Introduction:
In Smt. Kavitha Murthy v. The State of Karnataka & Others (CRL.P. 17375/2025), the Karnataka High Court examined serious concerns regarding the police investigation into the alleged suicide of a minor school student. The case arose after the police filed a B-report (closure report) in an FIR that had been registered against the management, principal, and teachers of a school for allegedly abetting the suicide of a 15-year-old girl.
The petition before the High Court was filed by the mother of the deceased student, who challenged the trial court’s order accepting the B-report. The petitioner contended that the investigation conducted by the police was superficial and that crucial aspects of the case—including the harassment faced by her daughter at school—were ignored.
The matter came up before Justice M. Nagaprasanna, who during the course of the hearing expressed strong reservations about the police filing a B-report in a case involving the suicide of a minor. The Court orally questioned the State regarding the adequacy of the investigation and highlighted that when a child below the age of 18 commits suicide, the offence should ordinarily fall under Section 305 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with abetment of suicide of a child or insane person, rather than Section 306 IPC.
The Court’s observations raised important legal questions about the responsibility of investigating agencies in cases involving minors, the duty of educational institutions to address harassment among students, and the manner in which closure reports are filed in sensitive cases involving alleged abetment to suicide.
The High Court indicated that it would carefully examine the records before deciding whether the B-report filed by the police could be sustained.
Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioner:
The counsel representing Smt. Kavitha Murthy, the mother of the deceased student, strongly challenged the police investigation and the acceptance of the B-report by the trial court.
At the outset, the petitioner’s counsel submitted that the deceased student had been subjected to continuous harassment and bullying by fellow students in the school. According to the petitioner, these incidents of harassment had been repeatedly brought to the attention of the school authorities, including the principal and administration. However, despite these complaints, no meaningful action was taken by the school management to address the issue or ensure the safety and well-being of the child.
The counsel emphasized that the harassment faced by the student had been clearly mentioned in the complaint lodged by the mother, which formed the basis of the FIR. It was argued that the police were duty-bound to thoroughly investigate these allegations, including examining witnesses, reviewing school records, and recording statements of relevant persons such as teachers and classmates.
However, the petitioner alleged that the police failed to carry out such a detailed investigation and instead rushed to file a B-report stating that no offence was made out.
Another major grievance raised by the petitioner was that the statement given by the mother during the investigation was not properly considered by the police. According to the counsel, the statement contained crucial information regarding the harassment faced by the child and the repeated complaints made to the school authorities. Ignoring such a statement, it was argued, amounted to a serious lapse in the investigation process.
The petitioner further submitted that the trial court erred in accepting the B-report despite the existence of material that warranted further investigation. The mother had filed a protest petition opposing the B-report, but the same was rejected by the trial court without adequately addressing the concerns raised.
The counsel also highlighted the age of the deceased student, who was only 15 years old at the time of the alleged suicide. It was argued that when a minor commits suicide, the legal framework becomes more stringent because children are considered particularly vulnerable.
In this context, the counsel pointed out that the police had registered the FIR under Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide), which generally applies in cases involving adults. However, when the person who commits suicide is below the age of 18, the appropriate provision should be Section 305 IPC, which deals with abetment of suicide of a child.
Section 305 IPC prescribes severe punishments, including death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment up to ten years, reflecting the seriousness with which the law treats cases involving the suicide of minors.
The petitioner therefore argued that the police not only conducted an inadequate investigation but also invoked the wrong statutory provision, thereby undermining the seriousness of the allegations.
The counsel also refuted the claim made by the respondents that the student was suffering from depression due to poor academic performance. According to the petitioner, the deceased student was academically bright and regularly attended classes.
The counsel stated that records would show that the student was performing well in examinations and was not under academic stress. In fact, it was argued that other students in the class had comparatively lower academic performance, yet no such allegations were made against them.
Therefore, the explanation that the student committed suicide due to depression or academic pressure was described as baseless and unsupported by evidence.
The petitioner ultimately urged the High Court to set aside the trial court’s order accepting the B-report, direct the police to conduct a proper investigation, and ensure that all aspects of the case—particularly the allegations of harassment and the role of the school authorities—are thoroughly examined.
Arguments on Behalf of the Respondents:
The respondents, including the State and the representatives of the school management, defended the police investigation and the filing of the B-report.
The counsel for the respondents argued that the police had conducted an investigation into the allegations and had found no material evidence to support the claim that the school management, principal, or teachers had abetted the suicide of the student.
According to the respondents, the investigation did not reveal any act or omission on the part of the school authorities that could legally amount to abetment under the Indian Penal Code.
The respondents further contended that the complaint was filed with a delay, which raised doubts about the credibility of the allegations. It was argued that such delays often create the possibility of embellishments or exaggerations in the narrative.
The counsel suggested that the delay in filing the complaint may have allowed time for the allegations to be framed in a manner that implicated the school authorities.
Another important argument raised by the respondents was that the student might have been experiencing psychological distress or depression, possibly related to academic pressure or personal issues.
According to the respondents, such factors could have contributed to the unfortunate incident, and there was no direct evidence linking the school management or teachers to the alleged suicide.
The respondents also maintained that the police, after conducting their inquiry, had reached the conclusion that no criminal offence was made out, which justified the filing of the B-report.
It was argued that the trial court, after examining the report and the available material, had rightly accepted the B-report, and therefore the High Court should not interfere with that decision.
The respondents therefore urged the Court to dismiss the petition, contending that the allegations against the school authorities were unfounded and that the police investigation had been conducted in accordance with law.
Court’s Observations and Judgment:
During the hearing, Justice M. Nagaprasanna expressed serious concerns regarding the police investigation and the decision to file a B-report in the case.
The Court questioned the State regarding the basis on which the police concluded that no offence had been committed, especially when the case involved the suicide of a 15-year-old minor.
The judge orally remarked that it was difficult to understand how the police could file a B-report in such a case without conducting a thorough and careful investigation.
The Court observed that when the victim is a minor, the matter becomes particularly serious and requires heightened scrutiny.
Justice Nagaprasanna also pointed out a significant legal issue regarding the invocation of Section 306 IPC instead of Section 305 IPC.
The Court observed that Section 305 IPC specifically deals with cases where a child below the age of 18 commits suicide due to abetment by another person.
In such cases, the law prescribes much harsher punishments, recognizing the vulnerability of minors and the need for strict accountability.
The judge orally remarked that the very invocation of Section 306 IPC appeared to be incorrect, since the victim in the present case was a minor.
The Court indicated that the matter should have been investigated under Section 305 IPC, which is more appropriate in cases involving the suicide of a child.
Another important concern raised by the Court was regarding the adequacy of the investigation conducted by the police.
Justice Nagaprasanna questioned the State about what steps had actually been taken during the investigation, including whether the police had properly examined the allegations of harassment and bullying raised by the petitioner.
The Court emphasized that cases involving the death of a minor require serious and meticulous investigation, particularly when there are allegations that the child was subjected to harassment in school.
The judge made it clear that simply filing a closure report without thoroughly examining all relevant aspects of the case would not be acceptable.
The Court therefore orally indicated that it was not inclined to accept the B-report filed by the police.
Justice Nagaprasanna directed the State to produce the complete records of the investigation, so that the Court could examine them before passing a final order.
The Court also noted that the petitioner had filed a protest petition against the second B-report, which had been rejected by the trial court. This aspect would also be examined while considering whether the investigation had been conducted properly.
After hearing the submissions of both sides, the High Court adjourned the matter and listed it for further hearing on March 11.
The Court indicated that it would carefully examine the records and pass appropriate orders after reviewing the investigation materials.
The observations made during the hearing highlighted the Court’s concern about ensuring accountability in cases involving the suicide of minors and the need for proper investigation before closing such cases.