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.
Five men were tried for the murder of one Kaushalya Devi. The trial court convicted only one of them, Kanhai Prasad Chourasia, under Section 302 IPC (murder) and the Arms Act, sentencing him to life imprisonment; the appellant, Deep Narayan Chourasia, and three others were acquitted of the murder charge but convicted only under the Arms Act and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. On appeal, the Patna High Court mistakenly proceeded as if all five accused had been convicted of murder, and ended up convicting the appellant and the other three Arms Act-only accused of murder as well, without the State having appealed their acquittal and without any notice of enhancement being issued to them.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had committed fundamental jurisdictional errors: it wrongly assumed a factual premise (that all five were convicted of murder), convicted four acquitted men of a graver offence without any appeal or enhancement notice against them, and even failed to impose any sentence for the "new" murder conviction it created. Relying on the Constitution Bench ruling in Durga Shankar Mehta v. Thakur Raghuraj Singh (that Article 136 powers can be exercised even to benefit non-appealing co-accused where justice demands), the Court held that an illegal order could not be allowed to stand against the other accused merely because only one of them had appealed. It therefore set aside the High Court's judgment in its entirety, as to all five accused, including those who had not appealed, and remanded both criminal appeals to the High Court for a fresh hearing on merits, releasing the appellant on bail in the interim given he had already served part of his sentence.
Appellate courts cannot convict a person of a more serious crime than the one appealed, without the prosecution first appealing the acquittal or giving proper notice of intent to enhance the sentence/conviction; and the Supreme Court can extend relief even to co-accused who never filed their own appeal, if the same illegality affects them equally.
