The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has dismissed a petition by a former Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer (AAEEO), Kumbakonam, arraigned as an accused in the ‘Kumbakonam school fire case', challenging an order of the Principal Sessions Judge (PSJ), Thanjavur, dismissing his discharge petition.
In his order, Justice S.Tamilvanan said that in the instant case, 94 children were burnt to death and several children sustained permanent disability. As per the prosecution case, the fire occurred due to gross negligence and illegal functioning of the school management and the authorities.
The petitioner, K.Balakrishnan, was working as AAEEO, Kumbakonam, between January 1999 and June 2003. He was the inspecting authority of Sri Krishna Aided Primary School at Kumbakonam, where the fire accident occurred on July 16, 2004. The prosecution case was that he along with other accused had committed offences, including criminal conspiracy and culpable homicide not amounting to murder and issuing or signing false certificate.
He filed a petition seeking discharge from the case. The PSJ dismissed the petition. Hence, the present revision.
Counsel submitted that as per the complaint, statement of prosecution witnesses and the charge sheet nothing would attract any ingredient for the offence alleged against the petitioner.
The government submitted that several children died due to the negligence of the school administration and the authorities, including the petitioner. The fire was due to the careless attitude of the inspecting authorities.
Mr.Justice Tamilvanan said from the counter filed by the police and the material available on record, it was quite clear that at this stage neither the court below nor the High Court could decide that the petitioner was totally innocent. There was no question of providing benefit of doubt to the accused at the time of framing charges.
He said that whether the alleged guilt against Mr.Balakrishnan was proved beyond reasonable doubt or not could be decided after trial. Therefore, the revision petition was liable to be dismissed at this stage as there were prima facie material available against the petitioner and the other accused.
