MUMBAI: Ten years after 14 third-year students of a Pune college drowned at Murud beach, the Bombay High Court on Thursday quashed criminal proceedings against 17 people, including the institute’s chairman, principal, teachers and non-teaching staff, ruling that they cannot be held “criminally negligent for an unforeseeable event occurring beyond their direct control or operational purview”.
A single-judge bench of justice Milind Jadhav said that third-year college students are mature and possess a reasonable degree of life experience. They are expected to understand the distinction between right and wrong and to appreciate the likely consequences of their actions, it added.
The court also said that if vicarious liability can be foisted on the institute’s trustees, teaching and non-teaching staff members, similar liability can be imposed on state authorities, which are responsible for ensuring that all public beaches have adequate signage, warnings, and beach safety and rescue measures.
The incident occurred on February 1, 2016, when 116 students, faculty, and staff members of the Abeda Inamdar Senior College of Arts, Science and Commerce in Pune went for a picnic to Murud beach in Raigad. In the afternoon, 41 third-year students entered the sea, and around 20 were swept away. Local residents managed to rescue six of them, but the remaining 14 drowned.
On April 19, 2016, the Murud police registered an FIR against 17 people for causing death by negligence. Five office-bearers of the educational trust that runs the college, including chairman PA Inamdar, the principal, faculty members, and non-teaching staff accompanying the students, were among those booked.
{{/usCountry}}On April 19, 2016, the Murud police registered an FIR against 17 people for causing death by negligence. Five office-bearers of the educational trust that runs the college, including chairman PA Inamdar, the principal, faculty members, and non-teaching staff accompanying the students, were among those booked.
{{/usCountry}}The 17 accused subsequently approached the high court, seeking to quash the criminal proceedings. They argued that there was no evidence to invoke the charge of causing death by negligence against the office bearers, teaching and non-teaching members of the college.
Additional public prosecutor Rajeshree Newton opposed the petition, arguing that the accused were directly responsible for ensuring the students’ safety, and the death of the 14 students was a direct result of their negligence. Newton justified the registration of the FIR, stating that the accused ought to have taken precautionary measures, especially when a large number of students went to a spot where there were chances of life-threatening accidents.
However, the court refused to accept Newton’s argument, saying that there was no evidence indicating negligence on the part of the staff members that could be said to have resulted in the drowning of the 14 students.
The court noted that the third-year students had gone to the beach after lunch at a hotel while the two professors supervising them were resting. The students ventured into the sea, after which 20 of them were swept away by the sea current and 14 unfortunately lost their lives, it added.
The bench also said that the mere occurrence of an accident resulting in death or the alleged absence of ordinary care does not by itself render them liable for an offence punishable under section 304A (causing death by negligence) of the Indian Penal Code.