Discharge plea of faculty in Beas tragedy rejected; 'Prima facie' case for trial exists: Himachal Pradesh High Court - 2025-08-11

Beas River Tragedy: High Court Upholds Trial Against College Faculty, Dismisses Discharge Plea

Shimla, HP – The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed a revision petition filed by three faculty members of a Hyderabad-based engineering college, refusing to discharge them from a criminal case related to the tragic 2014 Beas river incident where 24 students and a tour manager were washed away.

Justice Virender Singh, upholding the trial court's order, ruled that there is a prima facie case against the faculty members for proceeding with the trial under Sections 336 (act endangering life) and 304-A (causing death by negligence) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The court emphasized that at the stage of considering discharge, the entire material collected by the prosecution must be considered, and it is not permissible to conduct a "mini-trial" or selectively rely on witness statements favorable to the accused.

Background of the Case

The case dates back to June 8, 2014, when a group of 48 students from VNR Vignana Jyothi Institute of Engineering & Technology, Hyderabad, on a tour to Manali, stopped near Thalout. Several students entered the shallow riverbed of the Beas to take photographs. A sudden, massive surge of water released from the nearby Larji Hydroelectric Project dam swept away 24 students and their tour manager, leading to their deaths.

Following an investigation, FIR No.61/14 was registered. Six officials from the dam and electricity board were charged with culpable negligence for releasing the water without adequate warning. The three petitioners, Assistant Professors A. Aditya, C. Kiran, and Sumabala, who were accompanying the students, were also arrayed as accused (No. 7 to 9) for their alleged negligence and failure in their duty of care. The petitioners filed an application for discharge, which the trial court in Mandi rejected on February 8, 2024, prompting the present revision petition before the High Court.

Arguments in Court

Petitioners' Arguments: The senior advocates for the petitioners argued that the primary and direct cause ( causa causans ) of the tragedy was the "gross negligence" of the dam authorities who released a huge quantity of water without following safety protocols, such as sounding sirens or deploying guards. They contended that the faculty members were wrongly implicated under Section 34 IPC (common intention), as their act of allowing students to take photographs was not the proximate cause of the deaths. They also cited statements from some witnesses who claimed a local dhaba owner had indicated it was safe to go to the riverbed.

State's Arguments: The prosecution opposed the discharge, asserting that the trial court had correctly evaluated the evidence on record. They argued that the faculty, as guardians of the students, had a clear duty of care which they failed to exercise. They pointed to evidence, including the statement of a tea-stall owner, Puran Chand, who explicitly warned the group not to venture into the river as water could be released at any time.

Court's Rationale and Key Observations

Justice Virender Singh, in his judgment, firmly established the legal principles governing discharge applications under Section 258 of the Cr.P.C. The court held that its role at this stage is limited to determining if a prima facie case exists, based on an assumption that the prosecution's material is true.

On Duty of Care and Negligence: The Court heavily relied on its own previous findings in a 2017 order related to the same case, which had not been challenged by the petitioners. The court reiterated those observations, stating:

"The Faculty members knowing fully well about the consequences about the students going into the river bed...makes out a case against the Faculty members under Sections 336, 304-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code."

The judgment highlighted that the faculty's negligence was "so grave" that it constituted criminal negligence. Crucially, the court noted:

"it 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 child to the river bed."

This fact, the court reasoned, suggested the faculty was aware of the inherent risks.

On Scope of Discharge: Citing the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat versus Dilip Singh Kishore Singh Rao (2023) , Justice Singh affirmed that the defense of the accused is not to be considered at the discharge stage. The court must only evaluate if the prosecution's material, taken at face value, discloses the ingredients of the alleged offence.

"At the time of seeking relief, under Section 258 Cr.PC, the entire material collected by the prosecution...have to be considered, as a whole and not in piece-meal, i.e., by picking up a particular line."

Final Decision

The High Court found no grounds to interfere with the trial court's order. It concluded that whether the faculty's alleged negligence was the causa causans of the tragedy is a mixed question of law and fact to be determined during the trial.

The petition was dismissed, clearing the way for the trial to proceed against the faculty members. The court clarified that its observations are limited to the disposal of the current petition and should not influence the merits of the trial.