Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 dealt with causing death by a rash or negligent act and has been replaced by Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, effective 1 July 2024. This is one of the most significantly expanded provisions in the BNS. The maximum punishment has been raised from two years to five years, a specific carve-out limits medical professionals' liability to two years, and a new sub-section creates an aggravated offence for hit-and-run vehicular deaths with up to ten years imprisonment.
What changed
| Old law | New law | |
|---|---|---|
| Act | Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 |
| Section | 304A | 106 |
| Title | Causing death by negligence | Causing death by negligence |
| Change type | Expanded — higher punishment, medical practitioner carve-out, hit-and-run provision added |
Full statutory text
Section 304A IPC (repealed w.e.f. 1 July 2024)
Whoever causes the 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 two years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 106 BNS
(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.
Text in bold represents entirely new provisions with no IPC equivalent.
Key differences
General punishment tripled: The maximum imprisonment for death by negligence has been raised from two years (IPC 304A) to five years (BNS 106(1)). This reflects legislative intent to treat negligent homicide more seriously.
Fine made mandatory: Under IPC 304A, the court could impose imprisonment "or" fine "or" both. Under BNS 106(1), imprisonment is coupled with mandatory fine ("and shall also be liable to fine").
Medical practitioner carve-out: BNS 106(1) introduces a specific provision for registered medical practitioners performing medical procedures, capping their imprisonment at two years (the same as the old IPC maximum). This protects doctors from the enhanced general punishment while still maintaining criminal liability for gross negligence.
Definition of registered medical practitioner: The Explanation to sub-section (1) defines "registered medical practitioner" by reference to the National Medical Commission Act, 2019, requiring both a recognised qualification and registration in the National or State Medical Register.
Hit-and-run provision: BNS 106(2) creates an entirely new aggravated offence for vehicular negligent death where the driver escapes without reporting the incident to a police officer or Magistrate. The maximum punishment is ten years imprisonment plus fine — five times the old IPC maximum.
Reporting obligation: The hit-and-run provision effectively creates a statutory duty to report. The aggravated punishment attaches not merely to causing death by negligent driving, but to the combination of negligent driving causing death and absconding without reporting.
What this means for practitioners
For drafting and citations: Practitioners must cite Section 106 BNS for all negligent death cases arising after 1 July 2024. Charge sheets should specify whether the case falls under sub-section (1) (general negligence), the medical practitioner proviso, or sub-section (2) (hit-and-run).
For pending cases: Cases under IPC 304A filed before 1 July 2024 continue under the old provision with the two-year maximum. The enhanced punishment under BNS 106 cannot be applied retrospectively. This creates a significant sentencing disparity — an identical act committed on 30 June 2024 carries a two-year maximum, while the same act on 1 July 2024 carries a five-year maximum.
For new cases: Defence counsel representing medical professionals should specifically invoke the medical practitioner proviso to ensure the two-year cap applies. This requires demonstrating that the accused (a) is a registered medical practitioner under the NMC Act, 2019, and (b) was performing a medical procedure at the time of the negligent act. For vehicular accident cases, the critical question will be whether the accused "escaped without reporting" — defence teams should advise clients to report incidents immediately, as the difference between sub-section (1) (five years) and sub-section (2) (ten years) turns entirely on the reporting obligation.
Does old case law still apply?
Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005) 6 SCC 1 — This landmark decision established that criminal prosecution of medical professionals for negligence under Section 304A requires proof of "gross" negligence — a degree of negligence substantially higher than the standard for civil liability. The Court also directed that no criminal complaint against a doctor should be entertained without prima facie evidence supported by a credible medical opinion. This framework remains applicable under BNS 106(1), and the medical practitioner carve-out in the new provision is consistent with the Jacob Mathew approach of treating medical negligence differently from general negligence.
Empress of India v. Idu Beg (1881) ILR 3 All 776 — The foundational case defining criminal rashness and criminal negligence. The distinction between rashness (doing an act with consciousness that mischief may result but hoping it will not) and negligence (failing to take precautions against foreseeable harm) remains the governing framework.
These decisions continue to apply. The BNS has not altered the threshold for what constitutes "rash or negligent act" — it has only modified the consequences.
Judicial interpretation under BNS 106 (post-July 2024)
The following post-2024 Delhi High Court decisions, while decided under IPC 304A for pre-commencement offences, provide interpretive guidance for BNS 106:
State v. Inder Singh & Ors. (26 November 2025)
Court: Delhi High Court | Judge: Neena Bansal Krishna | Result: State appeal against acquittal dismissed
The Delhi High Court dismissed the State's appeal against the acquittal of doctors charged under Section 304A IPC in a post-partum haemorrhage death case. The Court applied the three-part test for medical negligence — duty, breach, and resulting damage — and held that the doctors had performed their duties with reasonable skill and competence. The death was attributed to complications rather than negligence. This case reinforces the Jacob Mathew framework and will directly inform the application of the medical practitioner carve-out in BNS 106(1), confirming that the two-year cap for registered medical practitioners aligns with the established judicial approach of treating medical negligence differently from general negligence.
Veritect reference: DLHC010588772025_1_2025-11-26
State v. Narain (11 December 2025)
Court: Delhi High Court | Judge: Manoj Kumar Ohri | Result: State appeal against acquittal dismissed
The Court upheld the acquittal of a driver in a motor accident death case under Sections 279/304A IPC, reaffirming that mere occurrence of an accident does not raise a presumption of negligence — the prosecution must prove rash or negligent driving beyond reasonable doubt. This principle will be critical for BNS 106(2) cases, where the enhanced ten-year punishment for hit-and-run applies only when the additional element of escaping without reporting is established.
Veritect reference: DLHC012621952018_1_2025-12-11
Emerging patterns
- Courts continue to apply the Jacob Mathew "gross negligence" standard for medical professionals, consistent with the BNS 106(1) medical practitioner carve-out
- The prosecution's burden to prove rash or negligent driving beyond reasonable doubt remains undiluted despite the enhanced punishment framework
- The Bolam principle (conduct measured against accepted professional standards) continues to be the benchmark for medical negligence cases
Frequently asked questions
What is the BNS equivalent of Section 304A IPC? Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 replaces Section 304A IPC. It retains the core offence but significantly expands the punishment framework with three tiers: general negligence (up to 5 years), medical negligence (up to 2 years), and hit-and-run (up to 10 years).
Does old case law on Section 304A IPC still apply? Yes. The Jacob Mathew guidelines on medical negligence prosecution, and the general jurisprudence on the meaning of "rash or negligent act," continue to apply under BNS 106 as the threshold for criminal negligence remains unchanged.
Which section applies to cases before 1 July 2024? Section 304A IPC applies to all negligent death offences committed before 1 July 2024, with the maximum punishment of two years. Section 106 BNS applies only to offences committed on or after 1 July 2024.
Are doctors protected under the new law? BNS 106(1) provides a specific carve-out for registered medical practitioners performing medical procedures, capping imprisonment at two years — the same maximum as the old IPC 304A. This does not create immunity; it preserves the pre-existing sentencing ceiling for medical professionals while raising the general ceiling for other forms of negligence.