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

Amrik Singh vs. The State of Punjab

Criminal AppealDecided 11 Jul 2022
Criminal Appeal No. 993 of 2012
M.R. Shah · Aniruddha Bose · B.V. Nagarathna

Background

The complainant and the deceased, Gian Chand, were riding a scooter carrying Rs. 5 lakh (sale proceeds) when three men allegedly threw chilli powder in the complainant's eyes, tried to snatch the scooter, and one of them shot Gian Chand dead. Amrik Singh and Subhash Chander were convicted by the trial court, and the conviction was upheld by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, based mainly on the complainant identifying them in court (with no prior Test Identification Parade) and recovery of Rs. 1 lakh in cash from each accused.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court found that the prosecution itself had failed to prove that Rs. 5 lakh was actually being carried in the scooter, undermining the significance of the cash recovered from the accused. On identification, the complainant's original FIR gave only a vague description (age and general appearance) with no claim of prior acquaintance, and in cross-examination he admitted the accused were shown to him for the first time in court, without any TIP being conducted. Relying on precedent that in-court identification unsupported by a TIP is inherently weak, especially absent corroborating detail in the first version (the FIR), the Court held the conviction unsafe. Both accused were acquitted and ordered released.

Lesson Learnt

A criminal conviction cannot rest solely on a witness identifying the accused for the first time in the courtroom years after the crime, especially when no Test Identification Parade was held and the original police complaint gave no distinguishing description of the culprits. Courts require more solid corroboration before convicting someone of a serious offence.

Amrik Singh vs. The State of Punjab – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware