Law & Justice
Supreme Court Clears School Officials in 2020 Pillar Collapse Death
The Supreme Court has acquitted the president and hostel superintendent of a Maharashtra tribal residential school of culpable homicide charges related to the death of a 12‑year‑old girl who was crushed when a poorly constructed pillar collapsed on her in 2020. In a judgment issued on Thursday, the court held that a mere breach of duty or failure to ensure proper construction was insufficient to establish criminal liability in the absence of knowledge or proof of gross negligence. Justices JB Pardiwala and Manmohan noted that the school administrators could not be held criminally responsible merely for failing to ensure proper construction of the pillar, especially since the actual construction work had been entrusted to a contractor. The bench emphasized 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 the construction was likely to cause a student’s death.
The incident occurred on 15 February 2020 at Prashnachinha Adivasi Ashram Shala in Mangrul Chawala, Amravati district, when a cement‑and‑brick pillar collapsed on Bharti Belsare, a Class 7 student, killing her and injuring several other girls. Her father, a labourer, filed 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, leading to the collapse. 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 Bombay High Court had declined to quash the proceedings, citing forensic evidence of inadequate cement content and a lack of a proper solid base.
The Supreme Court distinguished culpable homicide under Section 304 from death caused by negligence under Section 304A, noting that the latter applies only where there is neither intention to cause death nor knowledge that the act would, in all probability, result in death. The bench clarified that criminal negligence must involve gross and culpable neglect or a failure to take precautions that were imperative for the accused to adopt. The prosecution must establish that the accused’s act was the direct and proximate cause of death, not merely one of several contributing circumstances. Applying the legal principle of "causa causans", the court held that the school administrators’ alleged failure to ensure proper construction could not be regarded as the immediate and effective cause of Bharti’s death. The contractor and his team were actually undertaking the construction, and if they had taken adequate care, the incident might not have occurred.
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. It noted that the person who could prima facie be held responsible for the girl’s death was the contractor, subject to evidence that may emerge during the trial.