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.
The respondent, an LIC Development Officer, was earlier given a disciplinary penalty (reduced pay) in 1997 after admitting to submitting a fake school-leaving certificate and fraudulent insurance proposals for non-existent people. Separately, the CBI prosecuted him criminally for the same underlying conduct, and in 2014 a Special Judge convicted him under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC, sentencing him to two years' imprisonment; his sentence (but not his conviction) was suspended pending his appeal. LIC then issued a fresh notice proposing his removal from service under Regulation 39(4) of its Staff Regulations, which allows action based on a criminal conviction. The respondent challenged this notice, and the Gujarat High Court's Division Bench restrained LIC from passing final orders on it until his criminal appeal was decided.
The Supreme Court held that only the respondent's sentence, not his conviction, had been suspended by the earlier order granting him bail, so the conviction itself remained valid and could be acted upon. Relying on its own precedents, the Court held that an employer is entitled to independently proceed against an employee under provisions like Regulation 39(4) based on a standing criminal conviction, even while sentence is suspended and the appeal is pending: this does not amount to double jeopardy, because it addresses a distinct consequence (unfitness for continued service) from the criminal punishment itself. The Court also held that LIC's earlier, lesser disciplinary penalty (for the underlying misconduct) did not bar it from separately invoking Regulation 39(4) once a criminal conviction followed, since the two actions addressed different triggers. The High Court's restraining order was set aside, and the Single Judge's dismissal of the respondent's challenge was restored, allowing LIC to proceed on its removal notice.
An employer can usually take disciplinary action, including removal, against an employee based on a criminal conviction even while an appeal against that conviction is pending, as long as only the sentence (not the conviction itself) has been suspended by a court; this is not considered double punishment for the same conduct.
