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 baby born prematurely at 32 weeks was treated in the hospital's neonatal ICU for nearly four weeks. Premature babies are at high risk of Retinopathy of Prematurity (ROP), a condition that can cause blindness if not screened for and treated promptly, but the hospital's records showed no proper ROP screening protocol was followed and no adequate advice was given to the parents about the need for follow-up ROP checks. By the time ROP was actually diagnosed, it had progressed to Stage 5 in both eyes, the most advanced, irreversible stage, leaving the child permanently blind. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held the hospital and its doctors liable for medical negligence and awarded compensation, which the hospital appealed while the family separately appealed for a higher amount.
The Supreme Court examined the hospital's and doctors' own records in detail and found no credible evidence that a proper ROP screening was ever conducted or that the parents were adequately warned of the risk and the need for timely follow-up examinations: a clear departure from the established medical protocol for premature infants. Applying the tort principle of restitutio in integrum (restoring the victim, as far as money can, to the position they would have been in absent the wrong), and noting that the litigation had been pending for years without accounting for ongoing costs like an attendant, special schooling, and assistive devices, the Court enhanced the compensation by a further lump sum of Rs. 12 lakh (bringing the total to Rs. 76 lakh). It dismissed the hospital's appeal, allowed the family's appeal for enhancement, and laid out a detailed, closely supervised scheme for investing the compensation (post office deposits, a PPF account, and a fixed deposit) to secure the child's long-term education and welfare, with the Supreme Court Registrar overseeing disbursement.
Hospitals and doctors treating high-risk newborns must follow established screening protocols (like ROP checks for premature babies) and clearly document and communicate follow-up requirements to parents: failure to do so, resulting in preventable permanent injury, amounts to actionable medical negligence, and courts can structure compensation awards with safeguards to ensure the money actually benefits the injured child over their lifetime.
