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 moreA young married woman died at her husband's home under circumstances not clearly established as murder or suicide. The Trial Court acquitted the husband and his parents, finding no evidence pointing to guilt and treating the death as a possible suicide. On the State's appeal, the High Court upheld the acquittal of the in-laws but convicted the husband under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment, relying mainly on his alleged failure to explain his wife's death under Section 106 of the Evidence Act and on disbelieving his alibi that he was away at work that night.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court was wrong to reverse an acquittal without demonstrating manifest illegality or perversity in the Trial Court's reasoning, especially where the Trial Court's view was a plausible one. It found that the husband's alibi (that he was working a night shift at a cement factory) was recorded in his own first intimation to police even before the FIR was registered, so it could not be dismissed as an afterthought, and the prosecution never investigated it. The medical evidence was inconclusive: the ligature mark was found only on the front of the neck, with no ante-mortem injuries, and the doctor himself could not say whether the death was homicidal or suicidal. Since there was no clear chain of circumstances establishing guilt, the Court held Section 106 could not be used as the sole basis for conviction, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the Trial Court's acquittal.
An appellate court cannot overturn an acquittal merely because the accused's explanation seems inconvenient or is doubted. The prosecution must still establish a complete chain of circumstances proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the "burden to explain" under Section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot substitute for that requirement.
