The Supreme Court has quashed criminal proceedings against the President and the Superintendent of an Ashram school in Maharashtra’s Amravati district over the death of a 12-year-old student. She died when a pillar under construction collapsed on her. The Court held that their alleged negligence was not the immediate cause of death, because a contractor was the one actually carrying out the construction.
A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manmohan allowed the appeal against the High Court’s judgment of 25 February 2026, which had refused to quash the case under Section 304 read with Section 34 IPC.
Background
The deceased was a Class 7 student at Prashnachinha Adivasi Ashram Shala, Mangrul Chawala, and lived in its hostel. A pillar of cement and bricks being built inside the school premises collapsed on her and other girls. She suffered a head injury and died during treatment.
Her father lodged an FIR at Mangrul Chawala Police Station on 19 February 2020. He alleged that the pillar was built carelessly, with substandard material. A chargesheet was filed against the appellants under Section 304 read with Section 34 IPC.
The High Court relied on the Chemical Analyser’s report, which showed that the cement ratio had not been maintained, and on the spot panchnama, which recorded that no solid base had been built. It held that there was sufficient material to show a breach of duty and refused to quash the case.
Arguments
Kuldeep Jauhari, appearing for the appellants, argued that even if the prosecution’s entire case was accepted, no voluntary act was attributed to his clients, so Section 304 could not apply. He submitted that even Section 304A was not made out, because only the causa causans (the direct cause), and not a causa sine qua non (a contributing cause), fixes culpability.
Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, appearing for the State, argued that at the quashing stage only a prima facie case had to be seen. He submitted that at least a case under Section 304A was made out and that the trial court should decide which offence was committed. The father did not appear before the Supreme Court despite being served notice.
Court’s Findings
On Section 304, the Court held that this was not a case of a voluntary offence against a person. It observed:
“We are of the view that the mere failure to attain the standard of care prescribed by the law, thereby committing breach of such duty as observed by the High Court would not be a criminal act.”
The Bench said the contractor could at most be prima facie guilty of negligence. It added, “However, that by itself would not suggest that the appellants had the knowledge that inferior construction in all probability was likely to cause death of any student studying in the school.”
On Section 304A, the Court relied on Kurban Hussein Mohamedalli Rangawalla v. State of Maharashtra, Sushil Ansal v. State through CBI and Ambalal D. Bhatt v. State of Gujarat. It said many other factors might have led to the incident. It said that if the contractor had taken a little care to keep the students safe, the incident probably would not have happened. The Court concluded:
“Therefore, the alleged negligence from the part of the appellants herein cannot be regarded as the causa causans. Although it may be a causa sine qua non.”
The Court noted that “Mere negligence or rashness is, therefore, not enough to bring a case within the ambit of Section 304A IPC.” It held that an intervening cause had broken the chain of causation.
The Bench said the contractor appeared to be the person prima facie responsible for the death. It added that this observation is prima facie and subject to the evidence at trial, if the contractor is an accused at all.
Recording its anguish, the Bench said, “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.” It added, “However, harsh one may find the law, but at the same time, the law remains the law, and it has got to be respected.”
Outcome
The Court quashed the proceedings arising from Chargesheet No. 15 of 2020 against the appellants. It said the trial may continue against any other co-accused in accordance with law.
Case Title: Matin Shankarrao Bhosale & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 5171 of 2026
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manmohan
Date: November 2, 2026
