The Karnataka High Court has dismissed an appeal challenging the acquittal of two accused in a case arising from the suicide of a child, holding that refusing to return the child’s volleyball and asking him to bring his father did not, by itself, amount to abetment of suicide. The Court found that the prosecution had failed to establish the necessary ingredients of abetment.
A Division Bench comprising Justice H.P. Sandesh and Justice B. Pramod delivered the judgment on September 11, 2026, in Criminal Appeal No. 361 of 2025. The appeal was directed against the January 7, 2025 judgment of the Bengaluru Children’s Court, which had acquitted the two accused.
Background of the Case
According to the prosecution case, on February 1, 2019, the complainant's son, Master Kiran, was playing volleyball near his house when the ball accidentally entered the accused persons' shop and broke its glass.
The prosecution alleged that when the child went to retrieve the ball, the accused refused to return it, scolded him and asked him to bring his father. It was further alleged that one of the accused dragged the child towards his house. The child subsequently died by suicide.
The trial court had acquitted the accused on January 7, 2025. The complainant thereafter challenged the acquittal before the High Court.
Court's Observations
The High Court noted that the prosecution examined 20 witnesses, but the evidence did not establish a direct connection between the conduct attributed to the accused and the child's death. The Court also noted that there were no eyewitnesses to the relevant conversation.
The Bench observed:
"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 further found that there was no evidence of continuous physical or mental torture and that the prosecution had failed to establish any positive act by the accused which compelled the child to take the extreme step.
The Bench also relied on Supreme Court precedents holding that allegations of harassment, without proof of a positive act or incitement sufficiently proximate to the occurrence, are not enough to establish abetment.
The Court noted that the CCTV footage did not contain the conversation between the accused and the child, while the prosecution witnesses had not specifically stated the words allegedly spoken by the accused.
Decision
The High Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the ingredients required for an offence under Section 305 read with Section 34 of the IPC beyond reasonable doubt. It also held that the trial court's acquittal was based on its assessment of the evidence and did not warrant interference.
Accordingly, the Division Bench answered the main issue against the appellant and dismissed the appeal.
Case Details
Case Title: Sri Gnanashekar M. v. State of Karnataka & Others
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 361 of 2025 (A)
Judge: Justice H.P. Sandesh and Justice B. Pramod
Decision Date: September 11, 2026
