THE OFFENCE OF NEGLIGENT AND DANGEROUS DRIVING UNDER THE BNS

1. INTRODUCTION

With the rapid rise of motor vehicles in India, driving now directly affects public safety. Congested roads and frequent accidents show that careless choices behind the wheel endanger everyone. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, replaces older laws and explicitly penalises negligent and rash driving, holding drivers accountable not merely for accidents, but for conduct that creates foreseeable risk.

Under the BNS, anyone operating a vehicle in public must exercise reasonable care for the safety of others. Negligent acts, such as failing to maintain control, and rash acts, such as reckless speeding or ignoring road conditions, attract criminal liability under Sections 281 and 106. Courts emphasise fairness and accountability, balancing individual choices with the collective right to safe roads.

2. NEGLIGENT AND DANGEROUS DRIVING UNDER THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023

Negligent and dangerous driving is a serious criminal offence due to its impact on public safety. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, reinforces that driving is a regulated activity requiring vigilance, caution, and respect for others’ safety. Liability arises not merely from harm caused, but from conduct that creates foreseeable and unacceptable risk to human life. Driving that disregards traffic norms, road conditions, or other users may amount to criminal negligence or rashness under the BNS.

Under the BNS, offences are judged by the driver’s conduct rather than the accident alone. Reasonable care, expected of a prudent person, is the benchmark. Dangerous acts include excessive speeding in congested areas, ignoring signals, driving under intoxication, reckless overtaking, or losing vehicle control. In Ravi Kapur v. State of Rajasthan[1], the Supreme Court held that rash and negligent driving must be assessed from the total circumstances, with liability arising when driving reflects indifference to safety, even without intent to harm.

3. SECTION 281, BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023

Under Section 281 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, operating a vehicle recklessly or carelessly upon a public roadway, where such conduct imperils human existence or risks physical damage, is classified as an offence. Prevention stands central here; the rule aims to restrain hazardous operation prior to escalation into grave consequences. Shared usage defines thoroughfares, hence operators bear responsibility toward every individual present, whether moving on foot or within vehicles. What matters most is how one drives, not what results follow from that behaviour.

To constitute an offence under Section 281, the prosecution must establish that the accused was driving in a rash or negligent manner. Rash driving involves reckless conduct undertaken with awareness of potential danger, whereas negligent driving refers to a failure to exercise reasonable care expected from a prudent driver. Importantly, the section does not require actual injury or death; the likelihood of endangering life is sufficient. Courts have consistently held that negligence or rashness cannot be presumed merely because an accident has occurred. In Naresh Giri v State of Madhya Pradesh[2], the Supreme Court emphasised that criminal negligence must be proved through surrounding circumstances such as speed, road conditions, and the conduct of the driver.

4. SECTION 106, BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023

Not covered under intent to harm, loss of life through thoughtless actions falls within Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Where recklessness plays a role, such as in careless vehicle operation, the law steps in despite absence of motive. Human error, when severe enough to break expected standards of caution, becomes punishable if someone dies. Unlike cases involving awareness of fatal risk, this section targets only those acts marked by haste or indifference. Responsibility arises not from desire to injure but from failure to uphold basic safety duties. Especially visible in traffic-related fatalities, the rule marks were negligence crosses into crime.

For liability under Section 106, it must be established that the rash or negligent act of the accused was the proximate and efficient cause of death. The Supreme Court has consistently held that criminal negligence must be of a gross nature and not a mere error of judgment. In Kurban Hussein Mohamedali Rangawalla v State of Maharashtra[3], the Court emphasised that there must be a direct causal link between the negligent act and the death of the victim. Similarly, in Rathnashalvan v State of Karnataka[4], the Court observed that punishment under provisions relating to death by negligence serves as a deterrent against irresponsible conduct that endangers human life.

4.1 SECTION 106(1), BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023

DEATH CAUSED BY RASH OR NEGLIGENT ACT

Where someone causes death through thoughtless or careless behaviour, Section 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 becomes relevant. Though intent to kill is absent, consequences matter when loss of life follows risky actions. Not every dangerous act leads here; only those falling short of culpable homicide are included under this rule. Responsibility arises even without awareness that harm might occur, so long as conduct shows disregard for safety. Often seen in traffic deaths, it covers drivers whose recklessness ends in tragedy. Because a person died, legal response remains necessary despite lack of malice. The law acknowledges risk created matters more than motive behind it. Punishment reflects seriousness linked to outcomes, not just purpose.

The core requirement under Section 106(1) is the existence of a direct and proximate causal link between the rash or negligent act and the death of the victim. The negligence must be gross in nature and must go beyond a mere error of judgment. The Supreme Court, in Kurban Hussein Mohamedali Rangawalla v State of Maharashtra[5], held that to sustain a conviction for death by negligence, it must be proved that the death was the direct result of the negligent act of the accused and that no intervening cause had broken the chain of causation. This principle ensures that criminal liability is imposed only where responsibility is clearly established.

Judicial interpretation has further clarified that Section 106(1) is intended to act as a deterrent against irresponsible conduct that endangers life. In Rathnashalvan v State of Karnataka[6], the Supreme Court emphasised that undue leniency in sentencing for offences causing death by negligence undermines public confidence in the justice system, particularly in the context of increasing road fatalities

4.2 SECTION 106(2), BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023

Death Caused by Negligent Driving and Absconding

Fleeing after a fatal traffic incident mark a serious breach under Section 106(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Not merely responsible for death through careless operation of a vehicle, the person vanishes, failing to notify officials. Such absence at the site reveals indifference toward human life, paired with intent to escape consequences. Because of this added layer of wrongdoing, penalties grow more severe than those for simple negligent acts. Lawmakers chose stronger sanctions here, not out of impulse, but as response to worsening patterns on roads. Avoidance of duty intensifies guilt; that reality shapes how justice is applied in these cases. Holding individuals answerable becomes essential when choices show both recklessness and withdrawal.

The essential elements of Section 106(2) include, first, causing the death of a person by negligent driving, and second, the act of absconding without informing a police officer or a Magistrate. The offence is complete only when both these elements coexist. The act of absconding aggravates the original negligence by obstructing timely medical assistance to the victim and hindering the course of justice. Courts have consistently viewed such behaviour as socially reprehensible. In State of Punjab v Balwinder Singh[7], the Supreme Court emphasised that fleeing from the scene of a fatal accident reflects an indifference to human life and warrants stringent punishment. This reasoning supports the enhanced penal consequences under Section 106(2).

5. DISTINCTION BETWEEN SECTION 281 AND SECTION 106 OF THE BNS, 2023

Section 281 and Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deal with offences arising from rash or negligent conduct, particularly in relation to driving, but they differ in scope and seriousness. Section 281 addresses rash or negligent driving on a public way that endangers human life or is likely to cause hurt or injury. The emphasis under this section is on the manner of driving, and actual injury or death is not required. It is a preventive provision intended to deter unsafe driving practices at an early stage.

In contrast, Section 106 applies only when death is caused as a direct consequence of a rash or negligent act. The occurrence of death is a mandatory element for invoking this provision. While Section 106(1) deals with death caused by negligence without intention, Section 106(2) imposes enhanced liability where the accused absconds after causing death by negligent driving. The punishment under Section 106 is therefore more severe, reflecting the gravity of the harm caused. The Supreme Court in Kurban Hussein Mohamedali Rangawalla v State of Maharashtra[8] emphasised the necessity of a direct causal link between the negligent act and the resulting death.

6. ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCES UNDER THE BNS, 2023

For securing a conviction under offences relating to negligent and dangerous conduct, particularly under Sections 281, 106, 125 and allied provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, certain essential ingredients must be established beyond reasonable doubt. These ingredients ensure that criminal liability is imposed only where the accused’s conduct clearly satisfies the legal threshold of rashness or negligence, and not in cases of mere accidents or unavoidable mishaps.

The first essential ingredient is the existence of an act or omission on the part of the accused. In driving-related offences, this usually involves the act of driving a vehicle in a particular manner or failing to observe necessary precautions. The second and most crucial element is rashness or negligence. Rashness implies conscious risk-taking with disregard for safety, while negligence refers to a failure to exercise the standard of care expected from a reasonable person. Courts have consistently held that criminal negligence must be gross in nature and not a mere lapse of judgment. In Jacob Mathew v State of Punjab[9], the Supreme Court clarified that criminal negligence must show a high degree of disregard for life and safety.

Another important ingredient is endangerment or causation of harm. For offences such as Section 281 or Section 125, it must be shown that the act endangered human life or was likely to cause hurt or injury. In cases under Section 106, the prosecution must prove that death was the direct and proximate result of the rash or negligent act. The Supreme Court in Kurban Hussein Mohamedali Rangawalla v State of Maharashtra [10]emphasised that there must be a clear causal link between the negligent act and the resulting death.

7. PUNISHMENT AND SENTENCING UNDER THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 adopts a graded and proportionate approach to punishment for offences involving rashness, negligence, and dangerous conduct. The objective of sentencing under these provisions is not only punitive but also deterrent, aiming to discourage irresponsible behaviour that endangers public safety. Under Section 281, which deals with rash or negligent driving on a public way endangering human life, the punishment prescribed is relatively lighter, reflecting the fact that actual injury or death is not a necessary element. The provision targets the dangerous manner of driving itself and seeks to correct behaviour at an early stage. In contrast, Section 106(1) prescribes a much harsher punishment where death is caused by a rash or negligent act, recognising the irreversible loss of human life. The enhanced punishment under Section 106(2), which deals with death caused by negligent driving followed by absconding, reflects the aggravated nature of the offence and the added moral blameworthiness of fleeing from the scene.

Judicial interpretation has played a crucial role in shaping sentencing policy in such cases. The Supreme Court in Dalbir Singh v State of Haryana [11]emphasised that offences of negligent driving resulting in death are crimes against society and that undue leniency undermines the deterrent purpose of criminal law.

8. CONCLUSION

Negligent and dangerous driving constitutes a serious threat to public safety and human life, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 provides a comprehensive legal framework to address such conduct. By clearly defining the concepts of rashness and negligence and categorising offences based on their gravity and consequences, the BNS ensures that criminal liability is imposed in a fair and proportionate manner. Provisions such as Sections 281 and 106 reflect a balanced approach, penalising risky behaviour at its inception while prescribing stricter punishment when such behaviour results in fatal outcomes.

In conclusion, the offence of negligent and dangerous driving under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita underscores the evolving nature of criminal jurisprudence in response to contemporary social realities. By combining legislative clarity with judicial guidance, the BNS seeks to promote road discipline, protect human life, and instil a sense of accountability among road users.

9. BIBLIOGRAPHY

CASE LAWS

Kurban Hussein Mohamedali Rangawalla v State of Maharashtra AIR 1965 SC 1616.

State of Karnataka v Satish (1998) 8 SCC 493.

Dalbir Singh v State of Haryana (2000) 5 SCC 82.

Jacob Mathew v State of Punjab AIR 2005 SC 3180.

State of Punjab v Balwinder Singh (2012) 2 SCC 182.

STATUTES

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Indian Penal Code, 1860.

BOOKS

K D Gaur, Textbook on the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.(9th edn, LexisNexis 2024).

P S A Pillai, Criminal Law (16th edn, LexisNexis 2025,revised by K I Vibhute).

ARTICLES

Law Commission of India, 268th Report on Amendment of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Government of India 2017).

Sanjay Jain, ‘Criminal Liability for Negligent Driving in India’ (2019) 4 Journal of Indian Law and Society 112.

Aparna Chandra, ‘Rash and Negligent Acts under Criminal Law: A Judicial Perspective’ (2020) 12 NUJS Law Review 45.

Pradeep Kumar, ‘Road Safety and Criminal Law: Need for Stricter Enforcement’ (2021) 6 Indian Journal of Criminal Law 89.

[1] Ravi Kapur v State of Rajasthan (2012) 9 SCC 284.

[2] Naresh Giri v State of Madhya Pradesh (2008) 1 SCC 791.

[3] Kurban Hussein Mohamedali Rangawalla v State of Maharashtra AIR 1965 SC 1616.

[4] Rathnashalvan v State of Karnataka (2007) 3 SCC 474.

[5] Kurban Hussein Mohamedali Rangawalla v State of Maharashtra AIR 1965 SC 1616.

[6] Rathnashalvan v State of Karnataka (2007) 3 SCC 474.

[7] State of Punjab v Balwinder Singh (2012) 2 SCC 182.

[8] Kurban Hussein Mohamedali Rangawalla v State of Maharashtra AIR 1965 SC 1616.

[9] Jacob Mathew v State of Punjab AIR 2005 SC 3180.

[10] Kurban Hussein Mohamedali Rangawalla v State of Maharashtra AIR 1965 SC 1616.

[11] Dalbir Singh v State of Haryana (2000) 5 SCC 82.