The Supreme Court has acquitted the president and hostel superintendent of a Maharashtra tribal residential school of culpable homicide charges over the death of a 12-year-old girl who was crushed when a poorly constructed pillar collapsed on her in 2020.
Towards the end of the judgment, the court acknowledged the tragedy and the anguish of the victim’s parents but cautioned against allowing the outcome of an incident to influence the application of criminal law. The court emphasised that culpable homicide under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code requires proof of intention or knowledge that the act was likely to cause death, and that the mere use of inferior construction material could not, by itself, establish that the school administrators knew that the construction was likely to cause a student’s death.
The case
The high court had declined to quash the proceedings, holding that forensic examination of the construction material revealed inadequate cement content and that the pillar lacked a proper solid base. The case arose from the February 15, 2020 incident at Prashnachinha Adivasi Ashram Shala in Mangrul Chawala in Maharashtra’s Amravati district, where Bharti Belsare, a Class 7 student, died after a cement-and-brick pillar collapsed on her. Following an investigation, police filed a chargesheet against the two under Section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) read with Section 34 (joint criminal liability) of the IPC. The Supreme Court, however, drew a distinction between culpable homicide under Section 304 and causing death by negligence under Section 304A of the IPC, pointing out that the latter provision covers cases where death is caused by a rash or negligent act without intention or knowledge that the act is likely to cause death.
Several other girls were also injured in the incident. Her father, a labourer, lodged an FIR alleging that the school’s president, Matin Shankarrao Bhosale and the hostel superintendent had deliberately permitted substandard construction and failed to take adequate precautions, resulting in the pillar collapsing on the children. It concluded that there was sufficient material to indicate a breach of duty by the school officials and that they had knowledge that substandard construction could cause harm or death. Where intention or knowledge is the motivating force behind the act, the more serious charge of culpable homicide would apply.
Explaining the distinction, the bench said Section 304A applies only where there is neither intention to cause death nor knowledge that the act would, in all probability, result in death.
