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

Gadadhar Chandra vs. The State of West Bengal

Criminal AppealDecided 15 Mar 2022
Criminal Appeal No. 1661 of 2009
Ajay Rastogi · Abhay S. Oka

Background

In August 1976, a school headmaster and a fellow teacher, Purna Chandra Ghosh, were walking home when the appellant and a juvenile companion, Arjun, confronted them near a railway gate, apparently over a family dispute. A scuffle broke out and Arjun stabbed Ghosh with a knife, killing him. The Sessions Court convicted the appellant of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC (acting with common intention), even though it was Arjun, not the appellant, who actually delivered the fatal blow, and the High Court upheld this.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, finding the prosecution had failed to prove "common intention" (a shared, pre-arranged plan to kill) which Section 34 requires before one person can be convicted for another's act. The only real evidence came from a single eyewitness, and two other people who were sitting with the appellant and Arjun just before the incident (and so could have shown whether there was any prior meeting of minds) were never called to testify, entitling the appellant to an adverse inference against the prosecution. The knife allegedly used by the appellant was never recovered, and the evidence showed only that he brandished a knife and held the victim's collar while Arjun did the actual stabbing, not enough to establish a shared murderous plan.

Lesson Learnt

Being present at, or even peripherally involved in, a fight where someone else commits murder does not automatically make you guilty of that murder. The law requires proof of a genuine shared intention to commit the specific crime, and courts will not presume it from mere presence or a minor scuffle.

Gadadhar Chandra vs. The State of West Bengal – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware