[Section 304-A P.P.C. Old Sec.]
No intention to cause death. When there is no intention to cause death and no knowledge that the act done in all probability would cause death the provisions of section 304-A, are attracted. 14 PLR 879 Nashkir. This section is to be read along with sections 337, 336 and 338 as well as they relate to rash and negligent act without any criminal intent. 1941 All, 441 Chhallu v. Emp.
Intention or knowledge is not necessary. Quintessence of offence is "rash or negligent act." (FC) PLD 1955 FC 63 Rab Nawaz v. Crown.
Rash and negligent. The words "rashly" and "negligently" are distinguishable and one excludes the other. Same act cannot be rash as well as negligent. AIR 1931 Lah. 54 = 32 Cr.LJ 587 = 31 PLR 955 Shakir Khan v. Emp.
Rupturing the spleen. Accused struck his wife on her left side. She died within an hour. Spleen was ruptured as it was enlarged but not diseased. Held, offence under section 325 and not u/S. 304-A, as the act of giving the blow was wilful and conscious though death was not intended, (1881) 3 All. 776.Idu Beg.
Medical man's negligence. Where a person acting as a medical man whether licensed or unlicensed gives a poisonous medicine to a patient with an intent to cure disease but it kills the patient, he is guilty u/S. 304-A. 42 All. 272 De Souza.
Contributory negligence. The doctrine of contributory negligence has no place in criminal law, though it is recognised in law of torts. In such a case the proximate cause of accident should be ascertained. AIR 1925 Sindh 233 = 27 Cr.LJ 257 FC Woodwork. 36 Cr.LJ 1368 = AIR 1935 Nag. 200 Muhammad Bux.
Mistake of fact. A woman received poison from her paramour to administer it to her husband as a charm and she did so with the result that he died but she did not know that the substance given to her was noxious until she had seen its effects. Held guilty u/S. 304-A. 1887 PR No. 60 of 1887 Mst. Bakhan. 1869 PR No. 8 Khema. 1884 PR NO. 35 Mst. Sultan.
Mistake of fact. Ghost. Where a person believing in good faith struck the deceased taking him for a ghost. Held, in view of section 79 of Penal Code the accused was not guilty. 28 Cr.LJ 39 Waryam Singh.
Playing with a revolver, pressing its trigger and killing a man, offence under section 304-A, P.P.C. PLD 1959 Lah. 655 Swab Gul.
Blow struck in a clash. Section 304-A not applicable. (SC) PLD 1959 SC (Pak.) 251 Askar Ali.
Too remote consequences. Where the accused kept a bottle of "Atlas Tree Killer" in his farm shed and two farm servants drank the stuff thinking it to be arrack and died. Held, the accused could not be prosecuted under section 304-A, AIR 1941 Mad. 766 = 43 Cr.LJ 126 Agasthyalinga Goundan.
Conclusive proof of neglect required by direct evidence. PLD 1959 Kar. 30 Muhammad Yaqoob.
Joint trial of both drivers of vehicles involved in the collision for offence under section 304-A is not illegal. PLD 1958 Kar. 615 Ali Khan.
Charge. Offences under section 302, or 304 are distinct from one under section 304-A. Accused charged under section 302 cannot be convicted for offence under section 304-A. PLD 1959 Lah. 760 Ahmed Din.
Over-loading a bus. may be an offence under the Motor Vehicles Act but it cannot be regarded as a rash and negligent act within the meaning of section 304-A, 33 Cr.LJ 436; AIR 1932 Jaimal Singh.
Over-loading a boat, which capsized owing to strong wind was held to be no offence under section 304-A. 16 Cr.LJ 72 Raghu.
Driving a bus when the road is not visible due to dust raised by a passing vehicle and colliding with another vehicle injuring and killing passengers, held, offence under section 304-A. 21 Lah. 646 Abdul Qayyum.
Collision between truck and railway. Negligent driving. Collision between truck and railway engine on level crossing when truck was being driven at normal speed and the gates of the level crossing were open. The ruck driver cannot be fastened with any criminal liability. PLD 1965 Pesh. 100 Raza Khan.
Tie-rod of car broken. Car dashing against a wall causing it to collapse thereby killing a child. Tie-rod of the car found broken. Probability of vehicle having dashed against wall because of sudden breaking of tie-rod cannot be ruled out. Prosecution case held doubtful. Accused acquitted. PLD 1973 Kar. 427. Ali Muhammad.
Defective hand brake. Rash and negligent act of the accused is to be conclusively proved by direct evidence. Driving with defective hand brake makes no difference. PLD 1959 Kar. 30 Muhammad Yaqub.
Foot brake, hand brake and steering out of order. Driving such vehicle and killing one. Conviction u/Ss. 304-A and 337, P.P.C. Sentence 1 year's R.I. (DB) PLD 1978 Kar. 380 State v. Nabi Bakhsh.
Brakes out of order; such fact by itself established the negligence of the accused who was driving the vehicle with unworking brakes. Leave refused. 1991 SCMR 78 Muhammad Razaq.
Throwing down deceased from truck when it was going at slow speed, deceased getting crushed under the wheel. Held, offence under section 304-A and not under section 304 (ii) P.P.C. 1975 P.Cr.LJ 1277 Ghaus Bakhsh.
Tonga driver driving a tonga at moderate speed, knocking down a boy suddenly crossing from in front. Conviction set aside. PLD 1965 Lah. 608 Muhammad Hussain.
Rash and negligent driving, killing two persons. Held offences u/Ss. 320 and 427 PPC being bailable. Bail allowed. PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Lah.) 28, Ahmed Khan.
Rash and negligent driving burden of proof. Decree of proof required in criminal cases is much higher than the proof required in civil cases. The fact that the collision occurred on the driver's wrong side of the road may be due to the circumstances reasonably requiring him to depart from the ordinary rule of the road. Heavy burden in such a case is on the defence to prove the circumstances of his departure from the rule of the road keeping to the left. PLD 1976 Kar. 560. Iqbal Umar v. Muhammad Aziz Ullah etc.
Negligent driving and no driving licence. Failure to possess a valid driving licence cannot be a cause of accident. It may be punishable under the Motor Vehicle Act. PLD 1976 Kar. 560 Supra.
Speeding vehicle. Mere speeding of vehicle does not constitute rash and negligent act. (DB) PLD 1965 Pesh. 104 Umar Khan v. Member, Board of Revenue. PLD 1975 Kar. 723 Issa Khan 1976 P.Cr.LJ 405 Muhammad Bakhsh.
Fast driving. Fact that the accused was driving fast at the time of the accident cannot by itself amount to rash or negligent act within the meaning of section 304-A. Prosecution failing to prove beyond reasonable doubt that death of deceased was caused by a rash or negligent act on the part of accused. Conviction set aside. 1969 P.Cr.LJ 1228 Terrace A.D' Costa.
Driving at High Speed by itself is not rash or negligent act. Prosecution is to prove that driver failed to take proper care by omitting to take some action by which he could have avoided accident. Appeal allowed when above mentioned aspect was not inquired into. PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Lah.) 1289, Mustaq.
Mere fast driving not rash or negligent. Prosecution did not prove that driver failed to take some action which could have avoided accident. Negligence must be established by direct evidence. Error of judgment in driving is good defence, even that it is not available in evidence. PLJ 1980 Cr. C. (Kar.) 14 Muhammad Akhtar. 1980 P.Cr.LJ 103.
Mere fast driving would not make a person liable for rash and negligent act. It is the duty of a person entering the main road from side road to see that the road is clear. Appellant acquitted. NLR 1985 Cr. 213. Muhammad Sadiq. NLR 1985 Cr. 738 Muhammad Saddiq.
Rashness or negligence is a question of fact and not of opinion. Mere fast driving does not mean that the driver was negligent. If the deceased suddenly comes in front of the vehicle when it nears him the driver cannot be blamed. PLD 1953 Lah. 260 Ghulam Muhammad v. Crown.
Fast speed. Mere fact of motor vehicle coming at fast speed held, is not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. Fact not proved by direct evidence. Conviction set aside. 1975 P.Cr.LJ  515 Abdul Ghani.
Qatl-i-Khata (Sec. 320 PPC). Not high speed of a vehicle but a rash and negligent act by the driver constitutes the offence. PLD 1997 Pesh 13, Aziz Khan.
Speed of vehicle not material, even much low speed in a crowded locality can be evidence of neglect. 1975 P.Cr.LJ 1353 Muhammad Afzal.
Link between rash and negligent act (driving) must exist for conviction. When such link not proved accused acquitted. 1975 P.Cr.LJ 813 Mahmood Ali Khan.
Rash and negligent driving. Both prosecution as well as defence versions reasonably probable and possible. Version favouring the accused accepted. 1975 P.Cr.LJ 825 Sardar Hussain.
304-A or 302 or 304? A lorry driver driving at 50 to 55 miles per hour to avoid chase by police car, knocked down and killed a child who attempted to cross the road, Held, offence under section 304-A, for rash and negligent act and sentenced to one and a half years' R.I. (DB) 43 Cr.LJ 229 Gurdev Singh v. Emperor.
Bus stopped within a pace or two, after knocking down the deceased, no case of rashness or negligence made out in the circumstances. 1977 Cr.LJ 138 Rogers.
Rash and negligent driving, enhancement of sentence, Revision petitioner was convicted u/S. 304-A, PPC and sentenced to 4 years' R.I. and fine of Rs. 12,000 High Court refused to enhance sentence, although 4 persons had been killed and 17 injured, held, High Court is neither prosecutor nor persecutor, sentence was not enhanced in the circumstances. PLJ 1986 Cr.C. (Lah.) 384. Mehraj Din.
Accident due to sudden stoppage of engine of Suzuki pick-up as it was running round a steep turn. The driver tried to stop the vehicle but it skidded back and went down a deep spot killing three passengers, held, there was no element of rashness or negligence involved. Appellant acquitted. NLR 1988 Cr. 511 Kala Khan.