The Supreme Court has quashed criminal proceedings against the President and Superintendent of an Ashram School in Maharashtra over the death of a 12-year-old girl who was crushed when an under-construction pillar collapsed on her inside the school premises in 2020.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Manmohan allowed the appeals filed by the school officials, setting aside the Bombay High Court's order refusing to quash the criminal case against them.

The incident occurred on February 15, 2020, at a school in Amravati district, where the girl was studying in Class 7. Following her death, her father lodged a complaint alleging that the school's Director and hostel Superintendent were responsible for the construction of a defective pillar and had failed to take adequate safety measures.

The school officials were subsequently charged under Section 304 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder and common intention.

Seeking quashing of the proceedings, the officials approached the Bombay High Court. However, the High Court dismissed their plea, relying on a Chemical Analyser's report which indicated that the prescribed cement-sand-aggregate ratio had not been followed. It also referred to the spot panchnama, which recorded that the pillar did not have a proper foundation.

The High Court had reasoned that although the accused might not have intended to cause death, they could have had knowledge that the use of substandard construction material might lead to injury or death.

Challenging this decision before the Supreme Court, the appellants argued that the allegations did not satisfy the essential ingredients of culpable homicide under Section 304 IPC. They also contended that their alleged failure to exercise due care could not be considered the direct and proximate cause of the student's death so as to attract liability under Section 304A IPC, which deals with causing death by rash or negligent acts.

Opposing the appeals, the prosecution submitted that the material on record disclosed a prima facie case of rashness and negligence and that the question of criminal liability should be determined during trial.

Considering the rival submissions, the Supreme Court examined the distinction between culpable homicide under Section 304 IPC and causing death by negligence under Section 304A IPC.

The bench observed that a breach of the prescribed standard of care, by itself, would not amount to a criminal act. For an offence under Section 304 IPC, there must be material indicating that the accused possessed the requisite intention or knowledge that their actions were likely to cause death.

"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 Court observed.

The bench further held that the mere possibility of an accident resulting from inferior construction material could not establish that the appellants had knowledge that their conduct was likely to cause a student's death.

On the applicability of Section 304A IPC, the Court reiterated that the rash or negligent act must be the direct and proximate cause of the death. In this regard, it referred to its earlier decisions in Sushil Ansal v. State through CBI, Kurban Hussein Mohamedalli Rangawalla v. State of Maharashtra and Ambalal D Bhatt v. State of Gujarat.

The Court observed that even assuming some negligence on the part of the appellants in failing to exercise due care, their conduct could not be regarded as the direct and proximate cause of the incident, particularly when the construction work had been entrusted to an independent contractor and his team.

It also clarified that criminal liability under Section 304A IPC requires a high degree of negligence or rashness. A mere lack of care that may give rise to civil liability would not, by itself, be sufficient to establish criminal culpability.

The bench further observed that, prima facie, responsibility for the incident could lie with the contractor engaged to carry out the construction work, while clarifying that the matter would remain subject to the evidence led during trial.

Expressing anguish over the tragic death, the bench observed:

"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."

The Court acknowledged the suffering of the deceased child's parents but emphasised that emotional considerations could not override the application of law.

"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 bench remarked.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings arising out of Chargesheet No. 15 of 2020 against the appellants. It clarified that the trial could continue against the other co-accused in accordance with law.