LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

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

Mohit Singhal & Anr. vs The State of Uttarakhand & Ors.

Criminal Appeal · 2023 INSC 1035Decided 1 Dec 2023
Criminal Appeal No. 3578 of 2023
Abhay S. Oka · Pankaj Mithal

Background

A widow filed an FIR alleging that her husband died by suicide because the appellants (a moneylender's son and associate) had abused, threatened and assaulted her husband over an unpaid loan of Rs. 60,000, and had also threatened to abduct her daughter. The alleged assault took place on 15 June 2017; the husband wrote a suicide note on 30 June 2017 and died by suicide on 4 July 2017. The High Court had refused to quash the criminal proceedings against the appellants, who then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court explained that abetment under Section 306 IPC (read with Section 107's definition of "instigation") requires the accused to have intended, through words or acts of such intensity, to push the deceased into a position where suicide seemed like the only option, and that such instigation must be in close proximity in time to the suicide. Here, even taking the complaint and suicide note at face value, the alleged assault and threats occurred more than two weeks before the suicide, with no allegation of any further contact between the appellants and the deceased in that interval; the suicide note itself also blamed the wife's own conduct for the family's troubles. Concluding that no case of instigation was made out even on the prosecution's own version, the Court held that continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of the legal process, set aside the High Court's judgment, and quashed the summoning order.

Lesson Learnt

A harsh confrontation or threat over money, by itself, does not amount to criminal "abetment of suicide". The law requires a close, direct link in time and intent between the accused's conduct and the decision to end one's life, and courts will quash such prosecutions when that link is clearly missing even from the complainant's own account.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)
Mohit Singhal & Anr. vs The State of Uttarakhand & Ors. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware