Gnanashekar M. v. State of Karnataka & Others, 2026

On 1 February 2019, a minor boy was playing volleyball in front of his house.

During the game, the ball accidentally went into the shop of the accused persons.

The ball allegedly struck and broke the glass of the shop.

The minor requested the accused shopkeepers to return the ball.

The accused allegedly refused to return the ball and scolded him.

The accused allegedly directed the minor to bring his father if he wanted to take back the ball.

It was further alleged that one of the accused dragged the minor from the shop towards his house.

The minor subsequently went inside his residence.

The prosecution alleged that the boy became upset following the incident and subsequently died by suicide.

Criminal proceedings were initiated alleging that the accused had abetted the minor's suicide under Section 305 IPC.

The Trial Court acquitted the accused.

The acquittal was challenged before the Karnataka High Court.

Before the High Court, the prosecution sought reversal of the acquittal and conviction of the accused.

The High Court examined the evidence concerning the alleged conduct of the accused, including the testimony of witnesses and available CCTV footage.

The Court also considered the deceased's mother's statement that the accused had not abetted the suicide and her assertion that her signature on the complaint had been obtained at the instance of the police.

The Court found that the prosecution had failed to establish the precise words allegedly spoken by the accused to the deceased.

The CCTV footage also did not establish any conversation between the accused and the deceased.

The High Court therefore examined whether the prosecution had established the necessary ingredients of abetment under Section 107 IPC, which are essential for a conviction under Section 305 IPC.

The Karnataka High Court dismissed the appeal filed against the acquittal of the accused.

The Division Bench held that the prosecution had failed to establish the essential ingredients of abetment under Section 107 IPC.

The Court found no evidence demonstrating that the accused had committed a positive act which drove the minor to commit suicide.

The Court noted the absence of any conduct of the accused in close proximity to the suicide that could establish the necessary causal connection.

The prosecution also failed to establish any continuous physical or mental torture allegedly inflicted upon the deceased by the accused.

The Court held that mens rea cannot simply be presumed in a prosecution for abetment of suicide.

The mere fact that the accused refused to return the ball and asked the minor to bring his father was held insufficient to constitute abetment of suicide.

The Court found inconsistencies and deficiencies in the prosecution evidence.

The CCTV footage did not establish any conversation between the accused and the deceased.

No prosecution witness specifically established the words allegedly uttered by the accused that could amount to instigation.

The Court also considered the deceased's mother's statement that the accused had not abetted the suicide.

The Bench relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in Mallappa and Others v. State of Karnataka, 2024 (3) SCC 544, concerning the circumstances in which an appellate court may interfere with an acquittal.

Finding no perversity in the Trial Court's decision, the High Court declined to reverse the acquittal.

The acquittal of the accused was consequently upheld.

Section 305 read with Section 107: The judgment emphasizes that Section 305 does not create an independent or relaxed standard for proving abetment. The prosecution must first establish the constituent elements of Section 107 IPC.

Requirement of instigation: Abetment through instigation requires more than conduct that merely causes disappointment, anger, or emotional distress. The prosecution must establish conduct that legally amounts to instigation.

Mens rea: The Bench specifically stressed the importance of mens rea. The mental element necessary for abetment cannot be inferred automatically from an unfortunate consequence.

Proximity: The Court attached importance to the absence of a sufficiently proximate connection between the accused's conduct and the suicide. A remote or isolated interaction does not automatically establish the causal element required for abetment.

Positive act: The Court found no evidence of a positive act by the accused that compelled or drove the minor towards suicide. This was significant in determining that the statutory ingredients had not been established.

Evidence: The prosecution's case was weakened by the absence of reliable evidence concerning the exact words allegedly spoken by the accused. The CCTV footage also failed to corroborate a conversation between the accused and the deceased.

Appellate review of acquittal: The High Court relied on the principle reiterated in Mallappa v. State of Karnataka that an appellate court should not reverse an acquittal merely because another view of the evidence is possible. Cogent and convincing evidence and a finding of perversity are relevant before an acquittal can be interfered with.

Standard of proof: Since the case was criminal in nature, the prosecution was required to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Evidentiary gaps concerning the accused's conduct, intention and causal connection therefore operated against conviction.

Legal significance: The judgment illustrates that allegations of abetment of suicide cannot be sustained merely because an accused person's conduct preceded a suicide. The prosecution must establish the statutory ingredients of abetment, including the requisite mental element and a sufficiently proximate connection between the accused's conduct and the suicide.