Karnataka High Court cancels case over child’s drowning death after Rs 5 lakh payout

3 min readBengaluruUpdated: Jul 15, 2026 07:31 PM IST

The Karnataka High Court cancelled criminal proceedings against three accused in the drowning death of a two-and-a-half-year-old child (Image generated using AI).

Observing that “courts do not merely adjudicate disputes, at times they become silent custodians of equity, where the law intersects with human suffering,” the Karnataka High Court recently cancelled criminal proceedings against three people accused of causing the death of a two-and-a-half-year-old child by negligence. The decision followed the petitioners’ commitment to provide a structured Rs 5 lakh compensation package to the child’s family.

A single-judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Velu alias Velmayil Somu and two others. In its order dated July 9, the bench said, “The arrangement fashioned in the present case is intended to preserve not merely the compensation, but the future of those children (two daughters), who continue to look to their parents for hope after the family has endured an irreplaceable loss.”

As per the FIR registered on May 27 by the Rajarejeshwari Nagar police station in Bengaluru, the toddler allegedly wandered onto the petitioners’ premises, where construction activity was in progress. A water tank was left on the premises for construction purposes. The child accidentally fell into the tank and drowned.

During the proceedings, the petitioners had offered Rs 2 lakh in compensation to the child’s father, a mason.

Justice Nagaprasanna initially rejected the offer of paying Rs 2 lakh as compensation made by the petitioners, saying, “The life of a child, radiant with unfulfilled promise and infinite possibilities, cannot be reduced to a figure that scarcely reflects the enormity of the tragedy.” The bench urged the petitioners to revisit their proposal.

On July 1, the petitioners returned before the court with an enhanced proposal offering to pay Rs 5 lakh and Rs 10,000 per month for 12 months as compensation.

Preservation over disbursement

Taking note of the profession of the father, the bench said, “Experience teaches courts that a substantial lump sum, placed in the hands of an impoverished family struggling for daily survival, may be consumed by immediate necessities, leaving little for the long-term welfare of the surviving children. Compassion, therefore, demanded not merely disbursement but preservation.”

Story continues below this ad

The court directed that Rs 5 lakh be invested in an interest-bearing deposit so that the corpus remains protected, while the periodic returns serve as a source of sustenance for the family.

Allowing the petition, the bench in its order said, “The judicial process cannot restore a life that has been irretrievably lost, nor can any monetary recompense assuage the anguish of parents. Yet, where parties seek closure, and the law permits such settlement, the court bears the solemn obligation of ensuring that justice is not reduced to a mere commercial bargain, but assumes the character of meaningful restitution.”