Beas River Tragedy | Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Criminal Negligence Charges Against Faculty And Dam Officials Over Death Of Students On College Trip
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Virender Singh has dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging the trial court's order rejecting an application for discharge under Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court declined to interfere with the trial court's decision to proceed against the petitioners, holding that there was no occasion to quash the proceedings at this stage. The Court directed that the trial will proceed in accordance with law, with the petitioners’ facing charges under Sections 336 and 304A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The decision comes in connection with the deaths of 25 students and one tour manager in June 2014 following the sudden release of water from the Larji Dam into the Beas River.
On 8 June 2014, a group from VNR Vignana Jyothi Institute of Engineering & Technology, Hyderabad, was travelling to Manali when they stopped near Shala Nala, Thalout, alongside the Beas River. The group comprised 48 students, faculty members, a lady staff member with her son, tour operators, drivers, cooks, cleaners, and booking managers. Students descended to the riverbank to take photographs when, without warning, a sudden release of water from the Larji Hydroelectric Project caused a surge in the river, washing away 18 male students, six female students, and one tour manager. FIR No. 61/14 was registered under Sections 336 and 304A IPC at Police Station Aut, District Mandi.
Investigations implicated employees of the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. (HPSEBL) and faculty members accompanying the students. The investigation found deficiencies in the dam's warning systems, including non-functional hooters, absence of guards and warning boards, and no use of vehicles to alert the public before water release. Duty slips, suspension orders, and operational directives relating to the dam were examined. Statements from witnesses indicated that locals attempted to warn the group about the rising water.
The faculty members, including the petitioners, were accused under Section 34 IPC for allegedly failing to prevent students from entering a dangerous river area despite being aware of potential hazards. The trial court rejected their discharge plea in February 2024. The petitioners contended that the principal negligence lay with dam authorities and that Section 34 IPC was inapplicable as they were not directly liable under Sections 336 and 304A IPC. They also argued that their actions were not the proximate cause of the deaths.
The prosecution argued that the petitioners acted as guardians of the students and knowingly allowed them into a dangerous situation. Evidence included witness statements of warnings ignored, and the absence of preventive measures by the faculty. The trial court held that a prima facie case existed and refused to discharge them.
Earlier, in 2017, the High Court, in related proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, had recorded findings that the faculty members knew of the risks yet permitted the students to enter the riverbed, constituting criminal negligence under Sections 336 and 304A read with Section 34 IPC.
In May 2022, the High Court permitted the petitioners to file a fresh discharge application, which was again rejected in February 2024, leading to the present revision petition.
Justice Virender Singh recorded that "at the stage of deciding application, under Section 258 CrPC, only prima facie case is to be seen." The Court stated that the entire prosecution material must be considered as a whole rather than selectively relying on certain witness statements. The Court noted witness evidence that warnings were given not to approach the river, which were ignored.
The Court cited the Kerala High Court in Suo Motu vs State of Kerala, observing that "Section 258 can be invoked only in peculiar and unusual circumstances... 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."
Referring to Supreme Court authority in State of Gujarat vs Dilip Singh Kishore Singh Rao (2023), the Court stated 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 that probative value is not to be assessed at this stage.
The Court stated earlier unchallenged findings in the 2017 judgment 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" and that they facilitated the act, despite their duty of care towards the students.
The Court dismissed the revision petition, stating, "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." It directed that pending miscellaneous applications also stand disposed of. The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the disposal of the petition and "shall not be taken as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the case."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: 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 Respondents: Mr. Tejasvi Sharma and Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Rohit Sharma and Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocates General; Mr. Suneet Goel, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vivek Negi, Advocate
Case Title: A. Aditya & Others vs State of Himachal Pradesh
Neutral Citation: 2025: HHC:26338
Case Number: Cr. Revision No. 284 of 2024
Bench: Justice Virender Singh
