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

Manharan Rajwade vs The State of Chhattisgarh

Not available · 2024 INSC 560Decided 25 Jul 2024
Not available
Justice Abhay S. Oka · Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra · Justice Augustine George Masih

Background

The appellant was convicted of murdering his wife and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution's case rested entirely on the "last seen together" theory: that since the couple were together shortly before her death, the burden shifted to the husband to explain what happened. Two prosecution witnesses were examined, but both were declared hostile at trial.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court closely examined the hostile witnesses' testimony and found that, contrary to the prosecution's theory, the evidence actually showed the wife had already died before the appellant returned home: one witness stated she found the deceased already unresponsive around 5 p.m., while the appellant only came back around 7 p.m. Since there was no proof that the couple were together shortly before death, the "last seen together" presumption could not be invoked to shift the burden to the appellant under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. With the prosecution's only circumstance found to be unproven, the Court held the murder charge was not established, set aside the conviction, and ordered the appellant's acquittal and release.

Lesson Learnt

A conviction based on circumstantial evidence like "last seen together" collapses if the prosecution's own evidence contradicts the timeline it relies on. Courts must scrutinise even hostile witness testimony carefully rather than accept the prosecution's theory at face value.

Manharan Rajwade vs The State of Chhattisgarh – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware