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

Prakash and Others vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another

Not available · 2024 INSC 1020Decided 20 Dec 2024
Not available
Justice B.R. Gavai · Justice K.V. Viswanathan

Background

A young married woman died by suicide in March 2015, and her mother's police complaint accused the woman's husband, father-in-law, and brother-in-law of driving her to it through dowry-related harassment and by refusing, at a mediation ("mahalokadalat") held about a month before her death, to take her back or settle pending domestic-violence proceedings. The trial court and the Bombay High Court had both refused to discharge the accused from the abetment-of-suicide charge, so the accused appealed to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that a conviction or even continued prosecution for abetment of suicide requires clear proof of a positive, proximate act of instigation by the accused, not mere harassment or an inference from unhappiness. Since more than a month had passed between the alleged refusal at the mediation and the suicide, the Court found the necessary "proximity" between the alleged instigation and the act missing: enough time had passed for the deceased to reflect, breaking the legal chain of causation. The Court also noted the FIR was lodged five days after the death and made no mention of the mediation incident, undermining the prosecution's timeline. It therefore quashed the proceedings and discharged the appellants, calling the High Court's reasoning "completely perfunctory."

Lesson Learnt

In India, a person cannot be prosecuted for abetting a suicide simply because they were unkind or refused a reconciliation. The law requires a clear, deliberate act of provocation that is closely connected in time to the suicide itself; a gap of weeks or months normally breaks that legal link.

Prakash and Others vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware