Mere scolding, absent proximate instigation and mens rea, does not establish abetment under Section 305 IPC.

The appellant, the father of the deceased minor Kiran, challenged the judgment dated 7 January 2025 by which the L Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Children’s Court (Special), Bengaluru, acquitted Respondents 2 and 3 of the offence under Section 305 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

According to the prosecution, on 1 February 2019, the deceased was playing volleyball near his house when the ball accidentally entered the accused persons’ shop and broke a glass pane. When he asked for the ball, the accused allegedly refused to return it, scolded him, threatened to inform his father and teach him a lesson, and dragged him from the shop towards his house. The prosecution alleged that, being mentally distressed by this conduct, the child subsequently committed suicide by hanging himself with a thread.

The prosecution examined 20 witnesses and produced Exhibits P.1 to P.22(a) and Material Objects 1 to 3. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances in their examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and Accused No.1 examined himself as DW.1.

The Trial Court found that there were no eyewitnesses, that PW.1 and PW.2 were substantially hearsay witnesses, that PW.2 had signed her complaint at the police’s insistence without knowing its contents, and that the mahazar witness had turned hostile. It therefore acquitted the accused.

Whether the Trial Court erred in acquitting the accused of the offence under Section 305 read with Section 34 IPC, and whether the acquittal should be reversed and the accused convicted?

What order should be passed?

Section 305 IPC applies to abetment of suicide by a child or a person of unsound mind, and therefore requires proof of “abetment” as defined under Section 107 IPC.

The prosecution must establish instigation, intentional aiding, or conspiracy, together with the requisite mens rea; mere harassment, scolding, or insulting conduct is insufficient unless it demonstrates a positive act intended to drive or compel the deceased to commit suicide.

Relying on Mariano Anto Bruno v. Inspector of Police, AIR 2022 SC 4994, the Court held that there must be direct or indirect acts of incitement proximate to the suicide.

Following Ramesh v. State of Karnataka, 2019 (4) KCCR SN 383, it reiterated that the ingredients of Section 107 IPC must be proved beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction under Section 305 or 306 IPC.

Under M. Arjunan v. State, 2019 (1) KCCR SN 26 (SC), abusive or insulting language, by itself, does not constitute abetment absent proof of an intention to instigate suicide.

In an appeal against acquittal, reversal is permissible only where the evidence is cogent and convincing and the acquittal is perverse; where two views are reasonably possible, the view favouring the accused must prevail, as reaffirmed in Mallappa v. State of Karnataka, 2024 (3) SCC 544.

The Court held that the prosecution proved, at most, that the accused refused to return the ball and asked the child to bring his father.

There was no reliable direct evidence of the alleged threatening words or conversation. PW.1 and PW.2 lacked personal knowledge of the incident; PW.2 admitted that she did not know the contents of her complaint and had signed it at the police’s direction.

PW.7 and PW.8 did not establish any specific threat or conduct amounting to instigation, and the CCTV footage did not record the conversation between the accused and the deceased.

The Court further found no evidence of continuous physical or mental torture, prior enmity, or any positive act in close proximity to the suicide that left the child with no alternative but to take his life.

Accordingly, the essential ingredients of Section 107 IPC, including mens rea and proximate instigation, were not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Since the Trial Court’s view was a reasonably possible view based on the evidence and was not perverse, appellate interference was unwarranted.

The Trial Court’s acquittal was found to be properly reasoned and not perverse.

The criminal appeal was accordingly dismissed, and the acquittal of Respondents 2 and 3 was affirmed.