registered medical practitioner. | Imprisonment for 2 years and fine. | Cognizable. | Bailable. | Magistrate of the first class. |
| Causing death by rash and negligent driving of vehicle and escaping. | Imprisonment for 10 years and fine. | Cognizable. | Non-bailable. | Magistrate of the first class. |
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab
Decided under Indian Penal Code 304A, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Criminal medical negligence under s.304A IPC requires gross negligence, not mere error of judgment. Bolam standard applies; guidelines issued for prosecuting doctors (independent medical opinion before process).
On this section: BNS 106 is the mapped successor of IPC 304A; Jacob Mathew's gross-negligence threshold carries forward.
-
The State of Tripura Home Department Chief Secretary vs Ramchandra Rabidas @ Ratan Rabidas
Decided under Indian Penal Code 304A, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A prosecution, if otherwise maintainable, would lie both under the Indian Penal Code and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, since both the statutes operate with full vigour in their own independent spheres. The offences provided under both the statutes are separate and distinct from each other, and an offender can be tried and punished independently under both statutes. The principle that the special law should prevail over the general law has no application in cases of prosecution of offenders in road accidents under the IPC and Motor Vehicles Act, as the offences do not overlap. Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 permits prosecution under either or both enactments but prevents double punishment for the same offence.
On this section: Causing death by negligence; applicable when death caused by rash or negligent act without intention or knowledge of likely death
-
Ghulam Hassan Beigh vs Mohammad Maqbool Magrey
Decided under Indian Penal Code 304A, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the stage of framing charges under Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the trial court must apply its judicial mind and sift the evidence placed before it by the prosecution for the limited purpose of determining whether a prima facie case has been made out. The court cannot conduct a mini-trial or rely solely on post-mortem reports to determine the nexus between alleged assault and death. The post-mortem report is not substantive evidence but merely a previous statement of the doctor; only the doctor's oral testimony in court constitutes substantive evidence. Whether the cause of death has any nexus with the alleged assault can only be determined after recording oral evidence of eye witnesses and the medical officer as an expert witness. The determination of whether a case falls under Section 302 IPC (murder) or Section 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) must be made only after evaluation of the entire oral evidence led by both prosecution and defence at the end of the trial, not at the charge-framing stage. If a prima facie case is made out based on the materials placed by the prosecution, even if those materials give rise to strong suspicion, the charge should be framed in accordance with the case put up by the prosecution, and the accused should be given the opportunity to defend against the higher charge at trial.
On this section: Causing death by negligence - mentioned as a category of non-culpable homicide for completeness of legal framework
-
Gopal Ansal vs State Tr. C. B. I
Decided under Indian Penal Code 304A, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases of criminal negligence causing mass casualties in public places, particularly where the convict is advanced in age and health, the court may enhance the sentence from the High Court's award to the maximum prescribed under law, but may substitute the enhanced portion with substantial fines directed toward constructive public purposes (such as trauma centre construction and healthcare infrastructure development), with the alternative of full imprisonment if fines are not paid within the specified timeframe. The principle of parity requires that similarly situated convicts receive similar sentencing treatment. Courts may creatively deploy sentencing to serve both retributive justice (through financial liability) and restorative justice (through victim-benefiting infrastructure) simultaneously.
On this section: Causing death by negligence - basis of primary criminal conviction of cinema owners
-
Harsarup Panwar vs State(nct of Delhi) Thr. Cbi
Decided under Indian Penal Code 304A, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal cases involving death by negligence where the accused have already undergone substantial portion of sentence and are willing to pay substantial fine, such fine can be substituted for remaining imprisonment period if the fine amount is directed towards a public purpose serving restorative justice and community welfare, and this approach is particularly appropriate when the accused are aged or infirm and the victims' families are not seeking monetary compensation. The appropriate quantum of sentence in such cases must balance the gravity of offense (number of deaths and injuries) with mitigating factors such as advanced age, willingness to pay fine, and opportunity to serve public purpose through fine amount.
On this section: Provides for punishment for causing death by negligence; maximum sentence is two years imprisonment or fine up to Rs. 1,000 or both. The Court enhanced the sentence from one year to two years under this section but substituted the additional year with fine.
-
Association of Victim of Uphar Tragedy vs Sushil Ansal
Decided under Indian Penal Code 304A, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases of criminal negligence resulting in mass casualties where the legal maximum sentence available is not commensurate with the gravity of the offense and the number of victims, and where the accused are of advanced age or suffering from serious health conditions, and where crime victims do not seek traditional compensation, the court may substitute imprisonment with substantial monetary penalty directed towards public welfare purposes (such as trauma center establishment) that serve both criminal accountability and victim-protective objectives. The sentence may be further reduced to period already undergone upon payment of such fine. Principles of parity require similarly-situated accused to receive proportional treatment unless material differences in culpability exist.
On this section: Applied for criminal negligence causing death; Court upheld conviction but discussed quantum of sentence; maximum punishment of two years imprisonment available under this section was enhanced but with option to substitute with fine
-
State of M. P vs Mehtaab
Decided under Indian Penal Code 304A, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a court convicts an accused for an offence involving death by negligence, the court has a mandatory duty to award an appropriate sentence that balances punishment with victim compensation. Mechanical reduction of sentences to the period already undergone, without consideration of the victim's plight and the need for compensation, is impermissible. Where an accused's resources are limited, the state must step in under Section 357-A IPC to provide interim and final compensation to victims or their heirs. The adequacy of punishment must be assessed in the context of victim rehabilitation and societal deterrence, not merely the accused's mitigation.
On this section: Conviction of Mehtaab under Section 304-A for causing death by negligence through installation of exposed electrical wires. The section was applied to hold that the respondent's act of leaving electrical wires naked and unprotected, which caused the death of Sushila Bai, constituted death caused by act of commission by the person charged, done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death or knowledge that the act is by law punishable with death.
-
Shantibhai J Vaghela vs State of Gujarat
Decided under Indian Penal Code 304A, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Commission of the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC requires some positive act on the part of the accused as distinguished from silence, inaction or a mere lapse. Allegations of not carrying out a prompt search of missing children, delay in lodging formal complaint with police, and failure to take adequate measures to guard access from ashram to river, which are mere omissions, lapses and negligence, cannot make out a case of culpable homicide. Something more positive than a mere omission, lapse or negligence will have to be present to attract ingredients of Section 304 IPC, and such positive material is conspicuously absent in the FIR. In the absence of any acceptable material disclosing the commission of Section 304 offence, High Court was justified in exercising its jurisdiction to interdict investigation for that offence, though such power must be exercised sparingly and only when facts demand.
On this section: Punishment for causing death by negligence; Court permitted investigation to continue under this lesser provision rather than Section 304
-
Mahadev Prasad Kaushik vs State of U. P.
Decided under Indian Penal Code 304A, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A medical professional cannot be prosecuted for culpable homicide (Section 304, IPC) merely because a patient dies after receiving treatment. Criminal prosecution requires either intention to cause death or knowledge that the act would probably cause death. Such mental elements cannot be inferred from the act of administering medical treatment to a voluntary patient. However, if facts establish gross negligence or rash conduct by the doctor in administering treatment (such as lack of requisite medical skill, failure to exercise reasonable care, or administering improper/poisonous injections), the case may proceed under Section 304A (causing death by negligence) which does not require the same degree of mental culpability. The appropriate charge must be calibrated to the evidence, and courts must distinguish between culpable homicide and negligence when issuing criminal process against medical practitioners.
On this section: Causing death by negligence - applies when death caused by rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide. Requires neither intention nor knowledge of death, but gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise reasonable care. Court held this is appropriate charge if negligence by doctor can be established at trial.
-
B. Nagabhushanam vs State of Karnataka
Decided under Indian Penal Code 304A, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When there are concurrent findings of fact by trial court, appellate court, and High Court that a vehicle was driven recklessly and negligently resulting in death, the Supreme Court cannot reappreciate evidence. Physical evidence (break marks, position of body), absence of mechanical failure, absence of reasonable explanation from the driver, and consistent eyewitness testimony collectively establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Sentencing for death caused by negligent driving must prioritize deterrence to curb the rising rate of motor vehicle accidents in India. Professional drivers must be made aware through meaningful punishment that negligent operation of vehicles causing death will result in imprisonment, not leniency under benevolent provisions of sentencing laws.
On this section: Causing death by negligence; applied to find appellant guilty of causing death of child through negligent operation of bus; Court upheld conviction and modified sentence
-
Sushil Ansal vs State Thr. Cbi
Decided under Indian Penal Code 304A, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving mass casualty criminal negligence, the appropriate sentence should balance the gravity of the offense with the circumstances of the accused, and when imprisonment becomes unfruitful due to advanced age or health conditions, a substantial fine directed towards public purpose (such as healthcare infrastructure) can be imposed in substitution for additional imprisonment, while ensuring that at least the minimum sentence proportionate to culpability is served. The approval of authorities for certain safety measures does not absolve the accused of criminal responsibility for negligence in their domain of control.
On this section: Applied for criminal negligence causing death - cinema owners were convicted and sentenced for negligent acts (closure of exits, lack of emergency lighting, absence of evacuation warnings) that caused 59 deaths
-
State through C. B. I vs Sushil Ansal
Decided under Indian Penal Code 304A, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases of criminal negligence resulting in mass casualties, where the accused has undergone substantial imprisonment and demonstrates willingness to make meaningful financial contribution, and where such financial contribution can be directed towards public welfare purposes serving the interests of victims and society, courts may appropriately substitute a portion of enhanced sentence with substantial fines, particularly when age and health conditions of aged accused make further imprisonment unduly burdensome. The quantum of such fines must reflect the gravity of the offense while balancing principles of mercy and proportionality. The conviction itself remains unaffected by such sentence modifications, ensuring accountability is maintained.
On this section: Conviction for causing death by act endangering human life or personal safety - applied to cinema owners for negligence in maintaining safe exit routes and emergency measures
-
State of Karnataka vs Muralidhar
Decided under Indian Penal Code 304A, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases of death caused by rash and negligent driving under Section 304-A IPC, custodial sentences are necessary to reflect the gravity of the offense and to serve the dual purposes of punishment and deterrence. A court cannot waive custodial sentences merely on the basis of elapsed time without providing reasoned justification and without considering the severe consequences of inadequate sentencing on public confidence in the justice system. The sentencing court must carefully balance aggravating and mitigating factors with regard to the nature of the offense, the manner of its commission, and broader societal implications, particularly in cases involving road traffic fatalities which represent an epidemic in developing countries.
On this section: Causing death by negligence; extensively analyzed to establish that the respondent's rash and negligent driving directly caused the death of the 16-year-old boy
-
Anita vs Gagan Kumar
Decided under Indian Penal Code 304A, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In proceedings under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is not strictly bound by the pleadings of the parties and should not dismiss a claim petition on the basis of technical errors in pleadings without considering the substantive evidence of the accident. The rules of pleadings do not strictly apply to claim petitions as the claimant is required to make an application in a form prescribed under the Act. The Tribunal should adopt a pragmatic and holistic view of the entire record, considering the prescribed form, evidence adduced, and the beneficial nature of the legislation, rather than applying hyper-technical pleading rules. Order VI CPC is consciously excluded from application to claim petitions, reflecting the legislative intent that Tribunals should not be bound by strict pleading rules.
On this section: Causing death by negligence. FIR was registered under this section in the present case.
-
Gurmeet Singh vs State Of Punjab
Decided under Indian Penal Code 304A, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a court exercises its discretionary power in sentencing, it must balance the principles of proportionality, deterrence, and reformation by considering the gravity of the offense, manner of commission, age of the accused, and the conduct of the accused post-conviction. Where an accused has already undergone a substantial portion of the sentence, has become a law-abiding citizen, and is not involved in any other criminal activity, the court may exercise its discretion to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone while maintaining the deterrent aspect through an increased fine, provided the conviction itself is based on correct appreciation of evidence.
On this section: Offense of causing death by act endangering life or personal safety; applied to the petitioner's conviction for rash or negligent driving causing death
-
Mr.Ponnan u/s.478 cr.p.c 614-24
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases where the offences charged are bailable in nature under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the accused has a legal right to bail, and the court should grant bail subject to reasonable conditions such as bond execution with sureties to ensure the accused's appearance in court.
On this section: One of the offences charged against the accused; classified as bailable.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 106
What have the courts held on Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (05 Aug 2005) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 304A, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: BNS 106 is the mapped successor of IPC 304A; Jacob Mathew's gross-negligence threshold carries forward. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 13 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2005 to 2025.
Is Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
Bailable, on a first conviction, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. This section is classified 3 ways; all of them are set out on this page.
Is Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita cognizable?
Cognizable. "Cognizable" means a police officer may arrest without warrant; "non-cognizable" that they may not. An offence under this section is triable by Magistrate of the first class.
How do I find court cases under Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BNS 106, section 106 BNS, section 106 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 106(1) and bns 106 and 281. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (05 Aug 2005).
What should I read with Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
It carries forward IPC 304A (Causing death by negligence), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, commonly called hit and run or death by negligence, and cited as BNS 106, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 2. Definitions2199 words
- 356. Defamation1543 words
- 335. Making a false document1318 words
- 101. Murder1177 words
- 303. Theft1104 words
- 3. General explanations858 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.