Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.

Frequently asked questions

Is this suitable for use in legal research and court filings?+

Legal Case Shots is built to help you quickly identify and understand relevant precedent. For citation in pleadings or filings, always verify against the full judgment PDF and current citation format (e.g., 2026 INSC ___).

How is a "lesson learnt" different from the judgment's holding?+

The holding is what the court legally decided. The lesson learnt translates that into a practical takeaway: what a lawyer should factor into case strategy or client advice as a result of this precedent.

Is the full judgment available, or just a summary?+

Both. Each case shows a distilled summary (case type, key holding, and lesson learnt) and links to the full judgment as a PDF for when you need the complete text for research or citation.

Can I filter judgments by date or case type?+

Yes. Use Advanced Filters to narrow results by decision date and by practice area, including Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Service & Administrative Law, Family Law, Civil Property & Inheritance, and Labour & Industrial Law.

Can I search judgments by a specific judge?+

Yes. You can filter judgments by the judge or bench that decided the case, which is useful for tracking how a particular judge has reasoned on similar issues across multiple rulings.

What is Legal Case Shots?+

Legal Case Shots is a searchable database of Supreme Court of India judgments, each broken down into the case type, the court's key holding, and a practical lesson learnt, with the full judgment available as a PDF for citation or deeper reading.

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Balaji Jaiswal v. State of Chhattisgarh and Another

Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 375Decided 16 Apr 2026
Crl.A. No.-001966-001966 - 2026
Justice K.V. Viswanathan · Justice Atul S. Chandurkar · Justice J.K. Maheshwari

Background

A man named Komal Sahu was found dead by hanging, and the investigation named the appellant (accused of having an illicit relationship with the deceased's wife) as the first accused for allegedly abetting the suicide. A trial court framed a charge against the appellant under Section 306 (abetment of suicide) read with Section 34 IPC, and the Chhattisgarh High Court refused to interfere with that charge in a revision petition. The appellant approached the Supreme Court arguing that the material on record did not disclose any act of instigation or abetment on his part.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that even taking the entire prosecution material at face value, there was no evidence of any positive act of instigation, incitement, or intentional aiding by the appellant that could satisfy the legal requirements for abetment under Section 107 IPC. General allegations of an illicit relationship and family suspicion, without material showing proximity in time or a specific act driving the deceased to suicide, were held insufficient to sustain a charge under Section 306. Relying on precedent that courts must be extremely cautious in Section 306 cases since the deceased cannot be cross-examined, the Court found continuation of the trial would be a futile exercise. It set aside the High Court's order, quashed the charge, and discharged the appellant, clarifying that the trial against the co-accused (the deceased's wife) would continue uninfluenced by this order.

Lesson Learnt

A criminal charge of abetment of suicide cannot rest merely on suspicion of an affair or family allegations. The law requires clear evidence of a positive act of instigation or intentional aiding that left the deceased with no option but to end their life, and courts must scrutinise such charges strictly before allowing a trial to proceed.

Balaji Jaiswal v. State of Chhattisgarh and Another – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware