“Dictating this order was a very painful experience,” the Supreme Court said as it quashed the culpable homicide prosecution of the President and Superintendent of an ashram school in Maharashtra’s Amravati district over a pillar collapse that killed a 12-year-old student, holding that the contractor, not the office-bearers, was at most prima facie responsible.
New Delhi: A Class 7 student died in February 2020 when a pillar under construction on the premises of an Adivasi ashram school in Amravati district, Maharashtra, collapsed, and on November 2 the Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings under Section 304 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the school’s President and Superintendent, setting aside a Bombay High Court order that had refused to quash the case [Matin Shankarrao Bhosale & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.].
Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manmohan allowed the criminal appeal, while making it clear that the trial may continue against any other co-accused in accordance with law.
The outcome
The appeal was allowed and the criminal proceedings arising from Chargesheet No. 15 of 2020 were quashed so far as the two appellants are concerned. The trial may proceed against any other co-accused in accordance with law. The Court’s observations on the contractor are prima facie and express no final view on the merits of any remaining prosecution.
The Bench’s reasoning
Drawing on the settled distinction between civil negligence and criminal negligence, including the principles in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, the Bench said criminal liability demands a far higher degree of negligence, amounting to recklessness, than what suffices for damages in civil law. It held that the appellants stood on a different footing from any other accused:
“In our view, the appellants should not be asked to face the trial either for the offence of a rash or a negligent act punishable under Section 304A of the IPC or Section 304 IPC. At the most, the person who could be said to be prima facie responsible for the unfortunate death of the student is the contractor.”
The Court added that this observation about the contractor was only prima facie and subject to evidence at trial, if the contractor is also an accused. On causation, it held:
“However, the act attributed to the appellants cannot be said to be the causa causans, but there was a cause interveniens, which broke the chain of causation so as to make the act of the applicant though a negligent one, not the immediate cause.”
The Bench also recorded its anguish over the death of the child:
“Dictating this order was a very painful experience. The very thought of a twelve-year-old girl getting crushed beneath the pillar of her own school makes our heart bleed with pain and agony… However, harsh one may find the law, but at the same time, the law remains the law, and it has got to be respected.”
The FIR and the High Court’s view
The FIR was lodged on February 19, 2020 at Mangrul Chawala Police Station by the father of the deceased, a labourer. According to it, his 12-year-old daughter was studying in the 7th standard and living in the school hostel. On February 15, 2020, a pillar of cement and bricks being built on the premises collapsed on her and other girls. She suffered head injuries and died during treatment, while other students were injured.
The complaint alleged that the school’s director and President, Matin Bhosale, had the pillar built with “kaccha and standardless” construction, and that he and the hostel Superintendent took no precautions. After investigation, a chargesheet (No. 15 of 2020) was filed against the two under Section 304 read with Section 34 IPC, culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
On February 25, 2026, the Bombay High Court dismissed their quashing application (Criminal Application No. 239 of 2021). Relying on chemical analysis of mortar samples showing that the cement ratio was not maintained and on the spot panchnama noting that no solid base had been built, the High Court held that there was prima facie material of breach of duty and knowledge that substandard construction could cause harm.
What each side argued
Counsel Kuldeep Jauhari, for the appellants, argued that even if the prosecution case were accepted in full, there was no voluntary act that could attract Section 304 IPC, and that even Section 304A IPC would not apply because the appellants’ alleged lack of care was not the “causa causans”, the direct and immediate cause, of death.
Counsel Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, for the State, opposed the appeal. He submitted that at the quashing stage only a prima facie case had to be seen, that a 12-year-old girl had lost her life in a shocking manner, and that at least a case of rash and negligent act under Section 304A IPC was made out and should be left to the trial court. The father of the deceased, though served, did not appear.
Why the judgment matters
The ruling reaffirms that criminal law does not punish every lapse that leads to a tragedy. For an office-bearer to face trial for culpable homicide or causing death by negligence, the prosecution must show a high degree of negligence amounting to recklessness, and that the accused’s own act was the direct and immediate cause of death, not merely one link in a longer chain.
For schools and institutions, the decision draws a line between administrative responsibility and personal criminal liability. Where a construction defect is the immediate cause, attention shifts to the person who carried out the work, while civil remedies for compensation and institutional accountability remain open to the affected family.
Case Title: Matin Shankarrao Bhosale & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. [Criminal Appeal No. 5171 of 2026, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 13889 of 2026; 2026 INSC 1198]
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manmohan, Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgment: November 2, 2026
Appearances: Kuldeep Jauhari for the appellants; Aaditya Aniruddha Pande for the State of Maharashtra
