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

Kumar @ Shiva Kumar vs State of Karnataka

Not available · 2024 INSC 156Decided 1 Mar 2024
Not available
Justice Bela M. Trivedi · Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Background

The appellant, a former tenant of the deceased woman's family, allegedly accosted her near a bank in 2000, proposed marriage, and when she refused, threatened to harm her sisters. Distressed, she told her sisters about the incident over the phone and then consumed poison at home; despite being rushed to hospital, she died the next day. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide) and sentenced him to three years' rigorous imprisonment, a conviction the Karnataka High Court upheld.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court examined whether the appellant's conduct met the legal threshold for "abetment" under Section 306 IPC, which requires either direct instigation, a conspiracy, or intentional aiding of the suicide: mere harassment or a threat, however distressing, is not automatically sufficient. The Court noted that people take extreme steps for many personal reasons and that abetment cannot be presumed without clear evidence of a proximate act pushing the person to suicide. Finding no evidence establishing the essential ingredient of abetment, and noting glaring gaps in the prosecution's case, the Court held the conviction unsustainable, set aside the judgments of both the trial court and the High Court, acquitted the appellant, and discharged his bail bonds.

Lesson Learnt

A conviction for abetment of suicide requires clear proof of active instigation or intentional facilitation by the accused: harassment or a threatening statement alone, without more, does not automatically establish the criminal offence of abetment.

Kumar @ Shiva Kumar vs State of Karnataka – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware