P. A. Inmadar And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

CNR No : HCBM010191172016

23. CRI APL 493-16 568-16 569-16 & 975-16.odt
Amberkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 493 OF 2016
P.A. Inamdar & Ors. .. Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 568 OF 2016
Samruddhi S. Sawant & Ors. .. Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 569 OF 2016
Marathe Nameeta Prabhakar & Ors. .. Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 975 OF 2016
Shakila Abdul Wahab Siddavatm & Ors. .. Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents
....................

Mr. Niranjan Mundargi a/w Ms. Keral Mehta, Advocates for
Applicants in APL No.493/2016

Mr. Sidheshwar Biradar a/w Mr. Dinesh .R. Shinde & Mr. Omhari B.
Fawade, Advocates for Applicants in APL Nos.568/2016, 569/2016
& 975/2016.

Ms. Rajeshree V. Newton, APP for Respondent No. 1 - State.

Mr. Abhishek Pungliya, Advocate for Respondent No. 2 in all four
Applications.

Mr. Tausif Sayyed, API, Murud Police Station, Raigad present.
................…
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : OCTOBER 22, 2026
of 37
1
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 11:52:25

23. CRI APL 493-16 568-16 569-16 & 975-16.odt
JUDGEMENT :
1. Heard Mr. Mundargi, learned Advocate for Applicants in
Application No.493 of 2016; Mr. Biradar, learned Advocates for
Applicants in Application Nos.568 of 2016, 569 of 2016 and 975 of
2016; Ms. Newton, learned APP for Respondent No.1 - State and Mr.
Pungliya, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 in all four
Applications.
2. All four Applications are filed under Section 482 of Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash and set aside First
Information Report No.24 of 2016 dated 19.04.2016 registered at
Murud Police Station, Raigad, under Sections 304A and 34 of Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) against Applicant.
3. Briefly stated, in Application No.493 of 2016, Applicant
Nos.1 to 5 are office bearers of a public trust namely Maharashtra
Cosmopolitan Education Society, Pune, which runs a college namely
Abeda Inamdar Senior College of Arts, Science and Commerce, Pune,
of which Applicant No.6 was the in-charge Principal during the
relevant time. Applicants in Application Nos.568 of 2016, 569 of 2016
and 975 of 2016 are Assistant Professors, peons and lab assistant who
were employees of the college at the time of incident. Respondent
of 37
2
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 11:52:25

23. CRI APL 493-16 568-16 569-16 & 975-16.odt
No.1 is State and Respondent No.2 – Complaintant is the father of one
of the deceased students.
3.1. On 01.02.2016, College arranged a picnic to Murud
beach, Raigad and 116 students alongwith faculty and staff members
went for the picnic. 41 students of the Third Year batch went to the
beach at around 3:30 to 4:00 pm and ventured into the sea water for
some fun and frolic. Unfortunately, around 20-22 students got swept
away in the under current of the sea water. One of the student with
the help of local persons managed to rescue about 6 students, however
14 students including the student who was rescued them, lost their
lives in the unfortunate incident. After initial enquiry under ADR
No.04 of 2016, around 80 days thereafter FIR No.24 of 2016 was
registered with Murud Police Station against 17 accused persons i.e.
Applicants representing the college in all four Applications.
4. Mr. Mundargi, learned Advocate for Applicants in
Application No.493 of 2016 would submit that Applicants are trustees
of the trust which runs the Abeda Inamdar Senior College of Arts,
Science and Commerce, and vicarious liability cannot be foisted to
prosecute them for the alleged offence. He would submit that
ingredients of the offence under Section 304A IPC are not at all
attracted in view of a catena of decisions of this Court and Supreme
of 37
3
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 11:52:25

23. CRI APL 493-16 568-16 569-16 & 975-16.odt
Court in similarly placed cases for holding them responsible for the
unfortunate incident.
4.1. He would submit that the college authorities had obtained
No Objection Certificates from the parents of all students who
consented to go on the picnic. He has referred to and relied upon the
decision of the Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana and Ors. Vs.
1
Bhajan Lal and submit that the facts in the present case are squarely
covered by illustration Nos. (1), (2) and (3) concluded by the Court in
paragraph No.102 of this decision for enabling the Court to quash the
present criminal proceedings in the facts and circumstances of the
instant case. He would submit that Applicants cannot be subjected to
the harassment of facing criminal prosecution for no fault on their
part, hence the FIR be quashed and set aside.
5. Mr. Biradar, learned Advocate for Applicants in
Application Nos.568 of 2016, 569 of 2016 and 975 of 2016 would
submit that all Applicants were faculty members and employees of the
College who had accompanied the First, Second and Third year of
Computer Science stream students for the picnic and travelled in three
separate buses to Murud beach. He would submit that on the same
day, all Applicants along with students were expected to return safely.
1 1992 AIR 604
of 37
4
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 11:52:25

23. CRI APL 493-16 568-16 569-16 & 975-16.odt
5.1. He would submit that Applicants in Application No.568 of
2016 undertook supervision of 45 students of Second Year B.Sc.
(Computer Science) for the picnic and travelled in separate bus to
Murud beach. He would submit that Applicants in Application No.569
of 2016 took 26 students of the First Year B.Sc. (Computer Science)
and they also travelled in a separate bus to Murud beach. He would
submit that on the same day, Applicants alongwith students of the First
and Second year returned back safely.
5.2. He would submit that the Applicants in Application Nos.
568 of 2016 and 569 of 2016 were the teachers responsible for
supervising the First Year and Second Year students. However, the
Third-Year students who unfortunately met with the accident were not
under their supervision and therefore the Applicants cannot be held
responsible for the incident. He would submit that Applicants in
Application No.975 of 2016 had taken 41 students of Third Year B.Sc.
(Computer Science) to picnic and travelled in a separate bus to Murud
beach. He would submit that all 14 students who unfortunately
demised by drowning were from the Third Year B.Sc. (Computer
Science) stream.
5.3. He would submit that all Applicants had taken sufficient
care as much they could take and there cannot be vicarious liability
imposed against Applicants in Application Nos.568 of 2016, 569 of
of 37
5
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 11:52:25

23. CRI APL 493-16 568-16 569-16 & 975-16.odt
2016 and 975 of 2016 to prosecute them for the above offence. He
would submit that after the alleged incident, Murud Police Station
carried out a detailed enquiry under ADR No.4 of 2016 and post such
enquiry filed FIR against Applicants which is nothing but a misuse of
the judicial system for no fault of Applicants. Therefore, he would
submit that said FIR accusing the Applicants including those whom he
represents be quashed and set aside.
6. PER CONTRA , Ms. Newton, learned APP appearing for
Respondent No. 1 – State in all four applications would submit that
death of daughter of Respondent No.2 as well as the 13 others was a
direct cause of negligence of Applicants who are directly responsible
for ensuring the safety of students who went for the picnic to Murud
beach through the College. She would submit that Applicants ought to
have taken all required precautionary measures before conducting
such a trip at places especially when large number of students
participate in the picnic, and where they have knowledge that chances
of life threatening accidents cannot be denied / averted.
6.1. She would submit that despite all students being major
but emerging adults, it was the responsibility of the college who
organised the said picnic to have ensured safety of all students. She
would submit that Applicants cannot deny their responsibility towards
their college students for whom they were responsible as faculty and
of 37
6
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 11:52:25

23. CRI APL 493-16 568-16 569-16 & 975-16.odt
supervisors for the picnic at the beach where the students ventured
into the sea and lost their lives. She would submit that Applicants
were liable to ensure students’ safety and ought to have prevented
them from venturing into the sea and therefore Applicants are at direct
fault.
6.2. She would submit that all Applicants failed to be vigilant
when they had taken such a large contingent of students for the picnic
where there were no safety signals or warnings for students indicating
safe swimming zone and they did not discourage them from going
beyond the line of safety. She would submit that presence of one of the
Applicants on behalf of the Trust at the place of incident could have
enabled them to take quick rescue actions and could have led to save
more lives. Therefore, she would submit that negligence on their part
is absolute, and hence, the applications seeking quashing of the
offence be dismissed.
7. Mr. Pungliya, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2 -
Complainant in all four Applications would submit that contents of
investigation report with respect to testimony of Ms. Kazi – the
survivor student is inconsistent with her Affidavit dated 27.01.2017.
He would submit that the date/day of the beach trip was unilaterally
changed by the said college which significantly contributed to causing
death by drowning. He would submit that students were not warned
of 37
7
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 11:52:25

23. CRI APL 493-16 568-16 569-16 & 975-16.odt
by Applicants about the dangerous part of Murud beach where they
got swept away due to under water sea current which clearly exhibits
negligence on their part.
7.1. He would submit that Applicants erred in allowing the
contingent of 116 students to go for picnic to a beach without a single
doctor and without a single member who could swim in sea water. He
would submit that none of the staff members / Applicants were even
present on Murud beach at the time of the incident and instead chose
to rest in a hotel 500 meters away from the beach which prima facie
contributes to their negligence.
7.2. He would submit that Applicant No.1 (Trustee and HOD
of Computer Science) and Applicant No.6 (in-charge Principal of
college) were directly involved in planning and execution of the picnic
to the beach comprising of such a large contingent of 116 students.
Therefore, he would submit that Applicants cannot escape
responsibility for their role and criminal negligence in causing death of
students especially when separate additional charges were collected
from each student for participating in the picnic by the Institution.
7.3. He would submit that in view of the aforesaid facts and
findings of the Savitribai Phule Pune University’s report dated
23.06.2016 in respect of multiple gross violations of the UGC
of 37
8
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 11:52:25

23. CRI APL 493-16 568-16 569-16 & 975-16.odt
Guidelines on safety of students on and off campus and criminal
negligence on the part of all Applicants, they need to be investigated
in a full trial. He would submit that Respondent No.2 / Complainant
be allowed to make his submissions before learned Magistrate on the
contents and conclusions of chargesheet after its filing and in that
view of the case, present applications be dismissed.
8. I have heard the learned Advocates appearing for the
respective parties and with their able assistance perused the record of
the case. Submissions made by learned Advocates at the bar have
received due consideration of the Court.
9. Though admittedly a very traumatizing and unforgettable
incident has occurred causing severe suffering to the Complainant and
all parents of deceased students which undoubtedly cannot be
reversed by any of the parties before Court by any means. It is seen
that insofar as Applicants (office bearers of the Trust and Secretary) in
Application No.493 of 2016 are concerned, they cannot be held liable
for the said offence, as facts of the case do not attract the provisions of
Section 304A of IPC . Section 304A reads thus:
304A. Causing death by negligence.- 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.”
of 37
9
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 11:52:25

23. CRI APL 493-16 568-16 569-16 & 975-16.odt
9.1. It is seen that these Applicants in Application No.493 of
2016 were not even present at the time and venue of the picnic along
with other Applicants who accompanied the students on the College
picnic to the beach. These Applicants cannot be held liable for the
death of 14 students because according to Section 304A, any rash or
negligent act on part of Applicants in Application No.493 of 2016 has
not been or cannot be prima facie established. It is seen that there is
no material on record to establish negligence on the part of these
Applicants having a direct/proximate connection or role attributable to
causing death of the 14 students by drowning in the unfortunate
incident.
10. Insofar as Applicants in Application Nos.568 of 2016 and
569 of 2016 are concerned, they were accompanying the students of
the first and second year stream and returned back safety. Hence even
they cannot be held liable for negligence towards the unfortunate
incident in which the the third year students of B.Sc. Computer
Science met with the accident. It is seen that Applicants in Application
Nos.568 of 2016 and 569 of 2016 accompanied the first and second
year Computer Science stream students and were always with them
and therefore considering the role attributed to them which is
undisputed, they cannot be held liable merely because they belonged
of 37
10
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 11:52:25

23. CRI APL 493-16 568-16 569-16 & 975-16.odt
to the same college or same department and went alongwith students
to the picnic.
11. Insofar as Applicants in Application No.975 of 2016 are
concerned, they were the faculty / College members who accompanied
the 41 students of the third Year B.Sc. (Computer Science) out of
which 14 students drowned in the unfortunate incident. It is seen that
to hold these Applicants supervising the third year students liable for
rash or negligent act, it is therefore pertinent to establish that death of
the students caused due to drowning was a direct result or
consequence of these Applicants negligent act.
12. It is seen that s tudents pursuing their third year B.Sc.
being mature and possessing a reasonable degree of life experience,
can reasonably be expected to understand the distinction between
right and wrong and to appreciate the likely consequences of their
own actions and conduct. It is seen that it was in this context that
these Applicants accompanying them permitted them to enjoy the fun
and frolic on the beach. The resting place hotel was at a distance of
500 meters from the beach. All 41 students of the third year batch
ventured into the sea water, but 20 out of them got swept away in the
water current, out of which 6 were saved, but the other students could
not be saved. However, in these circumstances it is seen that
unfortunately the death of 14 students by drowning was an accident
of 37
11
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 11:52:25

23. CRI APL 493-16 568-16 569-16 & 975-16.odt
and in the absence of any incriminating material establishing a direct
or proximate connection with any negligent act leading to the deaths
by drowning, liability or criminal act cannot be attributed to
negligence on their part .
13. Therefore it is seen that the causa causans of the death of
the 14 students was their drowning in the seawater and not due to any
overt negligent act or negligence on the part of Applicants. It is seen
that the incident was, in the circumstances, an unfortunate mishap
and accident and cannot be attributed to any proximate or efficient
cause arising from the alleged negligence of these Applicants. It is seen
that in this context, the contention advanced by Mr. Pungliya that the
change in the date of the picnic significantly contributed to the
incident does not appear to be sustainable.
14. Before I part with this judgment, there is one larger
question which I deem it necessary to address in the larger interest of
the Society at large and more specifically because of applicability of
the prevalent statute in such cases in today’s times. There is also a
distinction required to be drawn where such mishaps or accidents
occur due to negligence and vicarious liability. When there is loss of
human life it is a very sad thing, loss of human life can be in any form.
Here is a case where 14 out of 41 students who were all major i.e.
above 18 years of age lost their lives due to drowning on a public
of 37
12
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 11:52:25

23. CRI APL 493-16 568-16 569-16 & 975-16.odt
beach which is generally open to the public at large. It is infact a very
popular beach. The students in the instant case had gone on a college
picnic. In the same vein, day in and day out, we come across hordes of
people indulging in fun and frolic by venturing into the sea water at
public beaches. In the event of a mishap with regard to a private party,
the law does not envisage filing a criminal case for negligence against
the parents or the persons with whom the victims come to enjoy the
fun and frolic and venture out into the sea. Though the law relating to
Section 304A of IPC is fairly well settled, the concept of vicarious
liability especially in such cases where the victims are major i.e. above
18 years of age, there is no precedent.
15. A majority of cases which lay down the law of negligence
and vicarious liability pertain to similar instances but of minors and
therefore in that factual situation there is a much higher degree of
supervision that is called for. However in the case of students who are
major and above 18 years of age and that too in a public place and
public beach, in my opinion, in the absence of mens rea it would be a
case of simple accident. The question that would then arise is about
fixing negligence and on whom. The reason I am impelled to deal with
this issue is because I have come across no precedent in this regard,
and I consider it the duty of the Court to explore an area where there
is a clear legal vacuum. This is because it is common for colleges and
of 37
13
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 11:52:25

23. CRI APL 493-16 568-16 569-16 & 975-16.odt
schools to arrange outdoor picnics and excursions to water parks,
waterfalls, public beaches, resorts, as a part of development of the
students which is focused on team development, team building, skill
development, for balanced structured growth and as a part of studies.
16. Many schools and colleges organize such picnics, outdoor
activities, treks to various places as a part of all round development for
their students. When the students are minor, a higher degree of
caution and supervision is called for especially when they venture into
the swimming pool or seawater or river water or lake water. It is
generally seen that some of the teachers along with professional picnic
organizers accompany the students especially when school trips are
organized. However, that is not the case when college trips are
organized. Considering the age of the students in college, generally it
is observed that some teachers accompany them as supervisors, but
not in a strict sense.
17. Undoubtedly, the management of the education
institution or the trustees of the Trust which operates the school do not
accompany them. They generally call for a "No Objection Form" or
"Consent Form" required to be signed by both parents to absolve any
liability to the Institution in case of mishap. The present case is a
classic example of such an instance. In the instant case, students of
First Year, Second Year and Third Year went for a picnic in 3 buses -
of 37
14
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 11:52:25

23. CRI APL 493-16 568-16 569-16 & 975-16.odt
one each for the respective years. The First Year students were
accompanied by 2 teachers, Second Year students were accompanied
by 2 teachers and similarly Third Year students were accompanied by
2 teachers. Some other employees of the College also accompanied
them. All three batches travelled in different buses though the picnic
place was common. At about 3:45 p.m., after lunch, all students of the
Third Year batch decided to revisit the beach, which was situated at
some distance from the venue where they had lunch. This was their
second visit to the beach on that day, and they accordingly proceeded
after taking permission from the 2 teachers who accompanied them.
Incidentally, both the teachers who had come along with them did not
go with them but rested themselves. It is seen that all 41 students
ventured into the sea out of whom unfortunately 14 students were
swept away and lost their lives.
18. In these facts the prosecution has invoked vicarious
liability against not only the two teachers who were accompanying the
Third Year students for the picnic who did not accompany them to the
beach in the post afternoon session but also against those teachers
who had accompanied the First Year and Second Year students and
the trustees of the Trust which operates the college in which the
students were studying.
of 37
15
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 11:52:25

23. CRI APL 493-16 568-16 569-16 & 975-16.odt
19. The question which begs an answer is whether vicarious
liability can be imposed and invoked against the Management of the
school and / or trustees of the Trust operating the school and / or
other teachers who were not directly responsible or even against the 2
teachers accompanying these 41 students in such a case. Before I
answer this question, we need to understand as to how the provisions
relating to Section 304A of IPC have been received by the Court. The
earliest of the decisions that is available in this regard is the case of
2
Emperor vs. Omkar Rampratap wherein while interpreting Section
304A of IPC, Sir Lawrence Jenkins observed as follows:-
"To impose criminal liability under Section 304-A Indian
Penal Code, it is necessary that the death should have been the
direct result of a rash and negligent act of the accused, and that
act must be the proximate and efficient cause without the
intervention of another's negligence. It must be the cause
causans; it is not enough that it may have been the cause sine
qua non."
19.1. The aforesaid view has been generally followed by the
High Courts in India. In the case of Kurban Hussein MohamedAlli
3
Rangawalla Vs. State of Maharashtra the Supreme Court had an
occasion to deal with interpretation of Section 304A of IPC but in a
different context namely related to a negligent act causing fire in a
factory and leading to death of 7 workmen by burning. The
interpretation of Section 304A qua any rash or negligent act causing
2 1902 4 Bom LR 679
3 1964 SCC OnLine SC 162
of 37
16
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 11:52:25

23. CRI APL 493-16 568-16 569-16 & 975-16.odt
death was held to be in the context it being direct or proximate result
nd
of such an act and while quoting Sir Lawrence Jenkins in Emperor (2
supra) the Supreme Court expanded the scope of Section 304A to
include intervention of another person’s negligence while acquitting
the Appellant therein who was the manager and working partner of
the factory where the fire had occurred.
20. I n the case of M.S. Grewal and Anr. Vs. Deep Chand Sood
4
and Ors. the Supreme Court dealt with a matter involving minor
children who had been taken by their school on an outdoor picnic near
a river and who, accompanied by two teachers, ventured some
distance downstream. The teachers discovered that the river was about
6 to 8 feet deep and all of them fell into the same. In that case the
teachers could save themselves but 14 minor students lost their lives
by drowning and a Commission of inquiry was set up. Though the
aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court predominantly dealt with the
question of compensation or damages and the assessment thereof, it
also did examine important legal principles relating to negligence and
vicarious liability which are relevant to the case at hand. More
importantly, it considered whether a school could be absolved of its
responsibility and corresponding liability in respect of an incident such
as the one in question; whether the school could be regarded as a joint
4 (2001) 8 SCC 151
of 37
17
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 11:52:25

23. CRI APL 493-16 568-16 569-16 & 975-16.odt
tortfeasor; and whether it could be held liable for an incident that
occurred beyond the school premises.
21. I am conscious of the fact that the aforesaid decision
concerned school children who were minors. The decision is referred
to herein only for the purpose of placing on record the aforementioned
legal principles as enunciated by the Supreme Court. It is pertinent to
note, however, that the Supreme Court left open the question of
whether the school authorities could be regarded as joint tortfeasors.
Nevertheless, while delineating the scope of negligence and vicarious
liability under common law in paragraph Nos. 14 to 17, and while
explaining the doctrine of vicarious liability in paragraph Nos. 18 to
24, the Supreme Court held as under:-
Paragraph Nos. 14 to 17 with respect to negligence are reproduced hereunder:-
"14. Negligence in common parlance means and implies “failure
to exercise due care, expected of a reasonable prudent person”.
It is a breach of duty and negligence in law ranging from
inadvertence to shameful disregard of the safety of others. In
most instances, it is caused by heedlessness or inadvertence, by
which the negligent party is unaware of the results which may
follow from his act. Negligence is thus a breach of duty or lack
of proper care in doing something, in short, it is want of
attention and doing of something which a prudent and a
reasonable man would not do (vide Black's Law Dictionary).
Though sometimes the word “inadvertence” stands and is used
as a synonym to negligence, but in effect negligence represents a
state of the mind which, however, is much serious in nature than
mere inadvertence. There is thus existing a differentiation
between the two expressions — whereas inadvertence is a
milder form of negligence, “negligence” by itself means and
implies a state of mind where there is no regard for duty or the
of 37
18
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 11:52:25

23. CRI APL 493-16 568-16 569-16 & 975-16.odt
supposed care and attention which one ought to bestow. Clerk
and Lindsell on Torts (18th Edn.) sets out four several
requirements of the tort of negligence and the same read as
below:
“(1) The existence in law of a duty of care situation
i.e. one in which the law attaches liability to
carelessness. There has to be recognition by law that
the careless infliction of the kind of damage in suit
on the class of person to which the claimant belongs
by the class of person to which the defendant
belongs is actionable.
(2) Breach of the duty of care by the defendant i.e.
that it failed to measure up to the standard set by
law.
(3) A causal connection between the defendant's
careless conduct and the damage.
(4) That the particular kind of damage to the
particular claimant is not so unforeseeable as to be
too remote."
15. While the parent owes his child a duty of care in relation to
the child's physical security, a teacher in a school is expected to
show such care towards a child under his charge as would be
exercised by a reasonably careful parent. In this context,
reference may be made to a decision of Tucker, J. in Ricketts v.
Erith Borough Council [(1943) 2 All ER 629 : 113 LJKB 269 :
169 LT 396] as also the decision of the Court of Appeal in Prince
v. Gregory [(1959) 1 WLR 177 : (1959) 1 All ER 133 (CA)] .
16. Duty of care varies from situation to situation — whereas it
would be the duty of the teacher to supervise the children in the
playground but the supervision, as the children leave the
school, may not be required in the same degree as is in the
playfield. While it is true that if the students are taken to
another school building for participation in certain games, it is
sufficient exercise of diligence to know that the premises are
otherwise safe and secure but undoubtedly if the students are
taken out to a playground near a river for fun and a swim, the
degree of care required stands at a much higher degree and no
deviation therefrom can be had on any count whatsoever. Mere
satisfaction that the river is otherwise safe for a swim by reason
of popular sayings will not be a sufficient compliance. As a
matter of fact the degree of care required to be taken, especially
of 37
19
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 11:52:25

23. CRI APL 493-16 568-16 569-16 & 975-16.odt
against the minor children, stands at a much higher level than
adults: children need much stricter care.
17. Incidentally, negligence is an independent tort and has its
own strict elements especially in the matter of children — the
liability is thus absolute vis-à-vis the children. The school
authorities in the contextual facts attributed negligence to the
two teachers who stand convicted under Section 304-A of the
Penal Code, 1860 as noticed above and Mr Bahuguna appearing
in support of the appeal during the course of hearing, however,
also in no uncertain terms attributed utter negligence on the
part of the teachers and thus conceded on the issue of
negligence. Concession, if any, as noticed above, though
undoubtedly a good gesture on the part of the school
authorities, but can the School be absolved of its responsibility
and corresponding culpability in regard to the incident: would
they be termed to be a joint tortfeasor or would it be a defence
that the School had taken all due care having regard to its duty
and it is irrespective thereof, by reason of utter neglect and
callous conduct on the part of two of the teachers escorting
them that had caused the injury — Mr Bahuguna contended
that the school cannot be made liable under any stretch of
imagination by reason of the happening of an event which is
not within the school premises and has, in fact, happened by
reason of the neglect of two of the teachers. It is on this score
that Mr Malhotra rather emphatically contended that the
liability cannot simply be obliterated by reason of plea of utter
neglect on the part of two of the teachers: the School concerned
can be said to be liable even as a joint tortfeasor and in any
event, Mr Malhotra contended that applicability of the doctrine
of vicarious liability cannot be doubted or be brushed aside in
any way whatsoever and since the issue of vicarious liability has
been more emphatic and pronounced than the issue of joint
tortfeasor, we deem it expedient to deal with the second of the
twin issues first as noticed above.
Paragraph Nos. 18 to 24 on Vicarious Liability are reproduced hereunder:-
18. Be it noted that the doctrine of “vicarious liability” has had
a fair amount of judicial attention in the English courts. By the
end of the 18th century, the idea began to grow that some
special importance ought to be attached to the relationship of
master and servant and in 1849 it was officially held that
existence of that relationship was essential. Thereafter, though
primary liability on the part of anyone could be established on
of 37
20
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 11:52:25

23. CRI APL 493-16 568-16 569-16 & 975-16.odt
proof of direct participation in the tort, such direct participation
was not even theoretically required to make a master liable for
his servant's torts. The liability is derived from the relationship
and is truly vicarious. At the same time, the phrase “implied
authority” which had been the cornerstone of the master's
primary liability gives way gradually to the modern “course of
employment” (vide Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort, 15th Edn.).
19. In recent years, the tendency has been however, towards
more liberal protection of the third party and so in establishing a
particular “course of employment” the court should not dissect
the employee's basic task into component parts but should ask in
a general sense: what was the job at which he was engaged for
his employer? And it is on this perspective Lord Wilberforce in
Kooragang Investments Pty. Ltd. v. Richardson & Wrench Ltd.
[1982 AC 462 : (1981) 3 All ER 65 (PC)] stated:(All ER p.69a-e)
“Negligence is a method of performing an act:
instead of it being done carefully, it is done
negligently. So liability for negligent acts in the
course of employment is clear. Cases of fraud present
at first sight more difficulty, for if fraudulent acts are
not directly forbidden, most relationships would
carry an implied prohibition against them. If
committed for the benefit of the employer and while
doing his business, principle and logic demand that
the employer should be held liable, and for some
time the law rested at this point. The classic
judgment of Willes, J. in Barwick v. English Joint
Stock Bank [(1867) LR 2 Exch 259 : 36 LJ Ex 147 :
16 LT 461] Exch at p. 266 stated the principle thus:
‘In all these cases it may be said … that the
master has not authorized the act. It is true, he has
not authorized the particular act, but he has put the
agent in his place to do that class of acts, and he
must be answerable for the manner in which the
agent has conducted himself in doing the business
which it was the act of his master to place him in.’
That was a case where the wrong was committed
for the master's (viz. the bank's) benefit, and Willes,
J. stated this as an ingredient of liability (Exch at p.
265):
‘… the master is answerable for every such
wrong of the servant or agent as is committed in the
course of the service and for the master's benefit,
of 37
21
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 11:52:25

23. CRI APL 493-16 568-16 569-16 & 975-16.odt
though no express command or privity of the master
be proved.’ ...”
20. But a sharp distinction has been made as regards the group
of cases which is concerned with the use of motor vehicles.
These are the cases, Lord Wilberforce observed: (All ER p.70a-c)
“(i) where a servant has, without authority,
permitted another person to drive the master's
vehicle, (ii) where a servant has, without authority,
invited another person on to the vehicle, who
suffers injury, (iii) where a servant has embarked on
an unauthorised detour, or, as lawyers like to call it,
a ‘frolic of his own’.
These cases have given rise to a number of fine
distinctions, the courts in some cases struggling to
find liability, in others to avoid it, which it is not
profitable here to examine. It remains true to say
that, whatever exceptions or qualifications may be
introduced, the underlying principle remains that a
servant, even while performing acts of the class
which he was authorised, or employed, to do, may
so clearly depart from the scope of his employment
that his master will not be liable for his wrongful
acts.”
21. The English law, therefore, takes a softer attitude in cases
where motor vehicles are involved in the matter of foisting of
liability so far as the employer is concerned — the reason
obviously being that if the employee concerned acts in a manner
contrary to the course of employment and on a “frolic of his
own”, why should the employer be made responsible? It seems
logical — but obviously there are cases and cases on the basis
wherefor the liability of the employer ought to be fixed. The
Privy Council in Kooragang Ltd. [1982 AC 462 : (1981) 3 All ER
65 (PC)] attributed “frolic of his own” to be the exonerating
factor but this frolic has also to be considered from facts to facts
in the matter of foisting of liability on to the employer. In any
event, we need not devote much of our time to the excepted
cases, since we have in this country several legislations covering
the “excepted categories”. The recognition of broader approach,
however, stands undisputed and has also our concurrence
herewith.
of 37
22
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 11:52:25

23. CRI APL 493-16 568-16 569-16 & 975-16.odt
22. Significantly, however, Mr Malhotra with all the
emphasis at his command and rather strongly commented upon
the submissions of Mr Bahuguna on the issue of award of
compensation by reason of specific legislations in the country —
in particular reference to the Motor Vehicles Act and on a
conjoint reading of the Second Schedule thereto, Mr Malhotra
contended that the quantum would be far in excess of the
amount awarded by the High Court — submissions seem to be
rather attractive: the Motor Vehicles Act and the Second
Schedule thereto cannot but be treated to be a guide in the
matter of award of compensation and there cannot possibly be
any doubt in regard thereto. We shall, however, be dealing with
the issue slightly later in this judgment.
23. Turning attention, however, on to the issue of
vicarious liability, one redeeming feature that ought to be
noticed at this juncture is that to escort the children was the
duty assigned to the two teachers and till such time thus the
period of escorting stands over, one cannot but ascribe it to be
in the course of employment — the two teachers were assigned
to escort the students: the reason obviously being — the
children should otherwise be safe and secure and it is the act of
utter negligence of the two teachers which has resulted in this
unfortunate tragedy and thus it is no gainsaying that the
teachers were on their own frolic and the School had done all
that was possible to be done in the matter — safety of the
children obviously was of prime concern so far as the school
authorities are concerned and till such time the children
returned to school, safe and secure after the picnic, the course
of employment, in our view continued and thus resultantly, the
liability of the School.
24. A profitable recapitulation of facts depicts that the criminal
court has already found both the teachers guilty of utter
negligence and convicted them under Section 304-AIPC (which
provides that whoever causes the death of any person by doing
any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide
shall be punished with…). We are not inclined to record
anything contra, save what stands recorded by the District
Court in the criminal proceeding but we are constrained to
record our anguish over the conduct of the teachers escorting
the students — even a simple rule of discipline and safety
would have prompted the teachers not only not to go to the
river where they went but nowhere near the river ought to have
been the guiding factor — children are children, fun and frolic
stand ingrained in them and it is the school/teachers deputed
for escorting who ought to be reasonably careful since entrusted
of 37
23
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 11:52:25

23. CRI APL 493-16 568-16 569-16 & 975-16.odt
with the safety — this entrustment ought to have infused a
sense of duty which should have prompted them to act not in
the manner as they have so acted.”
22. The aforementioned principles enunciated by the
Supreme Court qua negligence and vicarious liabilities apply to the
present case also. Supreme Court holds that the distinction is that the
degree of care required to be taken especially in case of minor children
stands at a much higher level than adults. On the issue of vicarious
liability, Supreme Court held that the tendency over the years has been
however towards more liberal protection of the third party and in so
establishing a particular course of employment, the Court should not
dissect employee’s basic task into component parts but should ask in a
general sense what was the job at which he was engaged for his
employer. The reason for quoting the aforementioned passage is only
to drive home the point that the distinction will have to be now made
when the victims are adults and take their decisions on their own
which leads to a fatal mishap. In such a situation can vicarious liability
be foisted on the College or for that matter on the family members of
the victims if they are on a private visit and a mishap occurs.
23. Another issue which begs attention is that if vicarious
liability is to be fixed then it is also an equal responsibility of the State
Government to ensure that all public beaches have adequate signage,
warnings facilities to warn public venturing into the sea water for fun
of 37
24
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 11:52:25

23. CRI APL 493-16 568-16 569-16 & 975-16.odt
and frolic. In such a scenario, vicarious liability cannot only be
directed towards the teachers, management or the educational
institution and the trustees of the Trust running the institution when
the mishap occurs in a public place and in anticipation of the degree of
difficulty envisaged in such cases. It is the responsibility of the
Government equally to provide safety measures and correspondingly
to be held responsible vicariously.
24. In a subsequent case of Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab
5
and Anr. which pertains essentially to medical negligence, the
Supreme Court addressed the jurisprudential concept of negligence as
acceptable to Indian jurisprudential thought and defined it to involve
3 constituents of negligence namely, (i) legal duty to exercise due care
on the part of the party complained of towards the party complaining
the foremost conduct within the scope of the duty (ii) breach of the
said duty and (iii) consequential damage. In paragraph Nos. 10 to 17
and 48(1) while defining negligence as a tort, the Supreme Court held
as under:-
"10. The jurisprudential concept of negligence defies any
precise definition. Eminent jurists and leading judgments have
assigned various meanings to negligence. The concept as has
been acceptable to Indian jurisprudential thought is well stated
in the Law of Torts, Ratanlal & Dhirajlal (24th Edn., 2002,
edited by Justice G.P. Singh). It is stated (at pp. 441-42):
“Negligence is the breach of a duty caused by the
omission to do something which a reasonable man,
guided by those considerations which ordinarily
5 (2005) 6 SCC 1
of 37
25
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 11:52:25

23. CRI APL 493-16 568-16 569-16 & 975-16.odt
regulate the conduct of human affairs would do, or
doing something which a prudent and reasonable
man would not do. Actionable negligence consists in
the neglect of the use of ordinary care or skill
towards a person to whom the defendant owes the
duty of observing ordinary care and skill, by which
neglect the plaintiff has suffered injury to his person
or property. … the definition involves three
constituents of negligence: (1) A legal duty to
exercise due care on the part of the party
complained of towards the party complaining the
former's conduct within the scope of the duty; (2)
breach of the said duty; and (3) consequential
damage. Cause of action for negligence arises only
when damage occurs; for, damage is a necessary
ingredient of this tort.”
11. According to Charlesworth & Percy on Negligence
(10th Edn., 2001), in current forensic speech, negligence has
three meanings. They are: (i) a state of mind, in which it is
opposed to intention; (ii) careless conduct; and (iii) the breach
of a duty to take care that is imposed by either common or
statute law. All three meanings are applicable in different
circumstances but any one of them does not necessarily exclude
the other meanings. (para 1.01) The essential components of
negligence, as recognised, are three: “duty”, “breach” and
“resulting damage”, that is to say:
(1) the existence of a duty to take care, which is
owed by the defendant to the complainant;
(2) the failure to attain that standard of care,
prescribed by the law, thereby committing a breach
of such duty; and
(3) damage, which is both causally connected with
such breach and recognised by the law, has been
suffered by the complainant. (para 1.23)
If the claimant satisfies the court on the evidence that these
three ingredients are made out, the defendant should be held
liable in negligence. (para 1.24)
12. The term “negligence” is used for the purpose of
fastening the defendant with liability under the civil law and, at
times, under the criminal law. It is contended on behalf of the
respondents that in both the jurisdictions, negligence is
negligence, and jurisprudentially no distinction can be drawn
of 37
26
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 11:52:25

23. CRI APL 493-16 568-16 569-16 & 975-16.odt
between negligence under civil law and negligence under
criminal law. The submission so made cannot be countenanced
inasmuch as it is based upon a total departure from the
established terrain of thought running ever since the beginning
of the emergence of the concept of negligence up to the modern
times. Generally speaking, it is the amount of damages incurred
which is determinative of the extent of liability in tort; but in
criminal law it is not the amount of damages but the amount
and degree of negligence that is determinative of liability. To
fasten liability in criminal law, the degree of negligence has to
be higher than that of negligence enough to fasten liability for
damages in civil law. The essential ingredient of mens rea
cannot be excluded from consideration when the charge in a
criminal court consists of criminal negligence. In R. v. Lawrence
[(1981) 1 All ER 974 : 1982 AC 510 : (1981) 2 WLR 524 (HL)]
Lord Diplock spoke in a Bench of five and the other Law Lords
agreed with him. He reiterated his opinion in R. v. Caldwell
[(1981) 1 All ER 961 : 1982 AC 341 : (1981) 2 WLR 509 (HL)]
and dealt with the concept of recklessness as constituting mens
rea in criminal law. His Lordship warned against adopting the
simplistic approach of treating all problems of criminal liability
as soluble by classifying the test of liability as being “subjective”
or “objective”, and said: (All ER p. 982e-f)
“Recklessness on the part of the doer of an act
does presuppose that there is something in the
circumstances that would have drawn the attention
of an ordinary prudent individual to the possibility
that his act was capable of causing the kind of
serious harmful consequences that the section which
creates the offence was intended to prevent, and
that the risk of those harmful consequences
occurring was not so slight that an ordinary prudent
individual would feel justified in treating them as
negligible. It is only when this is so that the doer of
the act is acting ‘recklessly’ if, before doing the act,
he either fails to give any thought to the possibility
of there being any such risk or, having recognised
that there was such risk, he nevertheless goes on to
do it.”
13. The moral culpability of recklessness is not located in a
desire to cause harm. It resides in the proximity of the reckless
state of mind to the state of mind present when there is an
intention to cause harm. There is, in other words, a disregard
for the possible consequences. The consequences entailed in the
of 37
27
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 11:52:25

23. CRI APL 493-16 568-16 569-16 & 975-16.odt
risk may not be wanted, and indeed the actor may hope that
they do not occur, but this hope nevertheless fails to inhibit the
taking of the risk. Certain types of violation, called optimising
violations, may be motivated by thrill-seeking. These are clearly
reckless.
14. In order to hold the existence of criminal rashness or
criminal negligence it shall have to be found out that the
rashness was of such a degree as to amount to taking a hazard
knowing that the hazard was of such a degree that injury was
most likely imminent. The element of criminality is introduced
by the accused having run the risk of doing such an act with
recklessness and indifference to the consequences. Lord Atkin in
his speech in Andrews v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1937
AC 576 : (1937) 2 All ER 552 (HL)] stated: (All ER p. 556 C)
“Simple lack of care such as will constitute civil
liability is not enough. For purposes of the criminal
law there are degrees of negligence, and a very high
degree of negligence is required to be proved before
the felony is established.”
Thus, a clear distinction exists between “simple lack
of care” incurring civil liability and “very high degree
of negligence” which is required in criminal cases. In
Riddell v. Reid [(1942) 2 All ER 161 : 1943 AC 1
(HL)] (AC at p. 31) Lord Porter said in his speech —
“A higher degree of negligence has always been
demanded in order to establish a criminal offence
than is sufficient to create civil liability.”
(Charlesworth & Percy, ibid., para 1.13)
15. The fore-quoted statement of law in Andrews [1937 AC
576 : (1937) 2 All ER 552 (HL)] has been noted with approval
by this Court in Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka [(1980) 1 SCC
30 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 59] . The Supreme Court has dealt with and
pointed out with reasons the distinction between negligence in
civil law and in criminal law. Their Lordships have opined that
there is a marked difference as to the effect of evidence viz. the
proof, in civil and criminal proceedings. In civil proceedings, a
mere preponderance of probability is sufficient, and the
defendant is not necessarily entitled to the benefit of every
reasonable doubt; but in criminal proceedings, the persuasion of
of 37
28
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 11:52:25

23. CRI APL 493-16 568-16 569-16 & 975-16.odt
guilt must amount to such a moral certainty as convinces the
mind of the Court, as a reasonable man, beyond all reasonable
doubt. Where negligence is an essential ingredient of the
offence, the negligence to be established by the prosecution
must be culpable or gross and not the negligence merely based
upon an error of judgment.
16. Law laid down by Straight, J. in the case of Empress of India
v. Idu Beg [ILR (1881) 3 All 776 : (1881) 1 AWN 132] has been
held good in cases and noticed in Bhalchandra Waman Pathe v.
State of Maharashtra [1968 Mah LJ 423 (SC) : 1968 ACJ 38 :
1968 MPLJ 371 (SC)] a three-Judge Bench decision of this
Court. It has been held that while negligence is an omission to
do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those
considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human
affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and
reasonable man would not do; criminal negligence is the gross
and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and
proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the
public generally or to an individual in particular, which having
regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has
arisen, it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have
adopted.
17. In our opinion, the factor of grossness or degree does
assume significance while drawing distinction in negligence
actionable in tort and negligence punishable as a crime. To be
latter, the negligence has to be gross or of a very high degree."
25. In 2019, the Karnataka High Court in the case of Melvin
6
Kumar and Ors. Vs. K.S. Harisha and Anr. dealt with the case of
drowning of a third standard student in a swimming pool while on a
school picnic to a holiday resort. In that case initially FIR was
registered 5 accused persons under Section 304A of IPC but after
investigation, chargesheet came to be laid against 11 persons wherein
Accused Nos. 1 to 8 were teachers of the said school and Accused no.9
6 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 3609
of 37
29
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 11:52:25

23. CRI APL 493-16 568-16 569-16 & 975-16.odt
was the Secretary of the said school on the ground that Accused Nos. 1
to 9 had arranged the school picnic. Accused No.10 was the employee
in charge of the swimming pool in the resort and Accused No.11 was
the manager of the said resort at the relevant time. In that case
accused persons invoked the jurisdiction of the Court under Section
482 of CrPC for quashing the chargesheet on the grounds that they did
not commit the alleged offence, there was no mens rea , and the act
was an accident and a simple case of negligence on the occupiers of
the swimming pool for which they could not be held responsible.
26. While referring to the above referred citations and also
relying on the decision of the case of Sushil Ansal Vs State through
7
Central Bureau of Investigation , Supreme Court held that basis of
negligence in civil law is conceptually different than in criminal law.
Supreme Court held that in order to constitute the offence under
Section 304A IPC, an equally important dimension of the offence that
is required to be proved by prosecution is that the act of accused
person must not only be proximate to the immediate or efficient cause
of the death of the victim but also should have been caused without
the intervention of any other person’s negligence. While relying on the
aforesaid principle and applying the ratio in the case of Melvin Kumar
th
(6 Supra), Court held that it was the duty of the occupier of the
7 (2014) 6 SCC 173
of 37
30
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 11:52:25

23. CRI APL 493-16 568-16 569-16 & 975-16.odt
resort who owed a duty to take care of the visitors or the licensees
who were allowed to use the swimming pool facilities in the resort and
therefore Petitioners therein could not be held liable.
26.1. Court held that the occupier owes the highest degree of
care wherein visitors and licensees are allowed to use the facilities and
therefore negligence could not be attributed to the teachers or
Secretary of the school in that case. If the aforesaid principle is applied
to the facts of the present case, the occupier or the person who
provides the facility in the present case would be the State
Government. If there is any degree of difficulty to a visitor meeting
with an accident in a public place for example, a public beach then in
that case it would be the State Government who would be responsible
for the accident in question for not providing adequate life saving
amenities, warnings, signages, life guards etc. on the public beach.
27. Applying the ratios of the aforesaid citations especially to
the case in hand, where all 41 students who ventured into the sea
were adults, by no stretch of imagination can their teachers, the other
teachers accompanying other students, the trustees of the Trust and
Management of the Educational Institution can be held liable and
responsible under Section 304A of IPC. Though it is true that some
degree of supervision is but expected of the teachers who accompany
of 37
31
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 11:52:25

23. CRI APL 493-16 568-16 569-16 & 975-16.odt
the students, but what is crucial is that there is no mens rea and
proximity of a negligent act as discussed hereinabove.
28. The reason for the above discussion is to create awareness
so that adequate steps are taken by the government about popular
public beaches which are most sought after preferred picnic
destinations for school and college picnics as well as all such beach
fronts visited by families and family members where people venture
into the sea water. These beaches should have regulatory mechanism
for adequately warning all such visitors about the dangers of entering
into the sea water by signages and warnings and also should employ
safety measures, rescue measures in order to avoid unfortunate
accidents leading to loss of life.
29. It is a normal and given human tendency that when a
human being visits a beach front or sea front the human being
ventures into the sea water for some fun and frolic which cannot be
curbed or prevented, but certainly, if safety measures are employed as
suggested above, it will not lead to a loss of human life as visitors will
exercise a greater degree of caution while venturing into the sea water.
For example in a given case, if a large family is enjoying a vacation at
the beach front and they all venture out into the sea water and if
unfortunately a mishap occurs, the law does not prosecute the other
family members who were accompanying the person who has lost his
of 37
32
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 11:52:25

23. CRI APL 493-16 568-16 569-16 & 975-16.odt
life merely on account of negligence on their part. Therefore I am of
the opinion that the State Government through its Ministry of Tourism
should make a blueprint of all sea water beachfronts frequented and
crowded by visitors weather it be by the general public or school /
college students and, draft and implement a uniform policy for display
of signage or warning signs at conspicuous locations along the beach
fronts as well as the approach roads leading to the beach fronts in
English and Marathi language both, warning visitors about the hazards
of venturing out into the sea water and depicting the High Tide
timings and not only this but, the State Government is also directed to
allocate and sanction funds for arranging rescue measures, appoint
lifeguards, erect protective grills, watchtowers, deploy lifeguards,
conduct regular training programs and refresher training programs for
lifeguards, demarcate safe zones for swimming, erect warning signs
and red flags during high tide, deploy of Mobile Vans and Jeeps for
patrolling beachfronts and resorting to expert agencies for assistance
to implement these measures on all beach fronts on a permanent basis
so as to avoid such unfortunate accidents in future. The
aforementioned exercise and implementation will be a progressive
step which will be beneficial to the entire public and society at large
and it showcases a sign of a progressive nation. If the aforementioned
measures are not implemented expeditiously, then the unfortunate
of 37
33
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 11:52:25

23. CRI APL 493-16 568-16 569-16 & 975-16.odt
tragedy which happened in the present case is bound to repeat itself
since there cannot be a curb on outdoor excursions for school and
college students as well as the public at large especially to beaches and
other water fronts.
30. In the present case, record shows that a Public Interest
Litigation (PIL) was revived before this Court within a fortnight of this
very incident in question. This Court expressed the view that the State
Government should consider formulating a comprehensive policy
concerning beach safety and related issues. It appears that a
Government Order concerning beach safety was issued in 2006 and
that a PIL was filed as far back as in 2010, which was revived
following the present incident. Petitioner therein suggested that an
effective warning system should be put in place to alert visitors about
high tides and other potential dangers, alongwith implementation of
appropriate preventive measures to avoid such accidents.
31. The Court also observed that it was necessary to establish
a dedicated cell to monitor the implementation of the earlier
Government Order. It was further suggested that the State
Government shall formulate appropriate measures to provide adequate
facilities and ensure the safety of visitors, particularly considering that
tourism is a major industry worldwide. The Court was assured that the
Government would formulate a new scheme and apprise the Court of
of 37
34
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 11:52:25

23. CRI APL 493-16 568-16 569-16 & 975-16.odt
the steps taken in that regard. However, it appears that the aforesaid
PIL filed in th year 2010 was disposed of on 13.11.2019 with the
Court observing that in view of several orders passed by it and the
Affidavit filed by the Government, it was satisfied that the necessary
steps had been taken and there was no assistance forth coming from
the Petitioner. Accordingly, the PIL was disposed of by order dated
13.11.2019.
32. It is pertinent to note that, very recently, 8 students from
a group comprising 46 students and teachers from a private
Educational Coaching Institution who had gone on an educational
picnic to a beach in Raigad, misjudged the high tide and the strong sea
currents, ventured into the sea and were swept away. It is unfortunate
that every time a tragedy involving the loss of multiple lives occurs, it
is followed by widespread public outcry. However, effective
implementation of safety norms and other preventive measures
continue to remain a matter of serious concern. I am of the opinion
that deployment of life guards on all beach fronts is equivalent to
appointment of firemen who are in employment of the fire brigade.
They both serve the same purpose. We cannot have a knee jerk
reaction after every mishap. A copy of this judgment shall be sent to
the Chief Secretary of the State Government, who is requested by this
of 37
35
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 11:52:25

23. CRI APL 493-16 568-16 569-16 & 975-16.odt
Court to consider taking / fortifying measures which are discussed and
suggested hereinabove in the larger interest of the Society.
33. It is seen that the Applicants cannot be held criminally
negligent for an unforeseeable event occurring beyond their direct
control or operational purview. It is seen that mere occurrence of an
accident resulting in death or the alleged absence of ordinary care
does not by itself retrospectively render the Applicants liable under
Section 304A of the IPC. It is seen that certain circumstances and
events may arise beyond the control of the persons concerned, and in
the present case, the circumstances indicate that the death of the 14
students cannot be said to have been directly and proximately caused
by any specific negligent act or omission on the part of the Applicants.
None of the Applicants would desire any of the students accompanying
them for the picnic to get hurt at the least. Consequently, it is seen that
the Applicants cannot be held criminally liable for the said incident.
Furthermore, it is seen that there is no material on record to establish
any gross or high degree of negligence on the part of the Applicants.
34. Therefore, prima facie in absence of any material to
suggest that Applicants are guilty of the alleged offense with which
they are charged, I am inclined to accept the submissions advanced by
Mr. Mundargi and Mr. Biradar and determine the present Applications
affirmatively.
of 37
36
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 11:52:25

23. CRI APL 493-16 568-16 569-16 & 975-16.odt
35. Hence, in view of the aforementioned findings and
observations, all Criminal Applications are allowed as herein under:-
(i) Criminal Application No.493 of 2016 is allowed in terms of prayer
clause (a) which reads thus:-
“a) Quash and set aside FIR bearing C. R. No. 24/2016 of Murud
Police Station, Tehsil – Murud, District – Raigad for offence
under Section 304A r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code in the
interest of justice.”
(ii) Criminal Application No.568 of 2016 is allowed in terms of prayer
clause (a) which reads thus:-
“a) Quash and set aside FIR bearing C. R. No. 24/2016 of Murud
Police Station, Tehsil – Murud, District – Raigad for offence
under Section 304A r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code in the
interest of justice.”
(iii) Criminal Application No.569 of 2016 is allowed in terms of prayer
clause (a) which reads thus:-
“a) Quash and set aside FIR bearing C. R. No. 24/2016 of Murud
Police Station, Tehsil – Murud, District – Raigad for offence
under Section 304A r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code in the
interest of justice.”
(iv) Criminal Application No.975 of 2016 is allowed in terms of prayer
clause (a) which reads thus:-
“a) Quash and set aside FIR bearing C. R. No. 24/2016 of Murud
Police Station, Tehsil – Murud, District – Raigad for offence
under Section 304A r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code in the
interest of justice.”
36. All four Criminal Applications viz., Application Nos.493 of
2016, 568 of 2016, 569 of 2016 and 975 of 2016 are allowed and
disposed.
Amberkar
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
of 37
37
Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
MOHAN
AMBERKAR
Date:
2026.10.22
11:41:17 +0530
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 11:52:25
RAVINDRA
MOHAN
AMBERKAR
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)