1. Challenge to order accepting B report and closing proceedings for abetment to suicide of a child. (Para 1 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Kar) 346
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.
Smt. Kavitha Murthy, W/o. K. Shiva Kumar Murthy – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Karnataka, By Bengaluru Rural Railway PS, Yashwanthapur Bengaluru, Represented By State Public Prosecutor – Respondent
Criminal Petition No.17375 of 2025
Decided On : 05-08-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Smt. Shwetha Naik, Advocate for Sri Dhananjay Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, SPP-I, Sri S. Rajashekar, Advocate.
For the Petitioner:Smt. Shwetha Naik, Advocate for Sri Dhananjay Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, SPP-I, Sri S. Rajashekar, Advocate.
The court ruled that abetment of suicide involving a child must be investigated under Section 305 IPC, not Section 306 IPC, due to different psychological vulnerabilities. Mechanical investigations that ignore death notes or fail to invoke the correct statutory provision justify the rejection of closure reports.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 305 and 306 read with Section 34 - Abetment of suicide of a child versus an adult - Investigation conducted under Section 306 IPC despite the victim being a child - Failure to invoke Section 305 IPC fundamentally affects the rigours and interpretation of the investigation - The psychological impact of harassment on a child is distinct from that on an adult, necessitating a different approach in the examination of evidence and witness statements. (Para 13)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Police Investigation - Acceptance of ‘B’ report - Filing of a closure report without recording statements of primary witnesses or effectively analyzing a death note confirmed by a Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report - Successive filing of closure reports without conducting a meaningful re-investigation as directed by the court indicates a mechanical approach and warrants judicial interference. (Paras 13 and 14)
Facts of the case:
A child studying in the 9th standard committed suicide, leaving behind a death note that named the school principal, teachers, and classmates. The handwriting was subsequently confirmed by an FSL report. A complaint was registered under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The police filed a closure ('B') report, which was initially rejected by the concerned court, leading to an order for fresh investigation by a different officer. However, a second closure report was filed and accepted by the court, closing the proceedings. The complainant challenged this order of closure.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the re-investigation was conducted on a flawed legal footing by applying the provision for abetment of suicide of an adult (Section 306 IPC) instead of a child (Section 305 IPC). It was observed that the second investigating officer merely repeated the findings of the previous investigation without recording the statements of the parents after the registration of the crime or effectively probing the psychological distress of the child. The investigation was deemed mechanical and insufficient.
Issues: Whether the order accepting the second ‘B’ report was sustainable given the failure to apply the correct legal provision (Section 305 IPC) and the failure of the investigating agency to conduct a thorough re-investigation despite judicial directions.
Ratio Decidendi: When the victim is a child, the investigation must be conducted under Section 305 of the IPC, as the psychological vulnerability of a child to harassment differs significantly from that of an adult. An investigation that ignores confirmed forensic evidence (death note) and fails to record critical witness statements cannot be termed as effective, and the resulting closure report must be rejected.
Result: Criminal petition allowed; order accepting the ‘B’ report quashed; ‘B’ report rejected; re-investigation by a different investigating officer from a different jurisdictional police station ordered.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Complainant: police investigation flawed, death note ignored. Respondents: no harassment, B report warrants no interference. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. Reinvestigation proceeded on wrong provision (Section 306 IPC) ignoring that it was abetment to suicide of a child (Section 305 IPC). (Para 13 , 14 )
4. Abetment to suicide of a child under Section 305 IPC requires different rigour of investigation than under Section 306 IPC. (Para 13 )
5. Petition allowed; impugned order quashed; B report rejected; reinvestigation ordered by different officer within three months. (Para 15 )
6. What is the legal standard for reinvestigation when a B report is rejected under Section 305 IPC?
The court must ensure a different investigating officer conducts a fresh, effective investigation with proper examination of evidence including the death note. (Para 10 , 14 , 15 )
7. How does abetment to suicide of a child under Section 305 IPC differ procedurally from Section 306 IPC?
The rigours of investigation are different; psychological impact of harassment on a child compared to an adult requires distinct analysis. (Para 13 )
8. What constitutes insufficient investigation in a child suicide case?
Failure to record statements of parents, classmates, or teachers; ignoring death note and FSL report; filing B report without examining independent witnesses. (Para 4 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
9. What is the court's role upon receiving a protest petition against a B report?
The court must scrutinize the investigation, reject a B report if investigation was ineffective, and direct fresh investigation by a different officer. (Para 10 , 15 )
ORDER :
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.
The petitioner/complainant is before the Court calling in question an order dated 03-05-2025 passed by the XLI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru in Crime No.26 of 2023, which accepts the ‘B’ report and closes the proceedings for the offences under Section 306 read with34 of the IPC.
2. Heard Smt. Shwetha Naik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned State Public Prosecutor–I appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri S. Rajashekar, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -
3.1. The petitioner is the complainant. The daughter of the complainant secures admission in Soundarya School, Hesaraghatta, where she was studying in 9th standard. On 17-02-2022, at about 5.40 a.m., the complainant wakes and calls for the daughter to ask her to get ready to go to school; but the daughter was not in the house. This fact is informed to her husband and the petitioner goes to office. The husband later informed the petitioner that their daughter’s school bag was still in the house and that she had not boarded the school van. The complainant then called the class teacher to enquire if her daughter had reached the school. But, the class teacher informed that the daughter of the complainant had not reached the school and the examination was about to begin. On 17-02-2022 itself, the complainant goes to Bagalkunte Police Station to file a missing person complaint. On the same day, it appears that the body of the daughter of the complainant was found by a loco pilot between Yeshwanthpur and Chikkabanavara railway stations. As per the mahazar, the victim/deceased was struck by a moving train going from Yeshwanthpur to Tumkur and she had died by commission of suicide. The police register an unnatural death report in UDR No.35 of 2022. The body of the deceased was taken to the hospital for other examinations. It is then, the Officer in-charge of the Police Station recognizes the deceased from the photo shown to him and takes the complainant to the mortuary at M.S. Ramaiah Hospital. It is then the complainant comes to know that her daughter had died.
3.2. The Police then searched the house and room of the daughter of the complainant and found a death note written in a book. The death note indicated that marks are not everything and drew the names of accused Nos.2 and 3, the Principal and the class-teacher, respectively, and classmates of the victim and further indicated that the complainant’s daughter hated them. The deceased in the death note also asks her parents to adopt a child and take care of their health. The death note was then sent to forensic examination. The FSL report was received on 01-02-2023, which indicates that it was the hand writing of the victim/daughter. It is then in the month of February, 2023 a complaint was sought to be registered for abetment to suicide. It was denied to be registered. The complainant then files a complaint before the Human Rights Commission on the score that the Police did not take any action. It is then the complaint is taken on 20-03-2023 and a crime comes to be registered in Crime No.26 of 2023 for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with 34 of the IPC. The police conduct investigation and file a ‘B’ report. The ‘B’ report holds that the allegations against the Principal of the school or the teachers are not proved. The complainant then files a protest petition narrating the instances of harassment by the Principal of the school and the teachers. The protest petition was accepted and ‘B’ report was rejected by the concerned Court by directing further investigation into the matter, by a different Investigating Officer. The Superintendent of Police then appoints another Investigating Officer of a different jurisdiction to conduct investigation. The said Investigating Officer files a ‘B’ report yet again on 18-06-2024. This is projected to be the second ‘B’ report. On 16-10-2024, t
