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.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1073
In circumstantial-evidence cases, forensic and DNA evidence must actually corroborate the alleged crime: a conviction cannot survive where the most crucial scientific evidence, on its own terms, points away from rather than toward the prosecution's theory.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1074
A conviction based purely on circumstantial evidence requires every link in the chain, timeline, witness credibility, forensic matches, and motive, to be proven beyond reasonable doubt; gaps or suppressed evidence at any link entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt, even in a serious case like a double murder.
Criminal Miscellaneous Case · 2026:DHC:8505
Courts will not quash a criminal case merely because the accused has a plausible alibi-type defence; unless that defence is conclusive and undisputed, the matter must be tested through the ordinary trial process.
Criminal Miscellaneous Case · 2026:DHC:8547
A private compromise between victim and accused cannot by itself secure quashing of a case involving serious, heinous allegations like attempted murder with a weapon: such matters must proceed to trial regardless of settlement.
First Appeal from Order · 2026:DHC:8563
Railway Claims Tribunals cannot reject a bona fide passenger's death claim based on speculative inferences when there is no direct evidence of an alternative cause of death; the compensation scheme under the Railways Act is to be interpreted generously in favour of victims' families.
Criminal Miscellaneous Case · 2026:DHC:8559
In matrimonial offences, courts can and do quash criminal proceedings once a genuine compromise is verified directly with the complainant, sparing both parties a prolonged and pointless trial.
Bail Application · 2026:DHC:8541
A co-accused's bail does not automatically extend to another accused where their actual roles in the offence differ materially; delay caused by one's own defence counsel cannot later be used as a ground for bail.
Execution Petition · 2026:DHC:8567
An arbitral award must be adequately stamped before a court can enforce it; courts give only a limited window to cure such defects, after which the award becomes legally unusable until the deficiency is fixed.
Arbitration Petition · 2026:DHC:8555
A genuine settlement reached through mediation renders a pending arbitration-related court petition moot, allowing parties to close out litigation quickly once they resolve their dispute privately.
9257 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 moreLegal 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 ___).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A five-year-old girl, R, went missing from her village in Karnataka after being seen with the appellant, who had taken her away on the pretext of buying her biscuits. Based on circumstantial evidence, witnesses who saw the appellant carrying the child and a gunny bag towards a stream, and the appellant's own disclosure statement leading to recovery of the child's body from the stream, he was convicted of her rape and murder by the trial court and the Karnataka High Court, which confirmed a death sentence. The appellant challenged both the conviction and the death sentence before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court carefully examined alleged inconsistencies in witness testimony (such as a date discrepancy) and the medical evidence on time of death, and concluded that the chain of circumstantial evidence fully and conclusively established the appellant's guilt, upholding the conviction under Sections 302, 376, 364, 366A and 201 IPC. However, on sentencing, the Court found that the trial court and High Court had wrongly concluded there were no mitigating factors at all, overlooking the appellant's young age at the time of the offence, his poor socio-economic background, absence of any prior criminal record, the non-premeditated nature of the crime, and his satisfactory conduct in prison over nearly 11 years. Applying the "rarest of the rare" standard strictly, the Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, but directed that the appellant must actually serve a minimum of 30 years in prison before being eligible for premature release or remission.
Even in horrific crimes against children, the death penalty is reserved only for the truly "rarest of the rare" cases: courts must seriously weigh mitigating factors like age, background, and absence of criminal history, and a sentencing court's bare assertion that "no mitigating circumstances exist" can itself be struck down as an error of law.
