Karnataka HC Quashes Closure Order in Class 9 Student's Suicide Case, Orders Fresh Probe Under Section 305 IPC

The Karnataka High Court set aside a magistrate's order accepting the second 'B' report in Crime No.26 of 2023, finding that both rounds of investigation were conducted under the wrong provision and that the death note was never properly examined.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna, sitting singly at the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, on 5 August 2026 allowed a criminal petition filed by Smt. Kavitha Murthy, the mother of 15-year-old Ramya Murthy K.S., who died by suicide on 17 February 2022. The court quashed an order dated 3 May 2025 passed by the XLI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, which had accepted a second 'B' report and closed Crime No.26 of 2023. The bench found that both investigating officers had proceeded under Section 306 of the IPC — abetment to suicide of an adult — when the applicable provision was Section 305 IPC, which governs abetment to suicide of a child. This error, the court held, fundamentally distorted the investigation from the outset. A fresh investigation by a different officer from a different jurisdictional police has been directed within three months.

Ramya Murthy's Death and the Death Note

Ramya Murthy was studying in Class 9 at Soundarya School, Havanur Extension, Hesaraghatta Main Road, Nagasandra Post, Bengaluru. On 17 February 2022, the first day of her examinations, she left home before dawn without informing anyone. Her school bag and tiffin box remained at home. When her mother, who works as a teacher at another school, called the class teacher, she was told Ramya had not arrived. Kavitha Murthy then filed a missing person complaint at Bagalkunte Police Station.

The same day, a loco pilot found a body between Yeshwanthpur and Chikkabanavara railway stations. A mahazar recorded that the victim had been struck by a moving train on the Yeshwanthpur–Tumkur section. Police identified the body from a photograph and took the complainant to the mortuary at M.S. Ramaiah Hospital. It was there that Kavitha Murthy came to know her daughter had died.

During a search of the house, police found a death note written in one of Ramya's notebooks. The note read: “Dear school, marks is not everything. Principal, Akshatha, Ishitha Singh, Chaitra, hate you all. Thank you for everything. Mom please adopt a child & take care of your health. Yours loving, Ramya Murthy K.S. IX CBSE.” The note was sent to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory. The FSL report, received on 1 February 2023, confirmed the handwriting was Ramya's.

The Complaint, the Delay, and the Human Rights Commission

When Kavitha Murthy attempted to register a complaint against the school management and teachers in early 2023 — after receiving the FSL report — the police initially refused, citing a year's delay from the date of the incident. On 7 March 2023, the complainant and her husband filed a complaint before the Human Rights Commission against the jurisdictional police for inaction. Only after approaching higher authorities did the police register Crime No.26 of 2023 on 20 March 2023 for offences under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

The complaint narrated a sustained pattern of alleged conduct at Soundarya School. The school president, Sri Manjappa (respondent No.2), and the principal, Smt. Chinnamma (respondent No.3), were accused of repeatedly taunting Ramya — including comments about her body odour and about bakery snacks she brought to school. The mathematics teacher, Smt. Shubo Das (respondent No.5), is said to have told Ramya that if she could not pay fees and solve sums, she should not come to school. The science teacher, Smt. Akshatha (respondent No.4), whose name appears in the death note, is alleged to have used vulgar language. The complaint also described bullying by a classmate, Ishitha Singh, who allegedly gave Ramya's mobile number to another person to prank her. The complainant further stated that at a condolence meeting, school president Manjappa asked her husband's age and said they could have another child, which she characterised as deeply offensive.

Two 'B' Reports, Two Protest Petitions

The first investigating officer examined 29 witnesses and filed a 'B' report concluding that the allegations against the principal and teachers were not proved. The report attributed the death to the victim's personal problems, inability to score marks after switching from State syllabus to CBSE, irregular attendance, and breach of school rules by bringing bakery items. It also recorded that the complainant's parents had scolded Ramya before the day of her examination.

Kavitha Murthy filed a detailed protest petition. The XLI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, by order dated 14 August 2023, rejected the first 'B' report. The magistrate observed that the investigating officer had not examined other classmates of the deceased, had not given importance to the death note and FSL report, had not examined independent witnesses, and appeared to have filed the 'B' report to help the school management. The Superintendent of Police, Railways, Bengaluru was directed to appoint a different officer from a different jurisdiction to investigate afresh.

A second investigating officer was appointed — the Circle Police Inspector of Bengaluru Cantonment Railway Circle. This officer examined 17 witnesses: classmates, teachers, the principal, school staff, and parents of some students. He filed a second 'B' report on 18 June 2024. The second report concluded that there was no material to establish that anyone named in the death note had provoked or instigated Ramya to commit suicide, that the school's instructions to the victim were routine directions given to all students, and that Ramya had died due to her own personal problems after being unable to adjust psychologically to the change in syllabus.

On 16 October 2024, Kavitha Murthy filed a second protest petition. The XLI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate accepted the second 'B' report and closed the case by the impugned order dated 3 May 2025 (the operative order in the petition before the High Court was referred to with both dates 5 March 2025 and 3 May 2025 in different parts of the digest; the petition challenges the order dated 3 May 2025). The magistrate held that teachers advising students could not be a ground for suicide, that there was no material to hold the deceased was sidelined or harassed, and that the second investigating officer had not committed any error.

Why the Wrong Provision Mattered

Before the High Court, counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Shwetha Naik, argued that police had mechanically filed 'B' reports without proper investigation on both occasions. The statements of the victim's parents were not recorded after registration of Crime No.26 of 2023. Electronic gadgets used by the victim before her death were not examined. The call data records of the class teacher, whose name appeared in the death note, were not obtained. The body was taken to a private hospital rather than a government hospital. And the re-investigation, the petitioner contended, was no investigation at all.

The State Public Prosecutor, Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, raised a point that proved central to the court's reasoning: the offence under Section 305 IPC — abetment to suicide of a child — ought to have been invoked in this case, not Section 306 IPC which applies to adults.

Justice Nagaprasanna agreed entirely. The court held that the re-investigation proceeded on “a completely different footing on a wrong provision of law.” Section 305 IPC applies where the victim of abetment to suicide is a child. The court observed that if the correct provision had been applied, the rigours of investigation would be completely different. The analysis of the outcome would also differ because the psychological impact of harassment by a school or teachers on a child is distinct from its impact on an adult. This “settled difference” was, in the court's view, ignored by both investigating officers and by the magistrate.

Failures the Court Identified in Re-Investigation

The court noted that the statement of the victim's parents was taken only on 17 February 2022 — the day of death — and no statement was recorded from the mother after the registration of Crime No.26 of 2023. Witness statements of the principal, teachers, and staff were taken only in December 2023, after the second investigation began. The second investigating officer examined 17 witnesses but, in the court's assessment, did nothing materially new: he repeated the conclusions of the first report.

The death note named the principal, a science teacher, and two classmates. The FSL report confirmed it was Ramya's handwriting. Despite this, neither investigation adequately examined the circumstances that led Ramya to name these specific individuals or what their conduct consisted of beyond routine school discipline. The magistrate's impugned order drew from the second report to conclude that the deceased had “personal problems” and had developed hatred towards the principal and classmates, without anchoring that conclusion in evidence of what those problems were or whether they arose from the school environment.

The court described the situation as a “classic case where reinvestigation into the matter must ensue, but not at the hands of the same jurisdictional police.”

Order

Justice M. Nagaprasanna allowed Criminal Petition No.17375 of 2025. The following directions were issued:

• The order dated 3 May 2025 passed by the XLI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate), Bengaluru in Crime No.26 of 2023 stands quashed.
• The 'B' report filed in Crime No.26 of 2023 stands rejected.
• The competent authority is directed to entrust the matter to a different investigating officer from a different jurisdictional police to conduct re-investigation.
• The said authority is to monitor the investigation and place the investigation papers before the concerned court within three months from the date of the order.