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

M. Vijayakumar vs. The State of Tamil Nadu

Not available · 2024 INSC 177Decided 21 Feb 2024
Not available
Justice C.T. Ravikumar · Justice Rajesh Bindal

Background

The deceased, Senthil Kumar, had borrowed Rs. 2,000 from the appellant, who himself had taken the money as a loan from a finance company. When the finance company began pressuring the appellant for repayment, the prosecution alleged the appellant and a co-accused abducted the deceased and confined him in a tailor's shop demanding repayment, and that unable to bear this torment, the deceased hanged himself in that shop. The trial court convicted the appellant on multiple charges, but the Madras High Court acquitted him of kidnapping and wrongful confinement while upholding his conviction for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, reducing his sentence to three years.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that a conviction under Section 306 IPC requires clear proof that the accused had the specific mental intention (mens rea) to instigate the suicide through a positive, active act. Since the appellant had already been acquitted of the kidnapping and wrongful-confinement charges, the very acts the prosecution relied on to show "torment", there was no remaining evidence of any act by the appellant that could have driven the deceased to suicide. The Court also held that the High Court had wrongly used Section 106 of the Evidence Act (which shifts the burden of proving certain facts especially within a person's own knowledge) to require the appellant to explain how the deceased entered the shop: that provision cannot be used to shift the prosecution's basic burden of proof onto the accused. The conviction was quashed and the appellant fully acquitted.

Lesson Learnt

A conviction for abetment of suicide cannot survive once the underlying acts alleged to have caused the "torment" have themselves been disbelieved or resulted in acquittal. Courts cannot use evidentiary burden-shifting rules to fill gaps left by the prosecution's failure to prove its case.

M. Vijayakumar vs. The State of Tamil Nadu – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware