The Karnataka High Court has held that a dispute over a child’s volleyball, including refusing to hand the ball back and asking the child to bring his father, cannot by itself be treated as abetment of suicide.
A division bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh and Justice B. Pramod made the observation while dismissing an appeal against the acquittal of two persons accused in connection with the death of a child.
The Court found that the prosecution had failed to establish the ingredients necessary to constitute abetment under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, a requirement for sustaining a charge under Section 305 IPC relating to abetment of suicide of a child.
The case concerned the death of a child, Kiran, on February 1, 2019.
According to the prosecution, Kiran was playing volleyball outside his house when the ball entered a nearby shop and broke a glass pane. When he went to collect it, the accused allegedly refused to return the ball, scolded him and asked him to bring his father, allegedly warning that they would teach him a lesson.
The prosecution claimed that the incident left the child distressed and that he subsequently returned home and died by suicide.
The accused were consequently charged under Section 305 IPC.
The trial court acquitted them on January 7, 2025. The child’s father then challenged the acquittal before the High Court, seeking their conviction under Section 305 read with Section 34 IPC.
The High Court, however, found that the evidence did not establish any deliberate or positive act by the accused that could reasonably be said to have driven the child to take his own life.
The bench also found no evidence of sustained physical or mental harassment or of any act occurring in close proximity to the suicide that could establish a direct connection between the conduct attributed to the accused and the child’s death.
“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 observed.
The judges stressed that criminal intent cannot simply be presumed. The prosecution was required to demonstrate the necessary mens rea through clear and compelling evidence.
The reliability of the prosecution evidence also came under scrutiny.
There were no eyewitnesses to the conversation allegedly exchanged between the child and the accused. The child’s parents were treated as hearsay witnesses, with the father admitting that he learned about the alleged conversation only four days after the incident.
The mother, meanwhile, admitted that she was unaware of the contents of the complaint and had signed it at the police’s instance.
Neighbouring witnesses could only speak about seeing the child crying. Their testimony did not establish what had caused him to take the extreme step.
The Court also noted weaknesses surrounding the investigation. A mahazar witness had turned hostile in relation to the recovery of material objects and the alleged collection of CCTV footage. The CCTV recording itself did not capture the conversation said to have taken place between the child and the accused.
Further, none of the prosecution witnesses specifically testified about the words allegedly spoken by the accused. As a result, the allegations contained in the complaints were not sufficiently supported by independent evidence.
The bench also reiterated the limitations applicable when a higher court examines an acquittal. Such an acquittal cannot be overturned merely because another view of the evidence is possible; cogent material must demonstrate that the trial court’s conclusions were perverse or unsustainable.
Finding no such basis in the present case, the High Court declined to interfere with the acquittal and dismissed the appeal.
