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

Parveen Kumar vs The State of Himachal Pradesh

Not available · 2024 INSC 717Decided 23 Sept 2024
Not available
Justice Bela M. Trivedi · Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

Background

The appellant married Raksha Devi in 1992, and the prosecution's case was that he beat her even during pregnancy, prompting her to file a dowry-cruelty FIR, a maintenance petition, and a separate complaint against him. Although she later told the courts she wished to withdraw these cases and had returned to live with him, she died in September 1994 after consuming poison within two years of the marriage. Her brother lodged a fresh FIR alleging that the appellant's cruelty had driven her to suicide, and the trial court convicted the appellant of cruelty (498-A) while acquitting him of abetment of suicide (306); the High Court later also convicted him under Section 306.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that since the suicide occurred within seven years of marriage and cruelty under Section 498-A was already proved, the High Court was right to invoke the statutory presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act that the husband abetted the suicide. It rejected the appellant's argument that the earlier settlement between the parties showed the marriage had turned harmonious, noting he never informed the deceased's parents of her death and that his defence witnesses lacked credibility given the three cases she had filed against him. The Court found no illegality in the concurrent findings of the trial court and High Court and dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction under both Sections 498-A and 306 IPC.

Lesson Learnt

Where a wife dies by suicide within seven years of marriage and cruelty by her husband is separately proved, the law presumes he abetted her suicide unless he can rebut it: a settlement or reconciliation shortly before death does not automatically erase this presumption.

Parveen Kumar vs The State of Himachal Pradesh – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware