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.
Rajesh, a 28-year-old scrap business owner, died after a bus driven rashly and negligently crashed into the car he was travelling in. He was survived by two wives, three children, and his parents (seven dependents). The Claims Tribunal fixed his income at just Rs. 4,000 per month (calling him a "skilled labourer") and awarded Rs. 6,24,000; the High Court raised his income to Rs. 5,000 per month and the compensation to Rs. 11,41,000. The family appealed, arguing the income and several compensation heads were still too low.
The Supreme Court held that both the Tribunal and the High Court wrongly ignored the deceased's Income Tax Return, which is a statutory document that should be relied upon when available, and fixed his actual monthly income at about Rs. 9,855 (per the ITR) instead of the arbitrarily low figures used below. Since there were seven dependents, the Court applied the correct 1/5th (not 1/4th) deduction for personal expenses per the Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi precedents, retained the 40% future-prospects addition already allowed by the High Court, and added a 10% enhancement to the conventional heads (funeral expenses, loss of estate, consortium) as mandated by Pranay Sethi. This raised the total compensation to Rs. 25,91,388, with interest increased to 9% per annum in line with a more recent three-judge bench ruling.
When a deceased person's Income Tax Return is on record, courts must use it as the primary basis for calculating lost income rather than guessing a lower figure, and the standard deductions and add-ons for personal expenses, future prospects, and conventional compensation heads must be applied strictly per the number of dependents and the Supreme Court's settled formulas (Sarla Verma/Pranay Sethi), not left to ad hoc discretion.
