Section 304A IPC – Student Picnic Tragedy and Liability of College Trustees
On 01.02.2016, College arranged a picnic to Murud beach, Raigad and 116 students alongwith faculty and staff members went for the picnic. 41 students of the Third Year batch went to the beach at around 3:30 to 4:00 pm and ventured into the sea water for some fun and frolic. Unfortunately, around 20-22 students got swept away in the under current of the sea water. One of the student with the help of local persons managed to rescue about 6 students, however 14 students including the student who was rescued them, lost their lives in the unfortunate incident. After initial enquiry under ADR No.04 of 2016, around 80 days thereafter FIR No.24 of 2016 was registered with Murud Police Station against 17 accused persons i.e. Applicants representing the college in all four Applications.
in Application No.493 of 2016, Applicant Nos.1 to 5 are office bearers of a public trust namely Maharashtra Cosmopolitan Education Society, Pune, which runs a college namely Abeda Inamdar Senior College of Arts, Science and Commerce, Pune, of which Applicant No.6 was the in-charge Principal during the relevant time. Applicants in Application Nos.568 of 2016, 569 of 2016 and 975 of 2016 are Assistant Professors, peons and lab assistant who were employees of the college at the time of incident. Respondent No.1 is State and Respondent No.2 – Complainant is the father of one of the deceased students.
Applicants in Application No.568 of 2016 undertook supervision of 45 students of Second Year B.Sc. (Computer Science) for the picnic and travelled in separate bus to Murud beach. He would submit that Applicants in Application No.569 of 2016 took 26 students of the First Year B.Sc. (Computer Science) and they also travelled in a separate bus to Murud beach. He would submit that on the same day, Applicants alongwith students of the First and Second year returned back safely.
he question which begs an answer is whether vicarious liability can be imposed and invoked against the Management of the school and / or trustees of the Trust operating the school and / or other teachers who were not directly responsible or even against the 2 teachers accompanying these 41 students in such a case.
It is seen that the Applicants cannot be held criminally negligent for an unforeseeable event occurring beyond their direct control or operational purview. It is seen that mere occurrence of an accident resulting in death or the alleged absence of ordinary care does not by itself retrospectively render the Applicants liable under Section 304A of the IPC. It is seen that certain circumstances and events may arise beyond the control of the persons concerned, and in the present case, the circumstances indicate that the death of the 14 students cannot be said to have been directly and proximately caused by any specific negligent act or omission on the part of the Applicants. None of the Applicants would desire any of the students accompanying them for the picnic to get hurt at the least. Consequently, it is seen that the Applicants cannot be held criminally liable for the said incident. Furthermore, it is seen that there is no material on record to establish any gross or high degree of negligence on the part of the Applicants.
Judgment dated 22.10.2026 of the High Court of Bombay in Criminal Application No.493 of 2016 of P.A. Inamdar and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and another with connected Criminal Applications.
