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 truck owner, her driver, and a cleaner were found murdered near Ranchi, and the accused (including appellants A-1 and A-4) were convicted by the trial court under Sections 302 and 392 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment, a conviction the Jharkhand High Court affirmed. The prosecution's case against these two appellants rested almost entirely on an alleged extra-judicial confession by a co-accused (Mahendra, A-2) and the recovery of a rope based on another co-accused's (A-3's) statement to police. The hotel owner who was supposed to have heard the confession turned hostile at trial and denied the entire conversation.
The Supreme Court held that the evidence of the alleged confession was hearsay as recounted by the witness (PW-2), since he only heard about it second-hand from the hotel owner, who himself denied it in court, leaving no reliable corroboration. Relying on settled law (including Haricharan Kurmi, Sahadevan, and Pancho), the Court reiterated that an extra-judicial confession is inherently weak evidence that cannot sustain a conviction without independent corroboration, and that a co-accused's confession cannot be used as substantive evidence against another accused. It further held that the recovery of a common rope, with no forensic link to the crime, did not satisfy the requirements of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Finding no reliable evidence against the appellants, the Court set aside the convictions of both the trial court and High Court and acquitted them of all charges, allowing the appeals.
A criminal conviction cannot rest on a weak, uncorroborated extra-judicial confession, especially one relayed second-hand through a witness who later denies it, nor on the mere recovery of a commonplace object with no scientific link to the offence.
