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

Mahendra Singh & Ors. vs The State of M.P.

Criminal AppealDecided 3 Jun 2022
Criminal Appeal No. 764 of 2021
B.R. Gavai · Hima Kohli

Background

In 1994, Bhagat Singh was allegedly attacked and killed by a group of eleven men, including the appellants, while walking home with his brother Amol Singh and another companion, Akhe Singh. Amol Singh's account, given in the FIR, was the principal evidence used to convict five of the eleven accused (including the appellants) under Sections 148 and 302 read with 149 IPC; six others were acquitted by the trial court on the same evidence. The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the conviction of the five, leading to this appeal.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court closely scrutinised the sole eyewitness testimony of Amol Singh (P.W.6), which formed the entire basis of conviction. Defence witnesses (D.W.3 and D.W.4), corroborated by the evidence of two other prosecution witnesses (P.W.3 and P.W.4), established that Amol Singh had not actually witnessed the incident but was informed of his brother's death afterward by a third person. Applying the settled classification of witnesses into "wholly reliable," "wholly unreliable," and an intermediate category, the Court held Amol Singh's testimony fell into the "wholly unreliable" category, meaning no conviction could rest on it alone; medical evidence only proved the death was homicidal, not who committed it. The appeals were allowed, the conviction was quashed, and the appellants were acquitted and ordered released.

Lesson Learnt

A criminal conviction cannot survive on the testimony of a witness shown, through cross-examination and independent evidence, to not have actually witnessed the crime, even if other, indirect evidence (like a post-mortem report) exists; proving motive or that death occurred is not enough on its own to convict.

Mahendra Singh & Ors. vs The State of M.P. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware