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.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1094
An older qualification must still satisfy the eligibility rules governing the appointment sought. Here, the certificate's early date did not secure reinstatement, and rejection of eligibility should not be confused with a conclusive finding that the certificate was forged.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1095
A party benefiting from a conditional stay must meet its deposit requirement or face enforcement. The additional ₹15 crore deposit secures the pending dispute; it does not settle the land's final compensation or amount to an immediate payment to the landowners.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1093
An alleged attempt to kill does not become a lesser offence simply because the victim avoided a fatal injury. Restoring this charge means the accusation must be tried; it does not establish that the accused is guilty.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1090
For the assessment in this case, assistance reducing ordinary manufacturing costs was taxable even though the government wanted to encourage industry. The purpose and actual operation of the particular subsidy mattered more than its general development label.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1091
Proof that someone caused a serious injury does not by itself prove the additional ingredients of robbery. A court can substitute a lesser offence supported by the evidence; the sentencing reduction here depended on Appa's particular circumstances.
Special Leave Petition (Civil) · 2026 INSC 1092
Someone challenging an election must ensure that the personal-presentation requirement is met and can be proved. Merely entering the court building does not establish compliance, and a filing defect can end the challenge before the election allegations are examined.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1088
An employee who retires on 30 June may be entitled to the increment that falls due on 1 July after completing a year of service. Authorities that delay paying the amounts due must pay interest after the deadline set by the court.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1089
Recruitment must follow the qualifications stated in the advertisement and the governing Recruitment Rules. A court will not override a merit-based eligibility decision made under those rules merely because the candidate concerned was higher in the written test.
Writ Petition (Criminal) · 2026:DHC:8797
A person who occupied property only because of employment has no independent right to remain once the employment and decree end. Even when a petition fails, courts can make practical arrangements to let a person recover personal belongings.
14543 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 moreTwenty-nine co-villagers in Rajasthan were charge-sheeted after a mob attack on 10 September 2001 that killed four people and seriously injured the informant. Twenty-four of the 29 accused were convicted by the trial court for murder and related offences under the theory of common unlawful assembly, and most convictions were upheld by the Rajasthan High Court. Several convicts filed separate appeals (eventually eight in total) to the Supreme Court, challenging their convictions mainly on the ground that the evidence did not sufficiently link each individual accused to the unlawful assembly.
The Supreme Court held that the group's chasing and killing of four victims clearly showed a common object to commit a serious offence, satisfying the definition of "unlawful assembly" under Section 141 IPC, and that the lower courts rightly applied Section 149 IPC (vicarious liability for acts of the unlawful assembly). However, applying the established caution (from Masalti and Busi Koteswara Rao) that in large-mob cases a conviction should be supported by at least two or three consistent witnesses specifically naming each accused, the Court re-examined the evidence against each appellant individually. It found that five specific appellants, including Suresh Kumar and Ram Prasad, whose appeals were part of this very appeal number (493-495/2009), had been named by only one witness each, insufficient corroboration, and gave them the benefit of doubt, acquitting them. The appeals of the remaining sixteen appellants were dismissed, and their bail bonds (if on bail) were ordered cancelled so they could serve out their sentences.
In mob-violence cases involving many accused, courts require corroboration by multiple independent witnesses naming each specific individual: merely being named once by a single witness, even where a broader unlawful assembly is proven, is not enough to sustain a conviction; benefit of doubt applies accused-by-accused, not just case-by-case.
