LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

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

Indrakunwar vs. The State of Chhattisgarh

Criminal Appeal · 2023 INSC 934Decided 19 Oct 2023
Criminal Appeal No. 1730 of 2012
Abhay S. Oka · Sanjay Karol

Background

The appellant, a woman living alone after being deserted by her husband, was convicted under Section 302 IPC (murder) for allegedly killing her newborn child and throwing the body into a pond, based purely on circumstantial evidence. Neither the Trial Court nor the High Court had any witness who saw her near the pond or who could establish that the dead infant found there was in fact her child. The conviction rested largely on the facts that she was pregnant, lived alone, and did not disclose what happened to her pregnancy.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court found that none of the eight prosecution witnesses could establish any relationship between the deceased child and the appellant, nor had anyone seen her near the pond or throwing anything into it. The medical evidence did not even establish whether the child died before or after birth. The Court held that a woman has a fundamental right to privacy over her reproductive and bodily choices, and cannot be compelled to disclose the fate of her pregnancy where the prosecution has failed to establish the most basic link connecting her to the alleged crime. It also clarified that adverse inferences cannot be drawn from a Section 313 CrPC statement for questions that were never actually put to the accused. Finding the conviction based on mere suspicion, stereotype, and moral judgment about a woman living alone rather than on evidence, the Court acquitted her and set aside the conviction.

Lesson Learnt

A criminal conviction cannot rest on suspicion or social stereotyping (such as judging a woman for living alone or being pregnant outside marriage). The prosecution must prove every link in a chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt, and an accused's right to privacy over deeply personal matters cannot be treated as an admission of guilt.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)
Indrakunwar vs. The State of Chhattisgarh – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware