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

Debojit Pankika Charaideo Sonari v. State of Assam

Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 687Decided 13 Jul 2026
Crl.A. No.-003909-003909 - 2025
Justice Sanjay Karol · Justice Prasanna B. Varale

Background

A ten-year-old girl who had been informally adopted and was living with the appellant and his mother went missing after the mother left home for medical treatment, leaving the child in the appellant's sole care. The child remained missing for 22 days before her maternal uncle lodged a police complaint, and the appellant was eventually charged with her murder based mainly on a witness's account that the appellant had confessed to the killing and forced him, at knifepoint, to help dispose of the body in a river. The trial court convicted the appellant, and the Gauhati High Court upheld the conviction, leading to this final appeal.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction. It held that "corpus delicti" (the fact that a crime occurred) does not require recovery of the victim's body: homicidal death can be proved through cogent circumstantial evidence even where, as here, the body was disposed of in a river and never recovered. The Court found the key witness's testimony credible and consistent with his earlier statements to police and a magistrate, and treated the appellant's complete failure to explain the child's 22-day disappearance from his exclusive custody, despite being asked under Section 313 CrPC, as a strong additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence against him.

Lesson Learnt

A person can be convicted of murder even without the victim's body being found, if the surrounding circumstantial evidence is cogent and consistent; and where someone was in exclusive custody of a person who then goes missing or dies, an unexplained failure to account for what happened can itself be used as evidence of guilt.

Debojit Pankika Charaideo Sonari v. State of Assam – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware