Refusing To Return Boy's Ball Not Abetment of Child's Suicide

Karnataka High Court 

Why in News? 

A Division Bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh and Justice B. Pramod, in Gnanashekar M. v. State of Karnataka & Others (2026), dismissed an appeal against the acquittal of two shopkeepers accused of abetting a minor's suicide, holding that their refusal to return the boy's ball and asking him to bring his father did not amount to abetment under Section 305 of the IPC (107 of BNS). 

What was the Background of Gnanashekar M. v. State of Karnataka (2026) Case? 

• On February 1, 2019, a minor boy was playing volleyball outside his house when the ball accidentally fell into the accused's shop, breaking a glass pane. 
• When the boy asked for the ball back, the accused shopkeepers refused, scolded him, and asked him to bring his father to reclaim it; one of the accused allegedly dragged the boy from the shop to his house. 
• Upset by the incident, the boy went inside his residence and died by suicide. 
• The Trial Court acquitted the accused, and the State, along with the deceased's family, appealed against the acquittal before the Karnataka High Court. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the Requirement of a Positive Act Under Section 305 IPC: The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish any positive act by the accused that drove the child to suicide, leaving him with no alternative but to end his life. It noted the absence of any positive action in close proximity to the time of occurrence, and the absence of evidence of continuous physical or mental torture. 
• On the Requirement of Vital and Conspicuous Mens Rea: The Court held that the ingredients of mens rea cannot be assumed to be present; they must be vital and conspicuous. Merely refusing to return the ball and directing the boy to bring his father could not, by itself, be treated as abetment to commit suicide. 
• On the Ingredients of Abetment Under Section 107 IPC: The Court reiterated that to establish abetment under Section 305 IPC, the prosecution must prove the essential ingredients of Section 107 IPC — namely, that the accused instigated the act, engaged in a conspiracy to bring it about, or intentionally aided it through an act or illegal omission. 
• On the Evidentiary Gaps in the Prosecution's Case: The Court took note of several factors weakening the prosecution's case: the deceased's mother had admitted that the accused did not abet the suicide and that her signature on the complaint was obtained at the instance of the police; the parents failed to substantiate their allegations; the CCTV footage showed no conversation between the accused and the deceased; and no prosecution witness deposed specifically as to the words allegedly uttered by the accused. 
• On the Standard for Reversing an Acquittal (Reliance on Mallappa v. State of Karnataka): The Court relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Mallappa and Others v. State of Karnataka (2024), which held that an order of acquittal can be reversed into one of conviction only on cogent and convincing evidence, and only if perversity is found in the Trial Court's judgment. 
• On the Absence of Perversity in the Trial Court's Order: Finding no perversity in the Trial Court's reasoning and no proof of proximity between the accused's conduct and the child's death, the Court upheld the acquittal and dismissed the appeal. 

What is Section 107 of BNS? 

Section 107, BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) — Abetment of Suicide of a Child or Person of Unsound Mind 

(Earlier Section 305, Indian Penal Code, 1860) 

Summary: 
This provision penalises the abetment of suicide where the victim is a minor (below 18 years), a person with mental illness, a delirious person, or a person in a state of intoxication — categories the law treats as especially vulnerable to inducement. If such a person commits suicide, whoever abets that suicide is punishable with death, or imprisonment for life, or imprisonment up to ten years, along with a fine. 

Key Points: 

• Punishment: Death, or life imprisonment, or imprisonment up to 10 years, plus fine 
• Cognizable 
• Non-Bailable 
• Triable by: Court of Session 

Note on renumbering: This offence was earlier codified as Section 305 of the IPC, 1860. Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, it has been renumbered as Section 107, with the substantive offence and punishment remaining the same.