Case Title: Matin Shankarrao Bhosale & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Court: Supreme Court of India (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala
Decision Date: 2 November 2026
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 5171 of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 13889 of 2026)
FACTS
Introduction: 15th February 2020 A 12 years girl named Ku. Bharati Belsare studying in 7th standard at Prashnachinha Adivasi Ashram Shala at Mangrul Chawala, District Amravati. Whose body was found under a newly constructed cement brick pillar in the school building premises was badly broken and it died while undergoing treatment at Irwin Hospital.
FIR lodging: Her father (Sajilal Shyamlal Belsare) filed an FIR (No. 39 of 2020) at Mangrul Chawala Police Station on 19 February 2020. In the FIR, he claimed that the “President of the school, Matin Shankarrao Bhosale and the hostel Superintendent failed to take adequate safety measures and permitted inferior quality pillars to be constructed”.
Charge-Sheet After completion of investigation, police filed Charge-Sheet No. 15 of 2020, for prosecution of President (Appellant No. 1) and Superintendent (Appellant No. 2) of school under Section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The appellants filed an application before the Bombay High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. To quash the FIR and the charge sheet.Court today dismissed their petition with observation that there has been a failure of duty and knowledge of the possibilities of injury or death on account of shoddy construction. Their plea was filed before the Supreme Court.
ISSUES
- Section 304 IPC: Meet uncontroverted facts in the charge-sheet form an essential element of mens rea- intention or knowledge-required for prosecuting school authorities under Section 304 IPC?
- Causation (Section 304A IPC): Is it legal to “blame” school officers by charging them under Sec 304A IPC for causing death by negligence when the hospital from which they allegedly failed to respond was ‘cause sine qua non’ of the collapse, and not their ‘cause causans’?
Legal Provisions Involved
Section 304, IPC Culpable homicide not amounting to murder (with two parts, Part-I under which bodily injury intended to cause death, and Part-II under which an act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to do so).
Section 304A, IPC: Death caused by rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide.
Section 34, IPC: Acts committed by several persons in furtherance of a common intention.
Section 482, Cr.P.C. Repeals the right of the High Court to interfere in any criminal case and stay or quash proceedings of a criminal case where it is of the opinion that criminal case proceedings should not be continued.
ARGUMENTS
Appellants’ (School President & Superintendent) Contentions:
No Voluntary Offence: Counsel for the appellants in support of the case of the prosecution had submitted that even if such case of the prosecution is to be accepted, in their acts, no voluntary act was committed by the appellants. According to the defense, criminal culpability under Section 304A IPC can be fixed only if the accused’ act was the immediate cause (causa causans) of death. Minor administrative failure is only a remote connection (causa sine qua non) with the cause of death, and cannot be used to fix criminal culpability.
Propounding against Reply No. 1 (Govt. Of Maharashtra): Prima facie case at quashing stage-the State maintained that at the stage of framing charges the Courts are only required to look at whether a prima facie case has been made out and not go into the question of evidence as is done during the trial.
Offence under Section 304A IPC: Counsel for the prosecution argued that a 12 year old student passing away due to negligent construction led to a clear offence under Section 304A IPC and it is for the trial court to find out the offence. Respondent No. 2, the complainant father, was not produced before the Supreme Court even after the service of notice.
COURT’S ANALYSIS
J.B. Pardiwala – In a video shared by the Supreme Court, Justice J. B. Pardiwala explained how the law makes a distinction between civil and criminal liability:
Section 304 IPC Not Applicable:Section 304, mens rea, an intention to kill or to cause death (or recklessness as to causing death). Although the Court found the school authorities did not carry out conventional construction practices, they still did not have “reason to believe that” the substandard construction would “more likely than not” result in the death of the student.
Civil or Criminal Negligence: Referring to the leading decisions such as Jacob Mathew, Naresh Giri and Dr. P.B. Desai, the Court reiterated that mere lack of attention or breach of duty amounts only to tortious/civil wrong and not criminal guilt.
The grossness of recklessness or carelessness in criminal negligence must be one of such high degree as to be culpable, and disregard for human life.31.
Doctrine of Causa Causans vs. Causa Sine Qua Non: The Court relied on “Kurban Hussein”, “Ambalal D. Bhatt” and “Sushil Ansal” to state that where the accused’s act is the “causa causans” of the death, and no intervening or independent negligent act intervenes, the offence is committed under section 304-A IPC. The work itself was done by a contractor and his workmen. It was this intervention by the contractor which broke the chain of direct causation. The alleged neglect of the administrators was merely a causa sine qua non (a remote background condition) and was therefore not worthy of criminal proceedings
JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court was not justified in refusing to quash the proceedings. Appeal Allowed: Court set aside Charge-Sheet No. 15 of 2020 (Arising Out of FIR No. 39 of 2020) in respect of both appellants.
Continuance against the others: The Court while explaining had also held that the trial can proceed against the co-accused- who might be the contractor- in accordance with the law.
CONCLUSION
This judgment underscores the principle in criminal law that an administrative failure to meet safety standards or constitute an administrative omission cannot be ipso facto made out as an offence under sections 304 or 304A IPC. In the case of a heads of institutions being made liable for criminal death due to structural failure, prosecution has to prove causative, proximate causation (causa causans), and gross criminal negligence.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY- AASTHA KEDIA
Matin Shankarrao Bhosale & Anr v. State of Maharashtra & Anr
