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.
In October 2010, a dispute broke out at a common well in Maharashtra when the complainant refused to let a group of men, including Nasibkha and Asifkhan, take extra water out of turn during a power cut. After an initial scuffle, Nasibkha and Asifkhan rode off on a motorcycle and returned about ten minutes later armed with a knife; Asifkhan caught hold of the complainant's brother Sardarkha by the neck while Nasibkha stabbed him, and Sardarkha died shortly after at the hospital. The trial court convicted Nasibkha and Asifkhan only of the lesser offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part II), reasoning there was no proof of intent to kill, and acquitted two other co-accused entirely. On appeal, the High Court disagreed, finding the evidence showed a premeditated return with a deadly weapon, and convicted both men of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC; Asifkhan then appealed to the Supreme Court (the other convict's appeal had already been dismissed at the leave stage).
The Supreme Court held that the High Court was right to overturn the trial court's reasoning, which it found internally inconsistent: the trial court itself had noted the accused used a 15.5 cm knife capable of causing death yet still concluded there was no intention to kill. The Court emphasised that the two accused left the scene after the first altercation, deliberately returned armed with a knife about ten minutes later, and then acted in concert, Asifkhan restraining the victim by the neck while his companion stabbed him, which together clearly established a shared ("common") intention to kill under Section 34 IPC, consistent with precedent on how common intention can be inferred from conduct even without an explicit prior agreement. Finding no merit in the appeal, the Supreme Court dismissed it and upheld the murder conviction.
When two or more people jointly act toward causing a victim's death, even if only one delivers the fatal blow, the other participant can be convicted of murder too if the evidence shows they shared a common intention, which courts can infer from conduct such as leaving to fetch a weapon and returning together to attack.
