Introduction:
The Karnataka High Court has set aside a trial court order accepting a second ‘B’ report in a case concerning the alleged suicide of a ninth-standard student, holding that the investigation had proceeded on an incorrect legal premise and had failed to adequately examine crucial material, including a purported death note written by the child. Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while allowing the criminal petition filed by the deceased student’s mother, directed that the matter be re-investigated by a different Investigating Officer belonging to a different jurisdictional police unit.
The case arose from the tragic death of a school-going child studying in a private school at Hesaraghatta, Bengaluru. The proceedings before the High Court were instituted by Smt. Kavitha Murthy against the State of Karnataka and other respondents in Criminal Petition No. 17375 of 2025. The petitioner challenged the order of the trial court accepting the second ‘B’ report submitted by the police in Crime No. 26 of 2023.
The case has significance not merely because it concerns an alleged suicide but also because the High Court found serious deficiencies in the manner in which the investigation was conducted. According to the material placed before the Court, the deceased student had allegedly left behind a handwritten note referring to the principal, teachers and fellow students and stating, among other things, that “marks is not everything”. The Forensic Science Laboratory subsequently confirmed that the handwriting on the note belonged to the deceased.
The child had gone missing from her home in 2022. Her body was subsequently found by a loco pilot on the railway track between Yeshwanthpur and Chikkabanavara railway stations, leading the authorities to treat the incident as a case of suspected suicide. An unnatural death report was initially registered, and the subsequent investigation resulted in the recovery of the purported death note.
The allegations against the school administration were later formalised through a complaint resulting in registration of Crime No. 26 of 2023 under Sections 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations were directed against the school management, principal and teachers. The complaint was lodged on March 20, 2023, nearly a year after the student’s death, after the deceased’s parents had approached the Human Rights Commission in relation to the circumstances surrounding the incident.
The police subsequently submitted a ‘B’ report, effectively seeking closure of the criminal case. The trial court, however, initially declined to accept the report. It noted that the investigation had failed to adequately inquire into the circumstances surrounding the child’s death, particularly when the FSL examination had verified that the death note was written by the deceased.
A second investigation was thereafter undertaken and another ‘B’ report came to be filed. This time, the trial court accepted the report. The second Investigating Officer attributed the child’s difficulties largely to her inability to adjust psychologically to a changed syllabus and referred to circumstances within the family and school. The investigation also reportedly concluded that teachers reprimanding students for bringing or consuming junk food could not be characterised as bullying.
The High Court found this approach deeply problematic. One of the central defects identified by the Court was that the investigation had proceeded by treating the alleged offence as abetment of suicide by an adult under Section 306 IPC. The Court pointed out that the deceased was a child and that the appropriate provision governing abetment of suicide of a child was Section 305 IPC.
According to the High Court, the distinction was not merely technical. The psychological vulnerability of a child and the potential effect of alleged harassment, humiliation or intimidation by teachers and school authorities require a substantially different approach to investigation. An investigation which overlooks that distinction risks examining the evidence through an inappropriate legal and factual lens.
The Court was also critical of the failure to properly evaluate the death note and the FSL report. It noted that the investigating authorities appeared to have concentrated on alternative explanations for the child’s death without adequately addressing the allegations contained in the note and the circumstances in which it was written.
The High Court therefore concluded that the matter could not appropriately be closed by accepting the second ‘B’ report. Rather than ordering the same police unit to undertake another investigation, the Court directed that the matter be entrusted to a different Investigating Officer from a different jurisdictional police unit. The investigation was to be monitored and completed within three months from the date of entrustment.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioner, being the mother of the deceased student, challenged the acceptance of the second ‘B’ report primarily on the ground that the investigation had not properly addressed the circumstances leading to her daughter’s death. Her case was that the material available on record, particularly the purported death note and the FSL report confirming its authorship, warranted a much more serious and comprehensive investigation into the role allegedly played by the school authorities.
The petitioner questioned the manner in which the police had reached the conclusion that there was no material sufficient to proceed against the accused. The death note allegedly named or referred to the principal, teachers and other students, while also containing the significant statement that marks were not everything. According to the petitioner, such material could not simply be brushed aside while attributing the child’s death to academic pressure, adjustment issues or parental conduct.
The petitioner also relied upon the fact that the FSL examination had confirmed that the handwriting in the note was that of the deceased. This, according to her, made the document an important piece of evidence requiring careful investigation rather than a peripheral circumstance.
Another important grievance concerned the legal provision applied during the investigation. The High Court recorded that the re-investigation had proceeded on the footing that the matter involved abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. The petitioner contended, in substance, that this overlooked the fact that the deceased was a child. The appropriate statutory framework was therefore Section 305 IPC, which specifically deals with abetment of suicide of a child or insane person.
The petitioner also pointed out that the investigation after registration of the 2023 crime had not meaningfully examined her own evidence. The High Court noted that although the parents’ statements had been recorded on February 17, 2022, on the date of the death, no fresh statement of the mother had been recorded after Crime No. 26 of 2023 was registered. This omission assumed importance because the subsequent complaint had specifically raised allegations against the school authorities.
The petitioner further challenged the second Investigating Officer’s reliance upon circumstances such as the deceased’s difficulty in adjusting to a changed syllabus, her alleged failure to comply with school rules and the conduct of her parents. She maintained that these conclusions could not substitute for a proper investigation into the allegations against the principal and teachers.
The State and the investigating authorities, on the other hand, relied upon the findings contained in the second ‘B’ report and the investigation undertaken by the police. The second investigation apparently considered the child’s academic difficulties, her alleged psychological inability to adjust to the changed syllabus and the circumstances within her family.
The police also considered allegations concerning the child’s conduct in school. The investigation referred to the fact that she allegedly brought bakery products or junk food to the school in violation of its rules and that teachers had reprimanded her for such conduct. According to the investigation, such reprimands could not, in themselves, be treated as bullying or as conduct capable of constituting abetment to suicide.
The investigating authorities also referred to the conduct of the parents. The second ‘B’ report reportedly stated that the parents had scolded the child and had asked her to sleep before an examination, and suggested that they had not provided adequate attention to her.
On this basis, the police concluded that there was insufficient material to establish the alleged criminal involvement of the school authorities and sought closure of the proceedings through the second ‘B’ report.
The trial court accepted this reasoning and the second ‘B’ report. Its approach was that the deceased’s inability to psychologically adjust to the new syllabus and the circumstances surrounding her academic life provided an alternative explanation for the suicide. The court also accepted the police’s conclusion that teachers reprimanding students for consuming or bringing junk food did not amount to bullying.
The State’s position before the High Court was therefore essentially founded upon the investigation already undertaken and the trial court’s acceptance of the second closure report. The respondents sought to sustain the order on the basis that the police had conducted a further investigation and had arrived at a conclusion that no prosecutable case was made out against the school authorities.
The High Court, however, was required to examine whether the second investigation was genuinely capable of curing the deficiencies identified earlier and whether the trial court had properly considered the material before accepting the second ‘B’ report.
The Court ultimately found that the second investigation did not meaningfully address the fundamental defects. In its assessment, the second Investigating Officer had largely repeated the earlier approach rather than conducting a genuinely fresh investigation into the circumstances surrounding the child’s death.
The Court therefore treated the petition not simply as a challenge to an adverse investigative conclusion but as a case involving substantial deficiencies in the investigation itself.
Court’s Judgment:
Justice M. Nagaprasanna began by examining the manner in which the investigation had been conducted and the basis on which the second ‘B’ report was accepted. The Court found that the matter could not properly have been closed in its existing form because the investigation had failed to consider the case under the correct legal framework.
The most significant legal error identified by the Court concerned the distinction between Sections 305 and 306 of the IPC. Section 306 deals with abetment of suicide, whereas Section 305 specifically addresses abetment of suicide of a child or insane person.
The deceased in the present case was a ninth-standard student and therefore a child. The High Court held that the investigation had proceeded on an incorrect footing by treating the allegations as an ordinary case of abetment of suicide under Section 306.
The Court stressed that the difference between the two provisions had substantive consequences for the manner in which the allegations ought to have been investigated. A child cannot be assessed in exactly the same manner as an adult when examining the psychological consequences of alleged harassment, humiliation or pressure.
The Court observed that the psychological impact of conduct by school authorities upon a child could be significantly different from its impact upon an adult. Consequently, the investigators were required to approach the allegations keeping in mind the vulnerability of the deceased and the statutory protection specifically contemplated by Section 305 IPC.
The Court found that neither the investigating officers nor the trial court had adequately taken this distinction into account. The second investigation, therefore, was compromised at the foundational level because the allegations had been examined through the wrong statutory lens.
The Court was equally concerned with the treatment of the death note. The investigation had recovered a note allegedly written by the deceased, and the FSL report had confirmed that the handwriting belonged to her.
Such a document, particularly in a case involving alleged abetment of suicide, could not be disregarded without a compelling reason. The Court noted that the note contained references to the principal, teachers and classmates and included the statement that marks were not everything.
The Court also referred to allegations recorded in the complaint concerning the conduct of the teachers and principal. The mathematics teacher was alleged to have abused the child intermittently, while the principal was alleged to have repeatedly made humiliating remarks against her, including allegations that she was damaging the reputation of the school by bringing bakery products onto the premises.
The Court did not hold that these allegations by themselves established criminal liability. Rather, it held that they were matters requiring proper investigation and assessment. The existence of such allegations, particularly when coupled with a death note attributed to the deceased, meant that the case could not be closed through an investigation that failed to meaningfully examine them.
The High Court also scrutinised the findings recorded by the second Investigating Officer. It noted that the investigation had attributed the child’s death to her inability to cope with changes in the syllabus, alleged violation of school rules and alleged parental neglect.
The Court found it significant that these conclusions had been reached without even recording the statement of the deceased’s mother after registration of Crime No. 26 of 2023.
The omission was particularly serious because the mother was the complainant who had subsequently approached the authorities alleging involvement of the school administration. Her version after registration of the crime was plainly relevant to the investigation.
The Court further observed that the statements of the principal, teachers and other staff members were recorded only in December 2023, after the investigation had been transferred to the second Investigating Officer. According to the High Court, the second Investigating Officer had essentially repeated the earlier approach instead of conducting a genuinely fresh inquiry.
This led the Court to describe the matter as a “classic case” requiring re-investigation.
The High Court’s decision to entrust the investigation to a different police unit is important. It did not merely send the matter back to the same investigating agency with directions to fill individual gaps. The Court specifically directed that the investigation be conducted by a different Investigating Officer belonging to a different jurisdictional police unit.
The purpose was to ensure that the fresh investigation was independent of the shortcomings identified in the earlier proceedings and was not merely a repetition of the previous investigation.
The Court also directed the competent authority to monitor the investigation and place the complete investigation report and papers before the concerned court within three months from the date on which the matter was entrusted to the new Investigating Officer.
The judgment consequently reinforces an important principle of criminal administration: a closure report cannot be sustained merely because the investigating officer has formally concluded that no offence is made out. Where the investigation itself suffers from material omissions, the court is entitled to scrutinise the manner in which the conclusion was reached.
The Court’s reasoning also demonstrates why investigation in cases involving children requires particular sensitivity. Academic performance, disciplinary issues or parental disagreements may form part of the factual background, but they cannot automatically displace allegations of harassment or intimidation by persons in positions of authority.
A child facing repeated humiliation or alleged abuse at school may experience such conduct differently from an adult. The investigation must therefore examine the surrounding circumstances comprehensively rather than isolating individual incidents and dismissing them as ordinary disciplinary action.
The Court was also critical of the trial court’s acceptance of the second ‘B’ report. The first ‘B’ report had already been rejected because the circumstances surrounding the child’s death had not been adequately investigated. The trial court had specifically noted the significance of the FSL confirmation regarding the handwriting on the death note.
Despite this earlier finding, the second investigation did not, in the High Court’s view, adequately address the deficiencies. The trial court nevertheless accepted the second report without sufficiently accounting for those shortcomings.
The High Court therefore quashed the order accepting the second ‘B’ report and directed a fresh investigation.
The judgment does not amount to a finding that the school authorities or any particular accused are guilty of abetment of suicide. Instead, the Court held that the material on record did not justify closure of the case at the investigative stage and that the allegations required a legally appropriate and thorough investigation.
This distinction is important. A direction for re-investigation does not determine guilt. It merely ensures that the criminal justice process operates on the basis of a lawful, fair and complete investigation before a decision is made regarding prosecution.
The judgment also reflects the judiciary’s concern that procedural conclusions should not eclipse substantive evidence. The death note, the FSL report, allegations of repeated abuse and the circumstances surrounding the child’s death were all pieces of evidence that required careful evaluation.
By ordering an independent re-investigation, the Court sought to ensure that these aspects would be examined without predetermined assumptions.
The decision in Smt. Kavitha Murthy v. State of Karnataka & Ors., Criminal Petition No. 17375 of 2025, reported as 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 320, therefore carries significance beyond the individual dispute. It underlines the heightened responsibility of investigating agencies when dealing with the alleged suicide of a child and allegations against educational institutions.
The Court’s intervention also serves as a reminder that the statutory classification of an offence can influence the entire course of investigation. Where the victim is a child, the investigating agency must identify and apply the provisions specifically applicable to children rather than treating the matter as an ordinary adult offence.
Ultimately, the Karnataka High Court rejected the second ‘B’ report, set aside the trial court’s order accepting it and directed a fresh investigation by a different officer from a different jurisdictional police unit. The competent authority has also been directed to monitor the investigation and ensure that the report is placed before the concerned court within three months of its entrustment.
The ruling thus seeks to ensure that the tragic death of a child is not closed merely on the basis of assumptions concerning academic stress, disciplinary issues or parental conduct, particularly where there is material requiring further scrutiny. The Court has left the question of criminal liability open for determination after a proper investigation, while ensuring that the investigation itself is conducted under the correct legal framework and with due regard to the evidence already available.