WHEN NEGLIGENCE IS NOT ENOUGH TO ATTRACT CRIMINAL LIABILITY

INTRODUCTION

In Matin Shankarrao Bhosale & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2026 INSC 1198, decided on 2 November 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manmohan, examined the distinction between civil negligence and criminal negligence and the circumstances in which an individual can be prosecuted for culpable homicide or causing death by negligence under Sections 304 (Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and 304A (Causing death by negligence) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Judgment addresses an important aspect of criminal jurisprudence, namely, whether a failure to discharge a duty of care, resulting in the unfortunate death of a person, is by itself sufficient to attract criminal liability. The Court reiterated that every act of negligence does not constitute a criminal offence and that criminal culpability must be established through the degree of negligence and its direct connection with the resulting death.

 

BRIEF FACTS

The matter arose from an unfortunate incident dated 15 February 2020, in which a twelve-year-old girl, Bharti Belsare, studying in the seventh standard at Prashnachinha Adivasi Ashram Shala, Mangrul Chawala, Maharashtra, lost her life after a pillar under construction collapsed on her and other students. She was taken to the hospital, subsequently succumbed to her injuries during medical treatment.

Following the incident, her Father lodged an FIR alleging that the President and Superintendent of the school, Matin Shankarrao Bhosale and another Appellant, had permitted substandard construction without taking adequate precautions. It was alleged that their negligence had resulted in the collapse of the pillar and the death of his Daughter.

After investigation, a Chargesheet was filed against both Appellants under Section 304 read with Section 34 (Common Intention) IPC. The Appellants approached the Bombay High Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings. However, the High Court dismissed their Petitions, observing that the use of substandard construction material and the absence of a proper foundation indicated a breach of duty.

Aggrieved by the decision, the Appellants approached the Supreme Court, contending that the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, did not disclose the ingredients of culpable homicide or criminal negligence.

 

 ISSUES OF LAW

• Whether a breach of the duty of care, resulting in death, is sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 304 IPC in the absence of the requisite intention or knowledge.
• Whether the alleged negligence of the School Authorities constitutes the direct and proximate cause of death so as to attract criminal liability under Section 304A IPC.
• Whether ordinary negligence, without establishing gross negligence or criminal rashness, can form the basis of a criminal prosecution.

 

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT

One of the most significant aspects of the Judgment is the distinction drawn between Sections 304 and 304A IPC. The Supreme Court explained that Section 304 deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder and requires the existence of intention or knowledge, depending upon the applicable part of the provision. On the other hand, Section 304A applies to cases where death is caused by a rash or negligent act which does not amount to culpable homicide.

The Court emphasised that Section 304A cannot be invoked merely because an unfortunate death has occurred following an act of negligence. For criminal liability to arise, the negligence must possess the requisite degree of culpability. In this regard, the Court relied upon Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, reiterating that the standard of negligence required under criminal law is considerably higher than that required to establish civil liability.

Another important aspect concerned the principle of causa causans, which refers to the immediate and effective cause of an injury, as distinguished from causa sine qua non, which denotes a necessary condition without which the event might not have occurred. Relying upon Kurban Hussein Mohamedalli Rangawalla v. State of Maharashtra and Sushil Ansal v. State through CBI, the Court reiterated that, for an offence under Section 304A, the alleged rash or negligent act must be the proximate and efficient cause of death, without the intervention of another’s negligence.

Applying these principles, the Court observed that although the Appellants might have failed to ensure adequate safety measures, their alleged negligence could not automatically be treated as the direct cause of the unfortunate incident. The actual construction work had been entrusted to a contractor, whose responsibility for the quality and safety of the construction was a relevant consideration. The Court observed that the contractor could, at most, be prima facie responsible, subject to the evidence led during trial.

The Court further held that the alleged negligence of the Appellants could be regarded as a causa sine qua non, but not the causa causans, particularly when an intervening cause had broken the chain of causation. Consequently, neither Section 304 nor Section 304A could be sustained against them on the material available.

The Court also referred to Ambalal D. Bhatt v. State of Gujarat and Andrews v. Director of Public Prosecutions to reinforce that simple lack of care is insufficient to attract criminal liability. Criminal liability requires a high degree of negligence that reflects a disregard for the lives and safety of others.

 

TRISHMA KASHYAP

Legal Associate

The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services

 

Editor’s Comment

The decision in Matin Shankarrao Bhosale & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. reinforces an important safeguard against the unnecessary expansion of criminal liability. It clarifies that a tragic outcome, however distressing, cannot substitute for proof of the essential ingredients of a criminal offence.

By allowing the Appeal and quashing the criminal proceedings against the Appellants, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that criminal law must distinguish between a failure to exercise due care and conduct that deserves penal consequences. Though the death of the Child was a great tragedy the evidence did not show a direct causal link between the Child’s death and the negligence that the school management was accused off. No matter how serious a criminal allegation is the general rule is that for any criminal action the prosecution has always prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. While the averment was serious there was no evidence to connect the act of negligence and criminal liability on the management and hence the case did not fit into criminal negligence.

The Judgment serves as a reminder that criminal prosecution must rest on established legal principles, the requisite degree of culpability and a demonstrable connection between the Accused’s conduct and the resulting harm.

 

Sushila Ram Varma

Advocate and Chief Legal Consultant

The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services

 

 

Please log onto our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest Video, titled “Can a Finance Company Forcefully Recover Your Vehicle? Know Your Rights” can be viewed at the link below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4RkuvlhyYU