The Karnataka High Court has held that refusal by a shopkeeper to hand back a playing ball to a minor and asking him to bring his father to take back the ball after which he allegedly got upset and died by suicide, does not amount to abetment of suicide of a child under Section 305 IPC. 

Section 305 concerns the offence of abetment of the suicide of a child or an insane person. To establish the offence, the prosecution must prove the essential elements of abetment provided under Section 107 of the IPC. A person is considered to have abetted an act if they instigate someone to commit that act, engage in a conspiracy to execute it, or intentionally aid the act through their actions or illegal omissions.

A Division Bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh and Justice B. Pramod dismissed the appeal filed against the acquittal of two shopkeepers, observing:

“In the present case, the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused have done any positive act and have driven the child to commit suicide leaving with no other alternative but to put an end to his life. Not only is the said positive action in close proximity to the time of occurrence absent, but there is also no evidence of any continuous physical or mental torture meted to the deceased by the accused...

The ingredients of mens rea cannot be assumed to be present; they have to be vital and conspicuous. Merely because the accused refused to give back his ball and directed him to bring his father cannot be taken as an abetment to commit suicide.”

The case originated from an incident on February 1, 2019, when a minor boy was playing volleyball in front of his house. The ball accidentally fell into the accused's shop, breaking the glass. When the boy requested the accused shopkeepers to return the ball, they refused and, instead, scolded him. It was alleged that two accused asked the boy to bring his father to claim the ball, and one of the accused even dragged the boy from the shop to his house.

Upset by the incident, the minor went inside his residence and allegedly died by committed.

The court took note of several facts emerging from the case: the admission by the deceased's mother that the accused did not abet the suicide and that her signature on the complaint was affixed at the instance of the police; the failure of deceased's parents to substantiate their allegations; the lack of conversation between the accused and the deceased in the CCTV footage; and the fact that no prosecution witness deposed specifically about the words uttered by the accused. Accordingly, the Court found that there was a lack of proximity to the cause of death along with missing consistent evidence.

The Bench said that the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of Section 107 and the presence of mens rea, noting that the guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

The High Court placed reliance on the Supreme Court ruling in Mallappa and others vs. State of Karnataka (2024 (3) SCC 544), wherein it was held, “while reversing the judgment of acquittal into conviction, there must be cogent and convincing evidence and only if perversity is found, the Court can reverse the same.”

Finding no perversity in the Trial Court's order, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal.

CASE: GNANASHEKAR M. VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.361 OF 2025 (A)

Click Here To Read/Download Order