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.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1094
An older qualification must still satisfy the eligibility rules governing the appointment sought. Here, the certificate's early date did not secure reinstatement, and rejection of eligibility should not be confused with a conclusive finding that the certificate was forged.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1095
A party benefiting from a conditional stay must meet its deposit requirement or face enforcement. The additional ₹15 crore deposit secures the pending dispute; it does not settle the land's final compensation or amount to an immediate payment to the landowners.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1093
An alleged attempt to kill does not become a lesser offence simply because the victim avoided a fatal injury. Restoring this charge means the accusation must be tried; it does not establish that the accused is guilty.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1090
For the assessment in this case, assistance reducing ordinary manufacturing costs was taxable even though the government wanted to encourage industry. The purpose and actual operation of the particular subsidy mattered more than its general development label.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1091
Proof that someone caused a serious injury does not by itself prove the additional ingredients of robbery. A court can substitute a lesser offence supported by the evidence; the sentencing reduction here depended on Appa's particular circumstances.
Special Leave Petition (Civil) · 2026 INSC 1092
Someone challenging an election must ensure that the personal-presentation requirement is met and can be proved. Merely entering the court building does not establish compliance, and a filing defect can end the challenge before the election allegations are examined.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1088
An employee who retires on 30 June may be entitled to the increment that falls due on 1 July after completing a year of service. Authorities that delay paying the amounts due must pay interest after the deadline set by the court.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1089
Recruitment must follow the qualifications stated in the advertisement and the governing Recruitment Rules. A court will not override a merit-based eligibility decision made under those rules merely because the candidate concerned was higher in the written test.
Writ Petition (Criminal) · 2026:DHC:8797
A person who occupied property only because of employment has no independent right to remain once the employment and decree end. Even when a petition fails, courts can make practical arrangements to let a person recover personal belongings.
14543 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 moreBhagwat was convicted of murdering his wife by burning her at home in 2003 (she died the next day) and sentenced to life imprisonment, though he was acquitted of a related dowry-harassment charge. There was no eyewitness, and three different dying declarations existed, including one claiming the burns were accidental. On appeal, he argued the conviction wrongly relied on just one dying declaration and that, at most, the death could have resulted from an accidental kitchen fire or from an assault during sudden provocation, warranting a lesser conviction.
The Supreme Court held the conviction did not rest solely on the dying declaration but was also supported by strong circumstantial evidence: the couple's sons testified the appellant was habitually violent when drunk, had shut himself in the room with the deceased shortly before her screams were heard, and the burn-injury pattern (mostly on the back and limbs, not the front) contradicted an accidental kitchen-fire theory, especially since no evidence of cooking fire was found at the scene. The Court found the first dying declaration (claiming accident) unreliable and self-serving since no doctor supported it, while the third dying declaration was properly proved through the Magistrate and doctor who recorded it. The appellant's three-month absconding also undermined his innocence claim, and having failed to explain the death occurring inside his own home (as required under Section 106 of the Evidence Act), his conviction was upheld and the appeal dismissed; the Court also directed that, given his roughly 15 years in custody, he be given legal assistance to explore remission.
A murder conviction can validly rest on strong circumstantial evidence and a credible dying declaration even without an eyewitness; and when a death occurs inside one's own home under one's exclusive knowledge, the law places a burden on that person to truthfully explain what happened, failing to do so can itself support a conviction.
