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

Dharmendra Kumar @ Dhamma vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Not available · 2024 INSC 480Decided 8 Jul 2024
Not available
Justice Surya Kant · Justice K.V. Viswanathan

Background

During a dispute over construction of a hut wall in Bhopal in June 2004, a group of accused persons, including the appellant, allegedly assaulted two men, Tillu and Tularam, after breaking into a neighbour's hut where Tillu had taken refuge. The appellant was accused of stabbing Tillu, while Tularam later died from his injuries. The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 302/34 IPC (murder) and the Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the conviction, leading to this appeal to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court examined whether a statement recorded by the police under Section 161 CrPC from the injured Tularam (who later died) could be treated as a valid dying declaration, given there was no doctor's certificate confirming his fitness of mind at the time. The Court held that a medical fitness certificate is a rule of caution, not a mandatory requirement. If other evidence shows the declarant was coherent and the statement was voluntary and truthful, it can be relied upon. Since the Investigating Officer found Tularam able to clearly narrate events and specify the appellant's role, and the postmortem injuries corroborated his account, the Court found no reason to disturb the conviction and dismissed the appeal.

Lesson Learnt

A dying declaration does not become invalid merely because a doctor did not certify the declarant's fitness of mind. If the surrounding facts show the statement was made voluntarily, coherently, and truthfully, courts can still rely on it to convict.

Dharmendra Kumar @ Dhamma vs. State of Madhya Pradesh – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware