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.

Constitutional LawSupreme Court of India

Hansraj vs State of U.P.

Not available · 2025 INSC 1211Decided 9 Oct 2025
Not available
Justice Dipankar Datta · Justice Augustine George Masih

Background

The petitioner was convicted of murder in 1984 for an incident from 1981, when, going by his undisputed date of birth (10 June 1969), he was only around 12-16 years old. Decades later, after being taken back into custody, he filed a writ petition directly before the Supreme Court under Article 32, seeking immediate release on the ground that he was a juvenile at the time of the offence and should have been dealt with under juvenile justice law rather than tried and sentenced as an adult.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that a plea of juvenility can be raised at any stage, even years after a conviction has become final, because the law (Section 9(2) proviso of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, carrying forward the earlier Section 7-A of the 2000 Act) obliges courts to examine such a claim whenever raised. Since the petitioner's date of birth and his age at the time of the offence were not disputed by the State, no separate inquiry was even needed to establish that he was a child when the offence occurred. Continuing to hold him in custody as an adult convict, the Court held, breached his fundamental right to liberty under Article 21. It ordered his immediate release, directing jail authorities to act even on a downloaded copy of the order without waiting for a certified copy.

Lesson Learnt

A genuine claim of having been a minor/juvenile at the time of an offence can be raised and must be examined by courts at any stage, even long after conviction: age at the time of the crime, not at the time of the claim, is what determines whether a person should have been tried as a juvenile.

Hansraj vs State of U.P. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware