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.
7878 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.
Ram Chandra, who had recently bought a Bolero, was hired at the Losal bus stand in Sikar district on the evening of 5 March 2009 by a group of men wanting to go to Kuchaman and never returned. At about 3 a.m. the same night, Ratangarh police on patrol intercepted the Bolero being driven rashly; Jagdish was caught as he tried to flee, Prakash and a juvenile were detained inside, and bloodstains and bloodstained clothes were found in the vehicle. On the disclosure statements of Jagdish and Prakash, the body was recovered from an old well near the Rajpura bus stand. A third accused, Bablu alias Balveer alias Roop Singh, was arrested from a jail more than a year later. All three were convicted by the trial court under Sections 302 and 397 IPC, and the Rajasthan High Court upheld the convictions.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals of Jagdish and Prakash on the murder charge, finding the chain complete: credible police testimony about their arrest in the deceased's vehicle within hours, blood in the vehicle, recovery of the body on their disclosure, and identification by the deceased's cousin in a test identification parade and in court. However, it set aside their conviction under Section 397 (robbery with a deadly weapon), holding that there was no evidence to support it and that Section 397 cannot be applied with the aid of Section 34; it instead convicted them under Section 392 (robbery) and sentenced them to five years, to run concurrently with the life sentence. Bablu's appeal was allowed: he was not in the vehicle when it was intercepted, was arrested over a year later, the identification parade was held 13 months after the incident, and the alleged recovery of a car key from him was worthless since no key was ever shown to be missing or matched to the vehicle. A single dock identification could not be the sole basis for conviction, so he was acquitted on benefit of doubt and ordered released.
Courts distinguish carefully between co-accused: strong physical evidence (arrest in the victim's vehicle, recovery of the body on disclosure) justifies a murder conviction, but an identification parade conducted over a year after the event, with no corroborating recovery, is too weak to convict. Each element of an offence, such as the use of a deadly weapon for Section 397, must be separately proved.
