Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On : 05Th May vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 4 August, 2025
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
2025:HHC:26338
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. Revision No. : 284 of 2024
Reserved on : 05th May, 2025
.
Decided on : 04th August, 2025
A. Aditya & Others …Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent
Coram
For the petitioner :
r to
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
Mr. V. Pattabhi and Mr. Rajnish
Maniktala, Senior Advocates with
Mr. N.V. Raghav Reddy, Mr. L
Prasad Rao and Mr. Dinkar
Bhaskar, Advocates.
For the respondent: Mr. Tejasvi Sharma & Mr. H.S.
Rawat, Additional Advocates
General with Mr. Rohit Sharma and
Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy
Advocates General for respondent
No.1.
Mr. Suneet Goel, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Vivek Negi, Advocate for
respondent No.2.
Virender Singh, Judge
Petitioners have filed the present criminal
revision, under Sections 397 and 401 read with Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred
1
Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2025 21:19:51 :::CIS
2 2025:HHC:26338
to as the Cr.PC) and Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, against the order dated 08.02.2024, passed by the
.
Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Court No.1, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘trial Court’), in Cr. M.A. No.1336/2022,
titled as A. Aditya & Others versus State of H.P.
2. By way of order dated 08.02.2024, the learned
trial Court has dismissed the application filed under
Section 258 of the Cr.PC, for discharging them, from the
case titled as State versus Mohinder Singh & Others,
arising out of FIR No.61/14, dated 8.06.2014, under
Sections 336 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code
(hereinafter referred to as the IPC), registered with Police
Station Aut, District Mandi, H.P., in which, the present
petitioners have been arrayed as accused No.7 to 9.
3. Order dated 8.2.2024, rejecting the application
for discharge, has been assailed before this Court, on the
ground, that the learned trial Court ought to have seen
that the entire prosecution case, for the offences, under
Sections 336 and 304A IPC, read with Section 34 of the
IPC.
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2025 21:19:51 :::CIS
3 2025:HHC:26338
4. The order has further been assailed on the
ground that during investigation, it has been found that
.
the incident had taken place due to the failure on the part
of concerned electricity and dam authorities, i.e., A1 to A
6, who acted with culpable rashness and negligence in
releasing the huge quantity of water, without following the
official protocol.
5. Elaborating their stand, it is the specific case of
the petitioners that learned trial Court has failed to
appreciate that in the investigation, it has been held that
the Dam and Electricity Board authorities have failed to
take precautions, i.e., having warning hooters in working
conditions, that no guard was there to guard anyone of any
danger from the shallow waters of the river, no danger
board was there to caution anyone that water may be
released at any time and that it was mandatory for a jeep
to go around with a siren, cautioning anyone and everyone,
that water will soon be released from the Dam, as such,
held the Dam and Electricity Board guilty of sheer
negligence and lack of care.
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2025 21:19:51 :::CIS
4 2025:HHC:26338
6. The order has further been assailed on the
ground that the learned Magistrate has failed to see the
.
fact that the prosecution, after having gathered such
meticulous and detailed information pinning down on the
severe negligence and utter carelessness on the part of
these Dam and Electricity Board officials i.e., A1 to A6,
held them liable for the offences under Sections 336 and
304 IPC. r
7. The order has further been assailed on the
ground that the learned trial Court ought to have seen that
the petitioners have not been charged with the substantive
Sections of law i.e. Sections 336 and 304A IPC, but, they
have been named as accused, by applying Section 34 IPC.
According to the petitioners, Section 34 is not applicable,
in the present case and the learned trial Court has dealt
with the matter, as if the petitioners are directly liable
under Sections 336 and 304 IPC.
8. The order has further been assailed on the
ground that learned trial Court has wrongly fixed the
liability on the petitioners, under Sections 336 and 304A
IPC. According to the petitioners, the learned trial Court
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2025 21:19:51 :::CIS
5 2025:HHC:26338
has also failed to see that to impose criminal liability,
either under Section 336 IPC or Section 304 IPC, it is
.
necessary that the death should have been the direct result
of the rash and negligent act of the accused and that act
must be proximate and the efficient cause, without the
intervention of negligence by any other.
9. On the basis of the above grounds, Mr. V.
Pattabhi and Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, learned Senior
Advocates assisted by Mr. N.V. Raghav Reddy, Mr. L
Prasad Rao and Mr. Dinkar Bhaskar, Advocates has prayed
that the order passed by the learned trial Court be
quashed and set aside and the petitioners be discharged,
by allowing the application, under Section 258 Cr.PC.
10. The prayer, so made, in the petition, has been
opposed by Mr. Tejasvi Sharma and Mr. H.S. Rawat,
learned Additional Advocates General, assisted by Mr.
Rohit Sharma and Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocates
General, appearing for respondent No.1, and Mr. Suneet
Goel, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vivek Negi, Advocate for
respondent No.2, by submitting that the learned trial Court
has rightly considered the material collected by the
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2025 21:19:51 :::CIS
6 2025:HHC:26338
prosecution, till date and rightly rejected the application
for discharge.
.
11. Brief facts, leading to filing the present revision
petition, as per the record, may summed up as under:
On 08.06.2014, Shri Mohar Singh,
Assistant SubInspector and Officerin
Charge, Police Station Aut, District Mandi
has visited ShalaNala. near Thalout, the
place of incident to investigate the
employees/ persons concerned. At the spot,
ShalaNala, Shri Mohar Singh, Assistant
SubInspector met Shri A. Adithya, aged
29 years, Mobile No. 09704112891, Son of
Shri Srihari, Caste Brahaman, Resident of
House No. 511354, Naim Nagar, Hanam
Konda, WARANGAL (Telangana)506009,
presently Resident of House No. 1391,
Pragati Nagar, Bukar Place, Hyderabad and
working as Assistant Professor in VNR
Vignana Jyothi Institute of Engineering &
Technology, Hyderabad, (Telangana). Shri
Mohar Singh, Assistant SubInspector and
OfficerinCharge, Police Station, Thalout
recorded the statement of Shri A. Adithya
under Section 154 CrPC, to the effect that
he is resident of the above address and for
about last three years, working as Assistant
Professor in VNR Vignana Jyothi Institute of
Engineering & Technology, Hyderabad,
(Telangana). On 03062014 a batch of 48
students including 35 boys and 13 girls,
accompanied by 2 faculty members, of the
above College and one lady staff member
and her son, 2 tour operators, 3 drivers, 4
cooks, 2 cleaners, and 2 booking managers
were going from Shimla to Kullu Manali in 2
private buses having numbers UP65BT
5872 and UP65BT4068 hired for the
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2025 21:19:51 :::CIS
7 2025:HHC:26338
purpose from M/s Lakshmi Travelers. On
08.06.2014 at about 08.00 am, I along with
the above students and other above stated
persons, have started our journey to
.
Manali. At about 6.45 pm they reached
ShalaNala near Thalout and at that time,
the students wanted to take photographs of
the river, and so, both the bus drivers
parked the two buses on the road side, and
all the students went towards the river with
the tour manager. The water was very less
in the river and some students were
standing and some students were seated on
the stones and were trying to take
photographs including group photographs.
Suddenly there was speedy and full flow of
water in the river and the locals were
shouting that water has been released from
behind and asked the students to come out
of the river, due to which, all got panicked
and were trying to run to the shore. Some
were able to reach the land and save
themselves, whereas many got washed away
by the heavy flow of fast moving turbulent
river water, wherein 6 girl students and 18
male students and one tour manager by
name Prahallad, got washed away.
It was alleged that the incident took place
due to the negligence committed by the Larji
Dam employees who released the dam water
without any sort of caution or warning of
blowing the Hooter/Siren, and so requested
to take action against them.
As per the above statement, offence under
Section 336, 304A IPC has been found and
registered accordingly. The statement in
original was sent to the Police Station
through Shri Prakash Chand, HHC, No.211,
on the basis of which, a case has been
registered. After registration of the case, a
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2025 21:19:51 :::CIS
8 2025:HHC:26338
copy of the same was sent to the Officerin
Charge at the spot of the incident.
During investigations, ASI, Mohar Singh
.
visited the site of incident and prepared a
map of the site. He clicked the photographs
of the site of incident. He also recorded the
statements of witnesses. During search
operation on 09.06.2014, the dead bodies of
Lakhmi Gaytri, Wanathu Ram Babu, Gaipla
Aishwary and Vijeta were recovered from
Pandoh Dam area, which were identified by
the faculty members at the spot. The dead
bodies were inspected and photographs of
the same were clicked. Form25.35A and
25.39 were filled and the postmortem of all
the four bodies were got done and the
reports of the same had also been procured.
After this, all the four dead bodies were sent
to their respective residences at Hyderabad
through the faculty members through the
vehicles arranged for the purpose. Medical
Officer, Zonal Hospital, Mandi had
mentioned that the cause of death of
deceased Lakshmi Gaythri, Wanathu Ram
Babu, Gaipla Aishwary and Akula Vijeta
was, cardio with asphyxia due to drowning.
Similarly, during search operations on
10.06.2014, the dead body of Devasheesh
Bose, on 11.06.2014, the dead body of M.D.
Shabir Hussain Sikka, on 12.06.2014, the
dead bodies of Gonur Arvind Kumar and T.
Upendra, on 18.06.2014, the dead bodies of
M. Shiva Prakash Verma, P. Vainkta Durga,
on 19.06.2014, the dead bodies of Machrla
Akhil, Ashish Mantha, on 20.06.2014, the
dead body of V. Mehan Sha Raj, on
22.06.2014, the dead bodies of Mithapli
Akhil, Cha. Parmeshwar and Warnini
Ritwik, on 25.06.2014, the dead body of P.
Ridhima, on 26.06.2014, the dead body of
Nardu Jagdish Mudrij, on 30.06.2014, the
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2025 21:19:51 :::CIS
9 2025:HHC:26338
dead body of Vishnu Vardhan Reddy, on
01.07.2014, the dead body of Vishavraj
Sandeep, on 20.07.2014. the dead bodies of
Kashrla Rishitha Reddy and Desri
.
Shrinidhi, were recovered. To recover the
remaining dead bodies, the search
operation was carried out in and around
Padoh Dam site. The dead bodies recovered
during the search operation were inspected
and photographs of the same were clicked
and Forms25.35 A and 25.39 were filled up
in case of all the recovered dead bodies. The
postmortem of all the recovered dead bodies
were carried out by a team specially
formulated for the purpose. As per the
Medical Officer, the cause of death of
Devashish Bose was mentioned as, “in my
opinion, the cause of death in consistent
with emulative effect of (1) asphyxia due to
drowning, (2) multiple antimortem injures
leading hemorrhagic shock”, and in respect
of deceased, Shabir Hussain Sikka, the
cause of death was recorded by the Medical
Office was, “in my opinion, cause of death is
consistent ant with asphyxia due to
drowning”, the cause of death in respect of
deceased, T. Upendra, deceased Gonur
Arvind Kumar, M. Shiva Prakash Verma, P.
Vainkta Durga Tarun, Macharla, Akhil,
Ashish Maintha, V. Mehan Shaw Raj, Mufdı
Kiran Kumar, Mithapli Akhli Cha.
Parmeshwar and Varineeni Ritwik, P.
Ridhima, Nardu Jagdish Mudiraj, Vishnu
Vardhan reddy and Vishavraj Sandeep, was
recorded in writing as, “in my opinion, the
cause of death is consistent ant with
drowning”. After postmortem, the dead
bodies after identification were handed over
to the faculty members. On 13.07.2014 and
20.07.2014, the dead bodies of deceased
Kasharla Rishitha Reddy and Desri
Shrinidhi were recovered and on
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2025 21:19:51 :::CIS
10 2025:HHC:26338
28.07.2014, the dead bodies were
inspected, photographs of the same were
clicked, Forms 25.35A and 25.39 were
filled, the postmortem of the dead bodies
.
were got done through a team constituted
specially for the purpose and postmortem
reports were also collected. As per the
Medical Officer, Zonal Hospital, Mandi, the
cause of death of all the four deceased will
be given after chemical analysis report of
viscera. During postmortem, the samples of
those dead bodies, whose DNA test was
decided to be conducted, were handed over
to the police. It was suggested to the police
officials to get done these tests from SFSL
Junga and RFSL Mandi. As per the report of
RFSL, Mandi, deceased, Desri Srinidhi,
Kasrla is related to Reddy and on
13.07.2014 and 28.07.2014, the visra
investigations were carried out and visra
report was prepared accordingly. As per the
reports submitted by the Assistant Director,
no use of alcohol and poison by the
deceased were recorded in writing in the
report. Opinion of the Medical Officer, Zonal
Hospital, Mandi on all the postmortem
reports of four deceased, Desri Srinidhi,
Kasrla Rista Reddy and two unidentified
dead bodies, were sought. As per the
Medical Officer, Zonal Hospital, Mandi it
was mentioned in writing that, “final
opinion in absence of any anti mortem
injury or fatal frame and absence of alcohol
and poison in viscera cause of death cannot
be opined. In DNA test report No.
1414/SFSL/DNA165/14 dated 28.07.2014
submitted by the Assistant Director, Junga,
it had been mentioned that, “the DNA
profile of the unidentified deceased
prepared from muscle piece does not match
with DNA profile of the parents of missing
students sent by AP FSL. It is mentioned by
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2025 21:19:51 :::CIS
11 2025:HHC:26338
the Assistant Director, FSL., Junga in
writing that DNA test report No.
1520/SFSL/DNA183/1 dated 11.08.2014
that, “the unidentified deceased male
.
(source of Exhibit4 (muscle of the
unidentified deceased) & Exhibit5 (bone
and tooth of the unidentified deceased) is
the biological offspring (son) of K. Laxmi K.
Bala. It has been recorded in writing that
the dead bodies were handed over to the
parents of the deceased through faculty
members for further transportation to their
native places at Hyderabad for performing
funeral ceremonies of the deceased
students. DNA test of the unidentified dead
body found on 27.07.2014. was got done,
which matched with Prahlad alias Prem
Kheda, Son of Shri Nagisthi, resident of 1
147, Ravindravoram Almush Kurnol,
Andhra Pradesh. After this, the dead body
was sent to Hyderabad for last funeral. On
13.07.2014, a dead body was found, which
was identified as M. Shiva Prakash Verma
on the basis of the ATM Card, College
Identity Card. His dead body was sent to
Hyderabad for last funerals. On 18.06.2014
the dead body found in Pandoh Dam area
was identified as M. Shiva Prakash by the
faculty members and due to non
identification of the dead body, the dead
body was sent to Hyderabad and the dead
body found on 18.06.2014 was established
to be of M. Shiva Prakash was handed over
to the faculty members. The DNA test of
unidentified dead body, which was sent to
Hyderabad on 13.06.2015 was got done at
Hyderabad, which was matched with the
parents of M Shiva Prakash Verma and the
same was handed over to Mr. M. Ravi
Verma, father of deceased M. Shiva Prakash
Verma for last funerals. According to the
FIR, the dead body of M. Shiva Prakash
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2025 21:19:51 :::CIS
12 2025:HHC:26338
Verma was found in Pandoh Dam area,
which was handed over to Mr. M. Ravi
Verma, father of the deceased, was found to
be of Kalur Harsha and it was found that
.
the dead body was not properly identified by
the faculty members. As per the FIR, 25
dead bodies of the students have been
found.
The investigation in the case has been
carried out by Shri Raman Kumar,
Assistant Superintendent of Police, Mandi.
During investigation, the Investigating
Officer visited the place of incident and
recorded the statements of the witnesses.
Also procured CD of the site of incident and
inquired about the hooters and warning
boards installed in Larji Hydroelectric
Project and also procured the copies of
letter No. HPSEBL/AMD/DB1/2014762
63 dated 11.06.2014, letter No. 204344
dated 15.07.2014 and letter No. 1535 dated
19.07.2014 through correspondence/ letter
No. 1926/5A dated 11.06.2014. On
14.06.2014, I.O. also procured the duty
slips of the officials on duty and who have
been suspended due to negligence of duty
vide letter No. 1946/5 dated 14.06.2014, in
the case registered, it has been mentioned
that the transfer orders of Mandeep Singh
and Ved Prakash issued vide letter No.
2105/5A dated 28.06.2014 and vide letter
No. 1658 dated 01.07.2014, respectively
had also been procured. The information
about rules has also been collected vide
letter No. 2345/5A dated 1K 17.07.2014
and letter No. 178687 dated 19.07.2014. In
the case registered, accused (1) Mohinder
Singh Dhatwalia, Son of Shri Sukh Ram
Dhatwalia, Resident of Village Jajari, Tehsil
Jajri, Tehsil Badsar, Thana Badsar, District
Hamirpur working as Senior Executive
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2025 21:19:51 :::CIS
13 2025:HHC:26338
Engineer, Himachal Pradesh State
Electricity Board Ltd. Shadabal, aged 54
years: (2) Mandeep Singh, Son of Shri
Daljeet Singh, Resident of House No.57,
.
Ward No.3, Pratap Nagar, Thana & District
Hamirpur, presently working as Senior
Executive Engineer, H.P. State Electricity
Board Ltd., Shadabai, aged 36 years; (3)
Harbans Singh, Son of Bachitter Singh,
Caste Rajput, Resident of Village Taliyal,
Post Office Dol, Police Station Jawali,
District Kangra, presently working as Fitter
Hydromechanical (Civil), Larji, Power House
Division No.1, Larji Dam: (4) Balbir Singh
Sharma, Son of Shriram Sharma, Resident
of House No. 132, Opposite S.S.B. Camp,
Shamshi, Police Station Bhuntar, District
Kullu, presently working as Executive
Engineer. H.P. State Electricity Board,
Thalout, District Mandi, aged 58 years; (5)
Prem Sukh, Son of Shri Dola Ram, Village
Shamshi, Post Office Najd, Police Station
Bhuntar, District Kullu, presently working
as Assistant Engineering, H.P. State
Electricity Board, Thalout, District Mandi,
aged 52 years; (6) Ved Prakash, Son of
Hoshiar Singh, Post Office Ranital, Police
Post Haripur, Tehsil and District Kangra,
presently working as Assistant Engineer,
HPSEBL, Duwada, District Mandi, aged 58
years, have been inquired and investigated.
After arresting the above all officials, all
were informed about the offence and later
on released on bail. The certificates of
identification were filled and completed.
To investigate into the case, a Special Police
Force was constituted under the leadership
of DSP Amit Sharma, who visited VNR
Vignana Jyothi Institute of Engineering &
Technology for procurement of record
pertaining to the tour programme of the
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2025 21:19:51 :::CIS
14 2025:HHC:26338
students. The statements of the witnesses
were recorded. On 08.06.2014, due to
negligence of Assistant Professor, A.
Adithya, Assistant Professor, C. Kiran and
.
Assistant Professor, Sumabala, who were
accompanying the students of the above
College, during their study tour as
caretakers, have stopped the bus amidst
their destination and allowed the students
to go to River Beas for clicking the
photographs, due to which this accident
had occurred. Whereas all the three
Assistant Professors were accompanying the
students during their study tour as
guardians and they should not allow the
students to go to such a place where there
is a threat to their lives and in fact, it was
their duty, which clearly shows their
negligence. The case under Section34 IPC
has been found and accordingly the case
has been registered. For investigation in the
case, a Special Team under SI(P), Hans Raj
was constituted to make enquiries from
Assistant Professor, A. Adithya; Assistant
Professor, C. Kiran and Assistant Professor,
Sumabala; VNR Vignana Jyothi Institute of
Engineering & Technology and enquiries
have been made from the above three
Assistant Professors, A. Adithya, C. Kiran
and Sumabala were duly informed of the
offence and accordingly arrested and later
on, released on bail. The certificates of
identification have been prepared and duly
filled in.
During investigation, it has been found that
no proper mechanism of sounding of hooter
during release of water from the Dam, has
been established by the project authorities.
Total three hooters have been installed for
the sake of formality, out of which, one has
been installed on the bridge, which is
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2025 21:19:51 :::CIS
15 2025:HHC:26338
usually rung by the employee on duty. The
second hooter has been installed at the
tunnel pipeline coming from Thalout to Aut,
where no employee has been employed for
.
blowing the hooter. The sound of hooter
installed at the Dam site goes up to 200
meters only. The sound of this hooter,
installed at the Dam site, could not be
clearly heard due to the sound of the traffic
Third hooter is installed at Project Colony of
Thalout, which has been found to be out of
order for the last few days and no employee
has been deployed at this site for blowing of
the hooter by the HPSEBL. There is no
direct connection of hooters from the Dam
site, and there is also separate connections
and no employee is deployed for connecting
these hooters. No hooter has been installed
from Thalout to Dwada, so that the public
may be warned about the release of water
and could be alerted of the danger. Neither
any vehicle has been deployed to warn the
people/ public about the release of water
from the Dam site nor there were any
warning boards installed at the road sides,
which clearly shows the negligence and
carelessness of the officials of HPSEBL
authorities.
During investigation, it has also been found
that on 08.06.2014 at 17.32, a telephone
call has also been made by the authorities
of SLDC, Shimla to Larji Powerhouse to
decrease the generation of electricity from
136 MW to 96 MW, at 1750, another
telephone call has been received to decrease
the generation of power from 96 MW to 64
MW and third telephone call has also been
made at 1920 to decrease the generation of
power from 64 MW to 32 MW but as per the
Daily Log Sheet of LPH Dwada Barrag
Control Room, the officials of the Larji
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2025 21:19:51 :::CIS
16 2025:HHC:26338
Hydroelectric Project has shown the
discharge in spillways in cumecs 50 at
1600, discharge in spillways in cumecs 30
at 1700, discharge in spillways in cumecs
.
20 at 1800, and discharges in spillways in
cumecs 450 at 1900. As per the above
record, the increase in release of that much
of water has been found to be highest in
last few days, which clearly shows the
negligence of the officials of HPSEBL.
As per the report received from the Deputy
Director, SFL, Junga, Report No. 1199
SFSL/DNA(126)/ 14(Tallanda Upender),
MLC92/14 dated 12.06.2014 STR DNA
Profiles of the parents of the deceased for
confirming the identity of the deceased.
1296 SFSL/DNA(138)/ 14(Marharla Akhil).
MLC 105/14 dated 19.06.2014 STR DNA
Profiles of the parents of the deceased for
conforming the identity of the deceased,
1273 SFSL/DNA(138)/14 (Mohan Sal Raj),
MLC107/14 dated 20.06.2014 STR DNA
Profiles of deceased, 1278
SFSL/DNA(143)/14 (Mittapelli Akhil).
MLC114/14 dated 23.06.2014/ STR DNA
Profiles of the parents of the deceased for
confirming the identity of the deceased,
1277 SFSL/DNA(142)/14 (M. Kiran Kumar).
MLC113/14 dated 22.06.2014 STR DNA
Profiles of the parent of the deceased for
confirming the identity of the deceased,
1366SFSL(157)/14(B. Sandeep Yadav) MLC
125/14 dated 01.07.2014 Exhbit2 Piece of
muscle for DNA Profiling belongs to the
biological child (son), of B. Vijaya and
B.Vresh, 1322SFSL/DNA(149)/14 (N.
Jagdosj Mudiraj) MLC 122/14 dated
26.6.14 STR DNA Profile of the parents of
the deceased for confirming the identity of
the deceased, 1321SFSL/DNA(148)/14 (P.
Ridhima) MLC 120/14 dated 26.06.2014
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2025 21:19:51 :::CIS
17 2025:HHC:26338
STR DNA Profiles of the parents of the
deceased for confirming the identity of the
deceased, 1275 SFSL/DNA(140)/14 (B.
Ritwik), MLC112/14 dated 22.06.2014 STR
.
DNA Profiles of the parents of the deceased
for confirming the identity of the deceased,
1274 SFSL/DNA(139)/14C.H. Parmeshwar)
MLC 11/14 dated 22.06.2014 STR DNA
Profiles of the parents of the deceased for
confirming the identity of the deceased,
1466 SFSL/DNA(173)/14 (Dassari Srinidhi),
MLC 145/14 dated 20.07.2014 Exhibit1
Muscle Piece for DNA Profiling belongs to
the biological child (Daughter) of D.
Ananthal and D. Raja, have been received in
writing. On the basis of the investigation, on
the spot visit to the site of accident and map
thereof, as per the statements of witnesses,
record, postmortem reports, reports of
SFSL, Junga, RFSL Mandi, and as per the
statements of the accused, Mohinder Singh,
Mandeep Singh, Harbans Singh, Balbir
Singh, Ved Prakash, Prem Sukh, A.
Adithya, Sumabala, C. Kiran, a case has
been registered under section 336, 304A, 34
IPC.”
12. The petitioners are before this Court, by way of
present revision petition against the order dated
08.02.2024, passed by the learned trial Court, while
rejecting their application, for discharge, under Section
258 Cr.PC.
13. After completion of the investigation, the
accused persons were chargesheeted, in this case, and
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2025 21:19:51 :::CIS
18 2025:HHC:26338
thereafter, the present petitioners had moved application
under Section 239 Cr.PC., for discharging them, from the
.
said case, before the learned trial Court, which was
dismissed by the learned trial Court, vide order dated
16.03.2020.
14. The said order was assailed, by the petitioners
before this Court, by way of Criminal Revision No.239 of
2022. This Court, vide order dated 20 th May, 2022, has
allowed the revision petition, by setting aside the order
dated 16.03.2020, passed by the learned trial Court.
Relevant paragraph 7 of the judgment, is reproduced, as
under:
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion and
circumstances, impugned order passed by the
learned Magistrate is set aside and petitioners
are permitted to file fresh application on or
before 15.6.2022 under the relevant provision of
law, seeking discharge in a summons case and
in case such application is preferred by the
petitioners, the same shall be decided by the
learned Magistrate on its own merit, as this
Court has not decided the claim of the
petitioners on merits to discharge them in the
case.
15. In this case, the present petitioners had also
approached this Court earlier by way of application under
Section 482 Cr.PC bearing Cr.MMO No.357 of 2017, which
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2025 21:19:51 :::CIS
19 2025:HHC:26338
was decided on 05.12.2017. Relevant paragraphs 41 to 48,
53 and 54 are reproduced as under:
.
“41. Now, coming to the role of the Faculty
members, one of the Faculty member, who was
accompanying the students, has made her
children to sit in the bus, when she went to theriver alongwith other colleagues. The faculty
member had already also visited Manali for the
similar purpose, as has been disclosed by one of
the Faculty member and they were having
knowledge with respect to the river Beas andthe terrain and in these circumstances, these
Faculty members were required to stop the
students from going to the river Beas, but they
themselves accompanied the students and whenwater came, inspite of the warning, the students
and they rushed to the bank of river. However,
the local people remain able to save certain
students.
42. In these circumstances, this Court finds that
action of the Faculty members is that they were
knowing that by their act in not stopping the
students from going to the river bed, they arelikely to die in all probabilities. In these
circumstances also, this Court finds that thecase under Section 304A, read with Section 34
IPC, prima facie is made out. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Pundurang and Takia &
others versus State of Hyderabad reported in(1995) SCC 216, has held that common intention
in Section 34 IPC is presupposed prior concert,
but as in the present case, the petitioners were
having knowledge that by such adventure, the
students will die and not stopping them from
going to the river bed itself shows that they were
having the knowledge that in all probabilities the
students will die due to their act and by not
stopping the students. So, with due respect, to
the judgment, the same is of no help to the
petitioners.
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2025 21:19:51 :::CIS
20 2025:HHC:26338
43. In a case titled Sushil Ansal versus State
(2014) 6 SCC 173, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has held that breach of duty was not causa
causans of the death of victim or personal safety
.
causing hurt does not come under the definition
of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, but in
the present case, the action of the petitioners in
sending the students to the river bed and not
stopping them when they were going to the river
bed, which is not a tourist place and asking
them not to go there and when the Faculty
members were knowing that it was dangerous
to go there, as the Tea Stall owner of that place
has also given a hint in this regard, this Court
has come to the conclusion that the negligence
was so gross that it is a criminal negligence and
punishable under Section 304 IPC and so this
judgment is of no help to the petitioners.
44. Similarly, in S.N. Hussain versus The State
of Andhra Pradesh (1972) 3 Supreme Court
Cases 18, it has been held:
“3. The appellant’s defence was that he
was neither rash nor negligent and the
accident was unavoidable. He did not
realize at all that a Goods train waspassing at the time and since the gate was
open he crossed the railway crossing
absolutely oblivious of the fact that a trainwas approaching. The learned Trial
Magistrate accepted the defence but the
High Court was pleased to hold that theappellant was both rash and negligent.”
45. In the present case, the Faculty members
were aware about the danger in the river bed, to
go there and even when the TeaStall owner has
also given a hint in this regard to not to go to the
river bed, this Court has come to the conclusion
that the negligence was so gross that it is a
criminal negligence and punishable under
Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, so, this
judgment is of no help to the petitioners and
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2025 21:19:51 :::CIS
21 2025:HHC:26338
neither it is applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
46. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
.
argued that there was no common meeting of
mind and to support his contention, he has
relied upon the judgment rendered in Vijendra
Singh vs. State of U.P., AIR 2017 Supreme Court
860, wherein it has been held:
“25. In the case at hand, it is contended
that there is no injury caused by lathi or
ballam. Absence of any injury caused by alathi cannot be the governing factor to rule
out Section 34 IPC. It is manifest from the
evidence that the accusedappellants had
accompanied the other accused personswho were armed with gun and they
themselves carried lathi and ballamrespectively. The carrying of weapons,
arrival at a particular place and at the
same time, entering into the shed and
murder of the deceased definitely attractthe constructive liability as engrafted
under Section 34 IPC.”
47. However, in the present case, there was a
meeting of mind between the faculty members
that they were knowing that their act in not
stopping the students from the going to the river
bed, they will die in all probabilities, in case
water comes, which generally happens in the
rivers of the hills. So, it is the Faculty members
who were knowing that these students are not
aware about the facts how to judge whether the
water is likely to come in the river, which is
generally sensed by the blow of cold wind from
the upper side of the rivers, but these students
were innocent that they could not make out the
danger when the local people started blowing
the whistles and dragging the students to
safety. The Faculty members knowing fully
aware about the consequences about the
students going into the river bed, and students
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2025 21:19:51 :::CIS
22 2025:HHC:26338
were not aware about the perennial rivers
coming from the glaciers and their nature and
the release of water from the Dams from time to
time which the Faculty members were knowing,
.
(as it has come in the statements of the Faculty
members that they had earlier come to Manali
also and knows about Manali). Further, the
parents could not have allowed the petitioners to
take their children to Manali, but as it was an
industrial tour, it is not understandable as to
why these students were taken to Manali,
whereas there is no Industry at Manali, which
clearly shows that it is the negligence on the
part of the Faculty members and it is so grave
that they are liable for committing an offence
punishable under Sections 336 and 304A read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Other
judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for
the petitioners, is Suresh and another versus
State of U.P., (2001)3 Supreme Court Cases 673,
wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while
discussing, has held :
“Para 40. Participation in the crime in
furtherance of the common intention cannot
conceive of some independent criminal actby all accused persons, besides the
ultimate criminal act because for that
individual act law takes care of makingsuch accused responsible under the other
provisions of the Code. The word “act” used
in Section 34 denotes a series of acts as asingle act. What is required under law is
that the accused persons sharing the
common intention must be physically
present at the scene of occurrence and be
shown to not have dissuaded themselves
from the intended criminal act for which
they shared the common intention.
Culpability under Section 34 cannot be
excluded by mere distance from the scene
of occurrence. The presumption of
constructive intention, however, has to be
arrived at only when the Court can, with::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2025 21:19:51 :::CIS
23 2025:HHC:26338
judicial servitude, hold that the accused
must have preconceived result that ensued
in furtherance of the common intention. A
Division Bench of the Patna High Court in
.
Shatrughan Patar V/s. Emperor, AIR 1919
Pat 111 held that it is only when a Court
with some certainty hold that a particular
accused must have preconceived or pre
meditated the result which ensued or acted
in concert with others in order to bring
about that result, that Section 34 may be
applied.” 48. The settled law, in fact, is in
favour of the prosecution as each of the
Faculty member was knowing that by not
stopping the students to go to the river bed,
they were likely to die, which is also clear
from the fact that while going into the river
bed, Faculty member had not taken own
child to the river bed. In these
circumstances, this Court finds that the
law, as cited by the learned counsel for the
petitioners is of no help to the present
petitioners.
xxx xxx xxx
53. Considering the material, which has come on
record, alongwith the law, as discussed
hereinabove, there was meeting of mind
between the Faculty members to the effect that
they were knowing that their act in not stopping
the students from going to the river bed, they
will die in all probabilities, in case water comes,
which generally happens in the rivers in the
hills. Also it is the Faculty members, who were
knowing that these students are not aware
about the facts how to judge whether the water
is likely to come in the river, which is generally
sensed by the blow of cold wind etc. from the
upper side of the rivers, but these students were
innocent that they could not make out the
danger even when the local people started
blowing the whistles and dragging the students
to safety. The Faculty members knowing fully
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2025 21:19:51 :::CIS
24 2025:HHC:26338
well about the consequences about the students
going into the river bed, and students were not
aware about the nature of perennial rivers
coming from the glaciers and their nature and
.
likely release of water from the Dams from time
to time which the Faculty members were
knowing,(as it has come in the statements of the
Faculty members that they had earlier come to
Manali also and knows about Manali) makes out
a case against the Faculty members under
Sections 336, 304A read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code. Further, the parents could
not have allowed the petitioners to take their
children to Manali, but as it was an industrial
tour, it is not understandable as to why these
students were taken to Manali whereas there is
no Industry at Manali, which clearly shows that
it is the negligence on the part of the Faculty
members and it is so grave that life of 25 victims
lost and so the petitioners committed an offence
punishable under Sections 336 and 304A read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Further this Court finds that Faculty members
were knowing that by their act in not stopping
the students from going to the river bed, they are
likely to die in all probabilities, having this
knowledge, they not only failed to stop the
victims, but facilitated them to go to the river
bed. Otherwise also, from the record, it is clear
that the Faculty members were supposed to take
care of the students, as they were in the care
and custody of the Faculty members/petitioners
and the College. Petitioners were supposed to
make journey of victims safe and take them safe
back to Hyderabad to their parents. It is
worthwhile to mention here that the victims were
in the age group of 19 and 22 years and they
were in the care and custody of College
authorities. Inspite of taking care of them, the
petitioners facilitated them to go to the river bed
knowing fully well about the risk involved there,
which is clear from the fact that one of the
Faculty members, who was having her own
child with her during the tour had not taken her
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2025 21:19:51 :::CIS
25 2025:HHC:26338
child to the river bed. Further, when the Faculty
members fled from the river bed on sensing the
coming danger, they were supposed to take the
students and the victims with them, but they
.
only fled themselves leaving victims, who were
not knowing anything with regard to the nature
of the river and the danger prevailing at the spot
being in their threshold of life unexperienced
and in the care and custody of the Faculty
members. In these circumstances also, there
cannot be any other conclusion, but that the
proceedings started against the petitioners is on
the basis of the facts, which have come on
record and are not required to be interfered with.
54. This Court concludes that no prudent person
will enter himself or permit someone else to go
into the river bed in the hilly areas and when the
petitioner had permitted and facilitated the
victims (who lost their lives) after entering river
bed, this act of petitioners was with the clear
and instant risk of harm/danger to life and
personal safety of the victims. As the petitioners
were knowing the danger thus, their common
intention with respect to their negligent act is
abundantly clear.
16. Admittedly, those findings have not been
assailed by the petitioners.
17. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed
application, under Section 258 Cr.PC, before the learned
trial Court.
18. Before proceeding further, the scope of Section
258 Cr.PC, is liable to be discussed. The provisions of
Section 258 Cr.PC, are reproduced as under:
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2025 21:19:51 :::CIS
26 2025:HHC:26338
258. Power to stop proceedings in certain
cases. In any summonscase instituted
otherwise than upon complaint, a Magistrate of
the first class or, with the previous sanction of
.
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, any other Judicial
Magistrate, may, for reasons to be recorded by
him, stop the proceedings at any stage without
pronouncing any judgment and where such
stoppage of proceedings is made after the
evidence of the principal witnesses has been
recorded, pronounce a judgment of acquittal,
and in any other case, release the accused, and
such release shall have the effect of discharge.
19. r to
Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, in Crl. R.C.
No.1869 of 2018, titled as Suo Motu versus State of
Kerala, along with connected matter, has elaborately
discussed the provisions of Section 258 Cr.PC. Relevant
paragraph 7, of the judgment, is reproduced, as under:
“7. Section 258 can be invoked only in
peculiar and unusual circumstances in cases,
wherein no prima facie case is made out against
the accused or when the accusation does not
actually constitute an offence or for the reason
that the prosecution is bound to fail on account
of a technical defect. For the reason that the
accused had absconded or that despite the
initiation of coercive proceedings, his presence
could not be secured is no reason to invoke
Section 258 of the Cr.P.C. From the proceedings
sheet, it does not appear that the learned
Magistrate had made any genuine endeavour to
secure the presence of the accused by
exhausting the provisions under the Code. The
order is laconic and is not supported by any
reasons. The learned Magistrate has exceeded
in its powers in invoking provisions of Section
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2025 21:19:51 :::CIS
27 2025:HHC:26338
258 of the Code and hence, cannot be
sustained, the same being illegal and irregular.”
(self emphasis supplied)
.
20. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in this case,
has challenged the order passed by the learned trial Court,
mainly on the ground that from the bare reading of the
charge sheet, it transpired that there was a manmade
glitch of water, mens rea was not there, as the spot, where
the alleged incident had taken place, is perennial river and
scant water was there.
21. According to the learned counsel for the
petitioners, there was no danger, as such, the present
petitioners cannot be made liable, by invoking Section 34
of the IPC.
22. To buttress his contentions, statements of
Puran Chand, Noop Ram, Bihari Lal, Chetan Chavan, V.
Raman Teja, Lavanya, and A. Purna Shekhar, recorded by
the I.O., under Section 161 Cr.PC, during the investigation,
have been relied upon.
23. At the time of seeking relief, under Section 258
Cr.PC, the entire material collected by the prosecution,
more particularly, the statements of the witnesses,
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2025 21:19:51 :::CIS
28 2025:HHC:26338
recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC, have to be considered,
as a whole and not in piecemeal, i.e., by picking up a
.
particular line.
24. Bihari Lal, in his statement, recorded, under
Section 161 Cr.PC, has stated that initially, the water was
very less in the river, but, all of a sudden, the water level
has increased drastically, due to which, some of the
students have succeeded in coming out of the river and
some of the students have washed away in the heavy flow
of water.
25. Similarly, Noop Ram deposed that at about 6.35
p.m., some people, who were attending the marriage at the
residence of Hukme Ram, started blowing whistles and
were asking the students to come out of the river, as the
flow of water was increasing rapidly.
26. Reliance has also been placed on the statement
of Mr. Chetan Chavan, who has deposed that one of his
batch mates, Debashish Bose wanted to attend the
nature’s call and asked the driver of the bus to stop the
bus. Thereafter, they had allegedly inquired from the
owner of the nearby Dhaba, if it was safe to go down in the
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2025 21:19:51 :::CIS
29 2025:HHC:26338
river to take pictures, to which, he replied that it was safe,
but, they should come back fast. Thereafter, they had
.
gone down to the river bed to click photographs. No one
from the faculty has stopped them from going into the river
bed.
27. Similar statements have been made by V.
Raman Teja and Lavanya.
28. The statement of A. Purna Shekhar, was also
recorded by the police, wherein, he has got recorded that
the incident happened due to discharge/release of large
quantity of water into River Beas, by the employees of Larji
Hydroelectric Project, without blowing any siren and prior
intimation.
29. Although, the above statements of the
witnesses, recorded by the police, during the course of the
investigation, have been relied upon to seek discharge,
however, the question, which arises, before this Court, for
determination, is about the fact at the time of deciding the
question of discharge, as to whether the entire case is to be
seen or only the statements of few witnesses are to be seen.
The answer to this question, is in negative, as, while
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2025 21:19:51 :::CIS
30 2025:HHC:26338
deciding the question of discharge, under Section 258
Cr.PC, the entire case, as presented by the prosecution, is
.
to be considered.
30. Statement of Puran Chand son of Sher Singh,
was also recorded, by the police, on 15.6.2024, who has
categorically stated that he has requested those persons,
who came there in the bus, which was stopped near his T
stall, by cautioning them not to go towards river, as the
water can be released at any time. However, according to
him, they had not adhered to his advice and had gone
towards river bed.
31. Similar statement has been made by Noop Ram.
32. On the basis of the statements, so recorded, by
the Police, as highlighted by the learned counsel for the
petitioners, the arguments, so advanced, qua the fact that
the act of the petitioners, in allowing the students to walk
into the river, for allegedly clicking photographs, is not
causa causans of the incident. The said act of the
petitioners, permitting the students to go into the river
bank to click the photographs, cannot be seen, in isolation,
however, the statement of the witness, who had specifically
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2025 21:19:51 :::CIS
31 2025:HHC:26338
deposed that he has cautioned them not to go to the river
bank, as water level may increase, at any time, has also to
.
be taken into consideration.
33. If the facts and circumstances of the present
case are seen in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble High
Court Kerala in Crl. R.C. No.1869 of 2018, titled as Suo
Motu versus State of Kerala, then, at the stage of
deciding application, under Section 258 CrPC, only prima
facie case is to be seen.
34. The alleged rash and negligent act of the
accused is causa causans of the incident, which has rightly
been held to be the question of law and facts, by the
learned trial Court which will be proved during the course
of trial.
35. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of
Gujarat versus Dilip Singh Kishore Singh Rao, 2023
SCC Online 1294, has held that at the time of framing of
the charge, the Court has to see the material collected by
the prosecution to determine whether a case has been
made out for proceeding with the trial or not and the
defence of the accused is not required to be considered.
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2025 21:19:51 :::CIS
32 2025:HHC:26338
Relevant paragraphs 7 to 10 of the judgment, are
reproduced, as under:
.
7. It is trite law that application of judicial mind
being necessary to determine whether a case
has been made out by the prosecution for
proceeding with trial and it would not be
necessary to dwell into the pros and cons of the
matter by examining the defence of the accused
when an application for discharge is filed. At
that stage, the trial judge has to merely examine
the evidence placed by the prosecution in order
to determine whether or not the grounds are
sufficient to proceed against the accused on
basis of charge sheet material. The nature of the
evidence recorded or collected by the
investigating agency or the documents produced
in which prima facie it reveals that there are
suspicious circumstances against the accused,
so as to frame a charge would suffice and such
material would be taken into account for the
purposes of framing the charge. If there is no
sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused necessarily, the accused would be
discharged, but if the court is of the opinion,
after such consideration of the material there
are grounds for presuming that accused has
committed the offence which is triable, then
necessarily charge has to be framed.
8. At the time of framing of the charge and
taking cognizance the accused has no right to
produce any material and call upon the court to
examine the same. No provision in the Code
grants any right to the accused to file any
material or document at the stage of framing of
charge. The trial court has to apply its judicial
mind to the facts of the case as may be
necessary to determine whether a case has
been made out by the prosecution for trial on
the basis of chargesheet material only.
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2025 21:19:51 :::CIS
33 2025:HHC:26338
9. If the accused is able to demonstrate from the
chargesheet material at the stage of framing the
charge which might drastically affect the very
sustainability of the case, it is unfair to suggest
.
that such material should not be considered or
ignored by the court at that stage. The main
intention of granting a chance to the accused of
making submissions as envisaged under
Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. is to assist the court
to determine whether it is required to proceed to
conduct the trial. Nothing in the Code limits the
ambit of such hearing, to oral hearing and oral
arguments only and therefore, the trial court
can consider the material produced by the
accused before the I.O.
10. It is settled principle of law that at the stage
of considering an application for discharge the
court must proceed on an assumption that the
material which has been brought on record by
the prosecution is true and evaluate said
material in order to determine whether the facts
emerging from the material taken on its face
value, disclose the existence of the ingredients
necessary of the offence alleged. This Court in
State of Tamil Nadu Vs. N. Suresh Rajan And
Others (2014) 11 SCC 709 adverting to the
earlier propositions of law laid down on this
subject has held:
“29. We have bestowed our consideration
to the rival submissions and thesubmissions made by Mr. Ranjit Kumar
commend us. True it is that at the time of
consideration of the applications for
discharge, the court cannot act as a
mouthpiece of the prosecution or act as a
post office and may sift evidence in order
to find out whether or not the allegations
made are groundless so as to pass an
order of discharge. It is trite that at the
stage of consideration of an application for
discharge, the court has to proceed with an
assumption that the materials brought on::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2025 21:19:51 :::CIS
34 2025:HHC:26338record by the prosecution are true and
evaluate the said materials and documents
with a view to find out whether the facts
emerging therefrom taken at their face.
value disclose the existence of all the
ingredients constituting the alleged offence.
At this stage, probative value of the
materials has to be gone into and the courtis not expected to go deep into the matter
and hold that the materials would not
warrant a conviction. In our opinion, what
needs to be considered is whether there is
a ground for presuming that the offencehas been committed and not whether a
ground for convicting the accused has been
made out. To put it differently, if the court
thinks that the accused might havecommitted the offence on the basis of the
materials on record on its probative value,
it can frame the charge; though for
conviction, the court has to come to the
conclusion that the accused has committed
the offence. The law does not permit a minitrial at this stage.”
(self emphasis supplied)
36. Considering all these facts, there is no occasion
for this Court to interfere with the order passed by the
learned trial Court, as such, the present petition is
dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any,
shall also stand disposed of.
37. Any of the observations, made hereinabove,
shall not be taken as an expression of opinion, on the
::: Downloaded on – 05/08/2025 21:19:51 :::CIS
35 2025:HHC:26338
merits of the case, as these observations, are confined,
only, to the disposal of the present petition.
.
( Virender Singh )
August 04, 2025 (ps) Judge
r to
::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2025 21:19:51 :::CIS