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

Khema @ Khem Chandra Etc. vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh Etc.

Criminal AppealDecided 10 Aug 2022
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1200-1202 of 2022
B.R. Gavai · Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

Background

In 2002, ahead of a family wedding in Mathura, a group of accused persons allegedly ambushed and fatally assaulted a man named Prakash and injured relatives who tried to intervene, leading to convictions under Sections 302/149, 307/149 and 148 IPC by the trial court, later confirmed by the Allahabad High Court. The convicted persons appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the reliability of the prosecution's eyewitnesses and the weapon recoveries used to corroborate the case against them.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court found serious problems with the prosecution's evidence: one prosecution witness (Omveer) was found, even by the trial court's own findings, to not have actually witnessed the incident; the other witness (an injured relative) had material inconsistencies regarding the timing of his injuries and medical examination, and the doctor's testimony contradicted both eyewitnesses. The alleged weapon recoveries lacked independent witnesses and the legally required recorded statements, and the person who first phoned the police about the incident was never examined nor was the relevant police station diary entry produced, raising doubt about whether the true sequence of events had been suppressed. While courts generally do not re-examine evidence where the trial court and High Court agreed, the Supreme Court held this was one of the exceptional cases where such interference was justified because the findings were vitiated by errors and unexplained gaps in the evidence. It set aside the convictions and acquitted all the appellants, giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Lesson Learnt

Even when a trial court and a High Court both convict, the Supreme Court can and will step in to overturn a conviction if the underlying evidence, especially eyewitness reliability and the chain of physical evidence like weapon recoveries, is inconsistent, uncorroborated, or leaves out witnesses who could have clarified the true sequence of events; the accused gets the benefit of such genuine doubt.

Khema @ Khem Chandra Etc. vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh Etc. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware