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

Rohini Sudarshan Gangurde vs. The State of Maharashtra

Not available · 2024 INSC 519Decided 10 Jul 2024
Not available
Justice Vikram Nath · Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

Background

The appellant's husband, Sudarshan Gangurde, was found hanged in the couple's home in February 2020, with no suicide note and no injuries noted in the post-mortem. His mother filed an FIR alleging that the appellant had harassed and beaten him over money and pressured him to transfer their jointly-purchased house into her name, and that this harassment drove him to suicide. The trial court rejected the appellant's application to be discharged from the case, and the Bombay High Court upheld that rejection in a revision petition, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court reviewed the legal ingredients of abetment under Sections 306 and 107 IPC, reaffirming through precedent that a conviction (or even continuation of trial) requires clear evidence of a positive, proximate act of instigation or intentional aid that left the deceased with no option but to end his life: mere allegations of harassment are not enough. Examining the record, the Court found no evidence of any active or direct act by the appellant proximate to the suicide, noting the house was jointly owned (undermining the "transfer demand" allegation) and that no colleague or family statement suggested the appellant had ever suggested or instigated suicide. Concluding that none of the three essential ingredients of Section 107 read with Section 306 were made out even prima facie, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and discharged the appellant from the case.

Lesson Learnt

A criminal charge of abetment of suicide cannot rest merely on allegations of general harassment or marital discord. The prosecution must show a specific, proximate act of instigation or intentional aid, and courts must scrutinise this carefully even at the discharge stage before allowing a trial to proceed.

Rohini Sudarshan Gangurde vs. The State of Maharashtra – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware