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

Ekene Godwin & Anr. vs. State of Tamil Nadu

Not available · 2024 INSC 229Decided 18 Mar 2024
Not available
Justice Abhay S. Oka · Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Background

The appellants were being prosecuted for cheating and offences under the Information Technology Act, and their bail application had been rejected by the High Court. During the appeal, the Supreme Court learned that the trial court, working under a High Court-imposed deadline to finish the trial, had recorded the examination-in-chief of 12 prosecution witnesses one after another without recording any cross-examination, and had done so even though the unrepresented appellants had not been given a legal aid lawyer.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that once it was clear the appellants had no lawyer, the trial court should have appointed a legal aid advocate before recording any evidence, and that deferring cross-examination in this manner was not permitted without a specific reasoned order under the CrPC provision meant for that purpose. Recording only examination-in-chief for 12 witnesses this way was held contrary to law and would prejudice the accused. The Court directed a fresh (de novo) trial of those witnesses after legal aid counsel is appointed, and granted the appellants bail on strict conditions, including surrender of their passports, given they had already been in custody since January 2023.

Lesson Learnt

An accused's right to have a lawyer present while prosecution evidence is being recorded is fundamental: a court cannot bypass this right just to meet a time-bound schedule, and doing so can force a complete re-trial of the evidence already recorded.

Ekene Godwin & Anr. vs. State of Tamil Nadu – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware