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

Chandrapal vs. The State of Chhattisgarh (Earlier M.P.)

Criminal AppealDecided 27 May 2022
Criminal Appeal No. 378 of 2015
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud · Bela M. Trivedi · Chandrachud was not yet Chief Justice at the time

Background

A young woman and a young man from different castes, who were in a relationship their families opposed, went missing and were later found dead, hanging from a tree, in a decomposed state. The prosecution alleged that the appellant (the woman's uncle) and other relatives murdered the couple and staged it as a double suicide because they disapproved of the inter-caste relationship. The trial court convicted the appellant of murder and destruction of evidence; the High Court confirmed his conviction.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, holding that the case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution had failed to first establish that the deaths were homicidal at all: the post-mortem doctor himself had opined the deaths were consistent with suicide by hanging and admitted he found no signs of homicide. The Court found the two pillars of the prosecution's case legally weak: an extra-judicial confession by a co-accused (a category of evidence the Court has repeatedly held to be inherently weak unless strongly corroborated), and a "last seen together" theory based on a witness statement about an event that occurred roughly ten days before the bodies were found: too large a time gap to safely connect the appellant to the deaths. Since the chain of circumstances was neither complete nor consistent solely with guilt, the conviction could not stand.

Lesson Learnt

A criminal conviction cannot rest on weak evidence like an uncorroborated confession by a co-accused or a "last seen" claim separated from the death by a long time gap. The prosecution must first prove the death was even a homicide, and any reasonable doubt on that point must benefit the accused.

Chandrapal vs. The State of Chhattisgarh (Earlier M.P.) – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware