The Karnataka High Court recently held that merely refusing to return a child’s volleyball and asking him to bring his father to get the ball back will not attract the offence of abetment of suicide [Gnanashekar M v. State of Karnataka]..Therefore, the bench of Justice HP Sandesh and Justice B Pramod dismissed an appeal challenging the acquittal of two accused in a case concerning the death of a child.“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 Court said.The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of abetment under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which was necessary to sustain a charge of abetment of suicide of child under Section 305 IPC..The case related to the death of a child, Kiran, on February 1, 2019. According to the prosecution, the child was playing volleyball outside his house when the ball accidentally entered the accused's shop and broke a glass pane..When the child went to retrieve the ball, the accused allegedly refused to return it and scolded him. They told him to bring his father and warned that they would teach him a lesson.The prosecution alleged that the incident caused the child mental distress and he went home and died by suicide.The accused were booked for abetment of suicide under Section 305 IPC..The trial court acquitted the accused on January 7, 2025. The complainant then approached the High Court, seeking reversal of the acquittal and conviction of the accused under Section 305 read with Section 34 IPC.The High Court found that the prosecution had failed to establish any positive act by the accused which drove the child to commit suicide.The Bench noted that there was neither any positive action in close proximity to the suicide nor evidence of continuous physical or mental torture by the accused. “The ingredients of mens rea cannot be assumed to be present; they have to be vital and conspicuous," the bench further held. .The Court also noted that there were no eyewitnesses to the alleged conversation between the child and the accused.The father and mother were found to be hearsay witnesses. The trial court had also recorded that the father admitted that he came to know about the alleged conversation only four days after the incident.The mother had further admitted that she did not know the contents of her complaint and had signed it at the instance of the police..Neighbouring witnesses also could not establish what had driven the child to take the extreme step. They had only noticed that the child was crying. A mahazar witness had turned hostile regarding the recovery of material objects and the alleged extraction of CCTV footage.The Bench noted that the CCTV footage did not contain the conversation between the accused and the child..It also pointed out that none of the prosecution witnesses specifically deposed about the words allegedly uttered by the accused. The evidence of the parents, therefore, failed to substantiate the allegations contained in their complaints, the Court said.It underscored that while considering an appeal against acquittal, the prosecution must present cogent and convincing evidence, and an acquittal can be reversed only when the trial court's findings are found to be perverse.Hence, the appeal was dismissed..Advocate B Puttaraju appeared for the appellant-father.High Court Government Pleader Suhas Gowda M represented the State..[Read Judgment]
