Real judgements, distilled
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.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1073
In circumstantial-evidence cases, forensic and DNA evidence must actually corroborate the alleged crime: a conviction cannot survive where the most crucial scientific evidence, on its own terms, points away from rather than toward the prosecution's theory.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1074
A conviction based purely on circumstantial evidence requires every link in the chain, timeline, witness credibility, forensic matches, and motive, to be proven beyond reasonable doubt; gaps or suppressed evidence at any link entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt, even in a serious case like a double murder.
Criminal Miscellaneous Case · 2026:DHC:8505
Courts will not quash a criminal case merely because the accused has a plausible alibi-type defence; unless that defence is conclusive and undisputed, the matter must be tested through the ordinary trial process.
Criminal Miscellaneous Case · 2026:DHC:8547
A private compromise between victim and accused cannot by itself secure quashing of a case involving serious, heinous allegations like attempted murder with a weapon: such matters must proceed to trial regardless of settlement.
First Appeal from Order · 2026:DHC:8563
Railway Claims Tribunals cannot reject a bona fide passenger's death claim based on speculative inferences when there is no direct evidence of an alternative cause of death; the compensation scheme under the Railways Act is to be interpreted generously in favour of victims' families.
Criminal Miscellaneous Case · 2026:DHC:8559
In matrimonial offences, courts can and do quash criminal proceedings once a genuine compromise is verified directly with the complainant, sparing both parties a prolonged and pointless trial.
Bail Application · 2026:DHC:8541
A co-accused's bail does not automatically extend to another accused where their actual roles in the offence differ materially; delay caused by one's own defence counsel cannot later be used as a ground for bail.
Execution Petition · 2026:DHC:8567
An arbitral award must be adequately stamped before a court can enforce it; courts give only a limited window to cure such defects, after which the award becomes legally unusable until the deficiency is fixed.
Arbitration Petition · 2026:DHC:8555
A genuine settlement reached through mediation renders a pending arbitration-related court petition moot, allowing parties to close out litigation quickly once they resolve their dispute privately.
9257 more judgements for members
You're seeing the newest cases. Log in — it's free — to keep scrolling, search by name or judge, and filter by court or legal area.
Log in to see moreLegal 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 ___).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The petitioner, whose identity was withheld under Section 228A IPC (which protects the identity of victims in sexual offence cases), had filed an FIR alleging that an IPS officer sexually assaulted her at a Delhi hotel after she became dizzy from chocolates he gave her, following an online friendship and talk of marriage. Separately, the officer's mother filed a counter-FIR alleging the petitioner's family had extorted money by threatening to file false rape charges. The petitioner approached the Supreme Court seeking to have both investigations transferred from Delhi Police to an independent central agency, alleging the officer's position in the police service compromised a fair probe, and also sought personal protection.
The Supreme Court found that the investigation into the petitioner's FIR had in fact been conducted properly by a Special Investigation Team, a chargesheet had been filed, and the accused officer's mobile phones had been seized and forensically analysed with his cooperation, so there was no basis to transfer the case to a central agency. The Court also declined to transfer the counter-FIR investigation, noting the petitioner already had anticipatory bail protection and a pending quashing petition before the High Court. Separately, the Court noted that during the case the petitioner had falsely claimed in a sworn statement that she was struck by a car driven by persons connected to the accused officer, when CCTV footage showed she was merely brushed by a hand-cart ("thela"): a discrepancy serious enough that the Court initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against the petitioner herself and directed her to appear in person to explain why action should not be taken for making a false statement on oath. The writ petition itself was disposed of, declining all the transfer and other mandamus reliefs sought.
Courts will not transfer a police investigation to a different agency merely because the accused belongs to the police service, if the actual investigation record shows it was conducted properly and fairly; and making false statements on oath to a court, even in service of a genuine grievance, can itself expose a litigant to contempt-of-court proceedings.
