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.
7878 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.
Akhil Gogoi, a political activist (later elected as a sitting Assam Legislative Assembly member), was arrested in December 2019 in connection with an FIR alleging offences under the UAPA and IPC linked to protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act. After spending about 567 days in custody, he was discharged by the trial (NIA Special) Court in 2021. The NIA appealed, and the Gauhati High Court set aside the discharge order and sent the matter back to the trial court for a fresh hearing on framing of charges, which meant Gogoi faced being taken back into custody. He approached the Supreme Court, not seeking to overturn the High Court's order itself, but seeking protection from arrest while the case went back for fresh consideration.
The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's decision sending the matter back for fresh framing of charges, noting a similar plea by co-accused had already been rejected. However, it accepted Gogoi's separate, narrower request for protection against arrest, reasoning that since the investigation was already complete and he was not yet a convicted criminal, sending him back to custody only to let him apply for fresh bail would serve no real purpose. The Court noted he had already spent over 18 months in custody, had been free for 21 months without any allegation of fresh unlawful conduct, and had since been democratically elected to public office. It therefore confirmed the High Court's judgment in all other respects but directed that Gogoi be released on bail pending the fresh trial-court hearing, subject to conditions.
Even when a court declines to disturb the substance of a lower court's ruling, it can still grant a narrower, targeted form of relief, like protection from arrest, where continued detention would serve no real investigative or penal purpose and would only cause fresh, avoidable hardship.
