JUDGMENT :

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.PRAMOD)

The complainant has presented an appeal challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 07.01.2025 passed in Spl. CC No. 1271 of 2019 by the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Children's Court (Special), Bengaluru (CCH-51), for the offence punishable under Sections 305 read with Section 34 of the IPC and prayed to convict and sentence the accused/respondents Nos.2 and 3.

2. Heard Sri Puttaraju R., learned counsel for the appellant-deceased complainant, and Sri.Suhas Gowda M., learned HCGP for respondent No.1/State.

3. The factual matrix of the case of prosecution is that on 01.02.2019 at about 06:30 p.m., the son of the complainant, Master Kiran, was playing volleyball in front of his house. At the same time, the said ball accidentally fell into the shop of the accused and broke the glass. When the deceased went and requested to give back his ball, the accused refused to hand over the ball, and they both scolded him, stating that this is not a playground, we will inform your father, and will teach you a lesson. After scolding the deceased, accused No. 2 dragged him from the shop till his house. Due to the said acts of the accused, in knocking the ball and scolding him with threatening words, the deceased child mentally suffered and, getting upset with the situation, after going inside the house, he committed suicide by hanging to the window with the help of a thread.

3.1. Thereafter, a charge sheet came to be filed against the accused persons, and they were secured before the Trial Court. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined 20 witnesses as PW. 1 to PW.20 and got marked Exhibit P.1 to P.22(a) and also got marked material objects as MO.1 to MO.3. The accused persons were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and they denied all the incriminating evidence appeared in the evidence of prosecution. On behalf of the defense, accused No. 1 got examined himself as DW.1.

4. The Trial Court noted that there were two complaints lodged: one by the father PW.1 as per Exhibit P.1 and the other complaint by the mother PW.2 as per Exhibit P.11. Though first information was lodged on two different occasions, there are no eyewitnesses to the incident. The Trial Court, in paragraph 15 has noted that, PW.1 had admitted that he came to know about the conversation that took place between the accused and deceased after four days from the date of the incident. PW.2, mother of the deceased and wife of the complainant, deposed in the same line as PW.1. In paragraph 61, the Trial Court had noted that PW.2, Jyothi, in her evidence, has admitted that she does not know the contents of Exhibit P.11/complaint and she affixed her signature only on the say of the police. She was not in a clear conscious state and has admitted:

5. The Trial Court has noted that PW.1 and PW.2 are hearsay witnesses. It has also noted that the witnesses PW.4, PW.5, PW.8 and PW.9, who are the neighbours’, have stated that except that the child was crying, they did not notice what led him to commit suicide. PW.3, the mahazar witness, has turned hostile in respect of recovery of MO.1 to MO.3 articles and has denied the drawing of mahazar in the shop of the accused and also denied recovery of CC TV footage from the DVR to DVD as per Exhibit P.10.

6. The Trial Court has noted that for the offence punishable under Section 305 of the IPC, the prosecution has to prove the ingredients of Section 107 of the IPC. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused have done any positive act and have driven the child to commit suicide leaving with no other alternative but to put an end to his life. Mere allegations of harassment and cruelty are not sufficient to hold that the accused is guilty of abetting the commission of suicide. The ingredients of mens rea cannot be assumed to be present; they have to be vital and conspicuous.

7. The Learne