The Bombay High Court has quashed a criminal case against college trustees, management members and employees following the drowning deaths of 14 students during a college picnic at Murud beach in Maharashtra. Justice Milind N. Jadhav held that the available material did not establish a direct connection between the accused persons’ alleged negligence and the students’ deaths.
Background
The incident occurred on February 1, 2016, when 116 students and college staff visited Murud beach. During the outing, 41 third-year B.Sc. Computer Science students entered the sea, and 14 lost their lives after being caught in strong underwater currents.
Murud Police Station subsequently registered FIR No. 24 of 2016 under Sections 304A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging death by negligence and acts done with common intention. The accused approached the High Court seeking to quash the FIR.
The State and the complainant’s counsel opposed their applications, arguing that the college staff had failed to ensure adequate safety precautions and supervision.
Justice Jadhav examined the respective roles of the trustees, teachers and other employees. The Court noted that the students were adults and that the material on record did not establish the required connection between a specific negligent act by the applicants and the deaths.
The judgment stated:
“The question that would then arise is about fixing negligence and on whom.”
The Court distinguished the supervision required for minors from the circumstances involving adult college students at a public beach. It also observed that criminal negligence requires more than the mere occurrence of an accident.
The judgment further highlighted the need for effective beach-safety arrangements, including warning signs, trained lifeguards, rescue facilities and clearly marked safe swimming zones.
Allowing all four criminal applications, the High Court quashed FIR No. 24 of 2016 registered at Murud Police Station against the applicants under Sections 304A read with 34 IPC.
The Court held that the material did not establish the necessary basis for criminal liability against them.
