The Supreme Court has quashed criminal proceedings against the president and hostel superintendent of an Ashram School in Maharashtra over the death of a 12-year-old student, holding that a breach of the duty of care, by itself, does not establish the criminal offence of culpable homicide.
A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manmohan set aside the Bombay High Court’s refusal to terminate the proceedings, observing that the material on record did not establish the requisite intention or knowledge on the part of the school officials.
The Court, however, expressed deep pain over the tragic death of the young student.
The incident took place on February 15, 2020, at a school in Amravati district. The Class 7 student was on the school premises when a pillar under construction collapsed on her, causing fatal injuries.
Following the incident, the girl’s father lodged a complaint alleging that the school’s director and hostel superintendent had permitted substandard construction and failed to ensure adequate safety precautions. The two officials were subsequently charged under Section 304 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), corresponding to provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
High Court Had Relied on Construction Defects
The school officials had approached the Bombay High Court seeking to quash the criminal case. Their plea was rejected after the High Court considered the findings of a Chemical Analyser’s report and the spot panchnama.
The chemical analysis indicated that the prescribed cement, sand and aggregate ratio had not been maintained in the mortar. The panchnama, meanwhile, recorded that the pillar lacked a solid foundation.
The High Court concluded that there had been a breach of duty, observing that although there was no intention to cause death, the officials allegedly knew that the use of substandard construction material could result in injury or death.
Challenging this conclusion, the officials moved the Supreme Court.
Poor Construction Does Not Automatically Establish Knowledge of Likely Death
Before the Supreme Court, the appellants contended that the prosecution’s allegations did not establish the voluntary commission of an offence punishable under Section 304 IPC.
They also argued that Section 304A, which deals with death caused by a negligent act, could not be invoked merely because a failure to exercise due care might have contributed to the incident. According to them, such negligence had not been established as the direct cause of the student’s death.
The prosecution, on the other hand, maintained that the material was sufficient to make out a prima facie case of rashness and negligence. It argued that the question of guilt should be left for determination during trial.
Examining the rival submissions, the Supreme Court explained the distinction between culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC and causing death by negligence under Section 304A.
The bench emphasised that a conviction under Section 304 cannot follow unless the necessary intention or knowledge is established through evidence.
It noted that Section 304A applies where an act causes death without any intention to cause death or knowledge that the act is likely to result in death.
The Court found that the allegations against the school officials did not cross this threshold.
“The mere failure to attain the standard of care prescribed by the law, thereby committing breach of such duty as observed by the High Court would not be a criminal act,” the bench observed.
It added that the contractor entrusted with the construction work could, at the most, be prima facie guilty of negligence, particularly if aware that poor construction could lead to an accident.
However, the Court made it clear that the possibility of an accident arising from inferior construction did not, by itself, establish that the appellants knew that such construction was likely to cause the death of a student.
The bench consequently held that the allegations did not disclose a voluntary commission of an offence against a person.
Court Examines Whether Negligence Was the Direct Cause of Death
The Supreme Court also considered the applicability of Section 304A IPC, explaining that the prosecution must establish a direct connection between the accused’s rash or negligent act and the death.
The act in question must be the proximate and efficient cause of the fatal outcome, without the intervention of another person’s negligence.
For this purpose, the bench referred to the principles laid down in Sushil Ansal v. State through CBI and Kurban Hussein Mohamedalli Rangawalla v. State of Maharashtra, particularly in relation to the concept of causa causans — the immediate and effective cause of an event.
Applying these principles, the Court concluded that the criminal proceedings against the school officials could not be sustained.
The Supreme Court accordingly allowed their appeal and quashed the case, overturning the Bombay High Court’s order refusing to interfere with the prosecution.