After Student Dies In School Pillar Collapse, Supreme Court Quashes Case Against School President And Superintendent, Finding Their Alleged Negligence Was Not The Proximate Cause

In brief

The question

Whether the allegations and materials disclosed a prima facie offence of culpable homicide under Section 304 IPC against the appellants

The court held

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the proceedings arising from Chargesheet No. 15 of 2020 insofar as they concerned the appellants.

It also directed

The trial was permitted to proceed against any other co-accused in accordance with law.

01Facts

Bharti, aged 12, died after a cement-and-brick pillar collapsed on her within the premises of the Adivasi Ashram School where she was studying. Her father’s FIR alleged that the pillar was substandard and that the school’s President and Superintendent had failed to take proper precautions during its construction.

¶ 6–15, 17–20

Following investigation, a chargesheet was filed against them under Section 304 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The High Court declined to quash the proceedings, relying on material indicating deficiencies in the construction and a breach of duty. The appellants challenged that decision before the Supreme Court.

¶ 6–15, 17–20

02Issues

i.Whether the allegations and materials disclosed a prima facie offence of culpable homicide under Section 304 IPC against the appellants

¶ 25–30, 39

ii.Whether the appellants’ alleged failure to ensure proper construction was sufficiently rash or negligent, and sufficiently proximate to the death, to sustain prosecution under Section 304A IPC

¶ 40–44

03Law Applied

Section 304 IPC requires culpable homicide, involving the requisite intention or knowledge; Section 304A applies to deaths caused by rash or negligent acts outside the scope of culpable homicide, and requires criminal—not merely civil—negligence.

¶ 31–38

Criminal negligence or rashness must be sufficiently culpable, and the accused’s act must be the direct, proximate and efficient cause of death—the causa causans, not merely a causa sine qua non—without an efficient intervening cause. The Court applied the principles in Naresh Giri v. State of M.P., Kurban Hussein Mohamedalli Rangawalla v. State of Maharashtra, Ambalal D. Bhatt v. State of Gujarat, and Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab on the distinction between civil and criminal negligence, the required degree of culpability, and causation.

¶ 41–43, 56, 58

Provisions in the judgment · 9 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 304 Section 34 Section 299 Section 300 Section 302 Section 325 Section 323

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 156 Section 155

04Reasoning

The materials might indicate a breach of the appellants’ duty to ensure student safety, but that breach alone did not establish that they knew inferior construction was likely, in all probability, to cause death, or that their conduct amounted to criminal negligence.

¶ 39–45, 59–60

The contractor and construction team were directly undertaking the work; the appellants’ alleged omission was therefore not shown to be the immediate and efficient cause of death. Even assuming negligence by the appellants, the contractor’s role constituted an intervening cause, leaving the appellants’ conduct, at most, a causa sine qua non. The Court accordingly found no sufficient basis to prosecute them under either Section 304 or Section 304A IPC.

¶ 39–45, 59–60