The Supreme Court has held that a mere failure to attain the standard of care prescribed by law, amounting to breach of duty, is not by itself a criminal act. Such a lapse, the Court said, cannot sustain a charge of culpable homicide under Section 304 of the IPC unless the accused had knowledge that the act would in all probability cause death.

The Court added that, for an offence under Section 304A of the IPC, the negligence alleged must be the direct, proximate and efficient cause of death, without the intervention of another’s negligence. Where the accused’s negligence is only a causa sine qua non, and the contractor undertaking the construction was the more proximate actor, the chain of causation stands broken.

A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manmohan observed, “…The harmfulness inflicted intentionally or knowingly or caused directly and wilfully would attract Section 304 IPC. 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 contractor to whom the work was assigned could at the most be prima facie guilty of negligence, being in the knowledge of the fact that poor construction or inferior construction may lead to an accident or a casualty. 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”.

Advocate Kuldeep Jauhari appeared for the appellants and Advocate Aaditya Aniruddha Pande appeared for the respondent.

“In a prosecution for an offence under Section 304A of the IPC, the Court has to examine whether the alleged act of the accused is the direct result of a rash and negligent act, and that act was the proximate and efficient cause of the death without the intervention of others' negligence. To put it in other words, whether the mere fact that the appellants herein as the Administrators of the school failed to take appropriate care to ensure the safety of the students by not ensuring proper construction of pillar by itself is sufficient to establish an offence under Section 304A IPC. The answer to this question will determine whether the appellants act as alleged by the prosecution is the causa causans or has there been a causa interveniens, which has broken the chain of causation so as to make their act, though a negligent one, not the immediate cause or whether it amounts to an act of gross negligence or recklessly negligent conduct. In this context, it may be observed that in a case of this nature, the death of a young girl aged twelve however, shocking and regrettable it may be, ought not to allow the mind to boggle while considering the aforesaid question”, the Bench said.

The case arose from the death of a 12-year-old Class VII student of an Adivasi Ashram Shala in Amravati district, Maharashtra. A pillar under construction on the school premises collapsed on her. Her father lodged an FIR on February 19, 2020, alleging that the school President and Superintendent had allowed sub-standard construction and taken no precautions. A chargesheet was filed under Section 304 read with Section 34 IPC.

The appellants sought quashing before the Bombay High Court, which dismissed their application on February 25, 2026. The High Court noted that forensic analysis showed the cement ratio in the mortar was not maintained and that no solid base had been laid. It concluded there was a breach of duty and knowledge that sub-standard material could cause harm or death.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellants argued that even on the prosecution’s case neither Section 304 nor Section 304A was attracted. The State urged that at least a case under Section 304A was made out, to be decided at trial.

The Bench first held that Section 304 requires intention or knowledge that the act is likely to cause death. At most, it said, the appellants could be said to know that poor construction could lead to an accident, which does not amount to knowledge that death was in all probability likely.

On Section 304A, the Court noting the precedents, held that the contractor and his team were actually undertaking the construction, so the appellants’ alleged negligence could not be regarded as the causa causans. The Court also reiterated that criminal liability demands gross negligence or recklessness, not the simple lack of care that suffices in civil law.

The court added: "Rashness and negligence are not the same things. Mere negligence cannot be construed to mean rashness. There are degrees of negligence and rashness and in order to amount to criminal rashness or criminal negligence one must find that the rashness has been of such a degree as to amount to taking hazard knowing that the hazard was of such a degree that injury was most likely to be occasioned thereby."

“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. We can also imagine the pain and agony the parents of the deceased must be undergoing even as on today. However, such thoughts should not allow the mind of a judge to get boggled, otherwise justice cannot be done. 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, noted while concluding the judgment.

Quashing the proceedings arising from the chargesheet against the appellants, the Court clarified that the trial may proceed against any co-accused in accordance with law. It also observed that the contractor is prima facie the person responsible, subject to evidence at trial.

Cause Title: Matin Shankarrao Bhosale & Anr v. State of Maharashtra & Anr (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1198)

Appearances:

Appellants: Kuldeep Jauhari, Advocate.

Respondent: Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Advocate.

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Tags: