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.
Transfer Petition (Criminal) · 2026 INSC 1060
Where a marriage has irretrievably broken down and the parties reach a genuine, voluntary settlement, including on alimony, the Supreme Court can use its Article 142 powers to grant a mutual-consent divorce and close out all related litigation in one stroke, without requiring the usual statutory waiting period.
Writ Petition (Civil) · 2026 INSC 1061
In long-running, complex litigation involving apportioned government liabilities across states, the Supreme Court can use a mechanism like a retired-judge committee plus periodic compliance affidavits to bring genuine finality, including firm timelines, transparency obligations, and interest for delayed payment, rather than leaving matters open-ended.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1062
In an "as is where is" liquidation auction, a bidder who voluntarily accepts the auction terms cannot later resile from a forfeiture clause by citing regulatory caps or after-the-fact excuses for non-payment: courts will enforce the auction notice's own conditions.
Writ Petition (Criminal) · 2026:DHC:8338-DB
Once someone is released from custody because the police failed to properly communicate the grounds of arrest, the police cannot simply re-arrest them by adding new charges: a specific, court-supervised procedure with senior-officer accountability must be followed, or the re-arrest itself becomes illegal.
Bail Application · 2026:DHC:8308
In economic-offence cases, bail can still be granted where the method used to quantify the alleged financial evasion is not adequately justified, and where the apprehension of re-offending is speculative rather than evidence-based.
Writ Petition (Criminal) · 2026:DHC:8323
A parole claim must be backed by a genuine, verifiable application to the competent jail authority: courts will scrutinise irregularities like an incomplete address, an unexplained thumb mark, or reliance on a mere friend's affidavit rather than close family.
Bail Application · 2026:DHC:8337
Courts can grant short, strictly time-bound interim bail purely on humanitarian/compassionate grounds (such as caring for a seriously ill family member), even while a case remains pending trial and an earlier bail plea has failed.
Bail Application · 2026:DHC:8312
Courts will not repeatedly re-examine a bail plea already rejected on merits unless the applicant can point to a genuine change in circumstances since the earlier order.
First Appeal from Order · 2026:DHC:8334
Under the no-fault compensation scheme for railway accidents, a valid ticket-holder injured while attempting to board a train, even carelessly, is generally entitled to compensation unless the railway can show a deliberate, conscious exposure to danger, not mere negligence.
6171 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 1977, several persons were alleged to have unlawfully assembled and murdered a victim, and were tried in Sessions Trial No. 242 of 1978. In 1981 the trial court convicted the accused under Sections 147/148 and 302 read with 149 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment, and the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) affirmed the conviction in 2011. By the time the matter reached the Supreme Court in four connected appeals, one accused (Ram Dhani) had died before the High Court decided the case, and two more (Raj Kishore and Deo Prasad) died while the Supreme Court appeals were pending, leaving three surviving accused-appellants: Hira Lal, Raj Bux, and Subedar.
The Supreme Court undertook a fresh, close scrutiny of the eyewitness testimony and physical evidence and found the prosecution case riddled with material infirmities: the presence of the alleged eyewitnesses at the scene was highly improbable given inconsistencies about the time and manner of the occurrence, and the supposed recovery of bicycles said to link the accused to the crime was unsupported by any cogent evidence establishing ownership or possession. The Court held that once genuine doubt arises about the eyewitnesses' presence and the truthfulness of the prosecution's version of events, the entire edifice of the prosecution case collapses, and it found that both the trial court and the High Court erred in overlooking these infirmities. Because the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the Court did not find it necessary to separately examine a plea of juvenility raised by one of the accused, and set aside the conviction and sentence for the surviving appeals, acquitting all three surviving accused-appellants of the charges.
A criminal conviction cannot stand on eyewitness testimony or "recovery" evidence riddled with unexplained inconsistencies and gaps in proof of ownership. Courts must set aside a conviction, however serious the charge, once reasonable doubt genuinely undermines the prosecution's core narrative.
