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 Junior Engineer at the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation was accused of demanding and accepting a bribe from an electrical contractor in exchange for an electricity connection. A Lokayukta inquiry found him guilty and he was dismissed from service, a decision upheld on departmental appeal. Separately, he was tried in a criminal court under the Prevention of Corruption Act for the same bribery allegation but was acquitted after the prosecution witnesses turned hostile. Relying on that acquittal, the Karnataka High Court (both a single judge and a Division Bench) set aside his dismissal, holding the departmental and criminal proceedings concerned the same facts.
The Supreme Court held that an acquittal in a criminal trial does not automatically bar or undo a departmental dismissal, because the two proceedings serve different purposes and apply different standards of proof: criminal trials require proof beyond reasonable doubt under strict evidentiary rules, while departmental inquiries operate on preponderance of probabilities. The Court distinguished the precedents the High Court relied on (Captain M. Paul Anthony and G.M. Tank), noting those cases involved identical evidence before both forums, whereas here the complainant and other witnesses gave evidence against the employee in the departmental inquiry but turned hostile only in the criminal trial, meaning the evidentiary basis for each proceeding was genuinely different. Since there was ample evidence before the Inquiry Officer of the bribe demand and a trap in which the officer was caught with marked money, the dismissal was properly founded and did not warrant being set aside merely because the criminal case failed for lack of surviving evidence. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, restoring the dismissal.
Being acquitted in a criminal corruption case does not automatically entitle a government employee to reinstatement if dismissed departmentally for the same conduct: if the departmental inquiry had its own independent, credible evidence (even where the criminal case later collapsed because witnesses turned hostile), the dismissal can stand on its own.
