LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

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

Mayankkumar Natwarlal Kankana Patel & Anr. vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.

Not available · 2025 INSC 1475Decided 19 Dec 2025
Not available
Justice Vikram Nath · Justice Augustine George Masih

Background

The appellant (husband) and the deceased were married in 2010 and had a daughter, Aashvi, born in 2013. The deceased's father lodged a complaint alleging that the deceased died by suicide on 5 November 2017 after being subjected to dowry-related cruelty and harassment, including demands for money for a car, house, and motorcycle, and that the husband had an extramarital affair. A chargesheet was filed, trial commenced, and after 21 prosecution witnesses had already been examined, the prosecution applied under Section 311 CrPC to additionally examine the minor daughter, Aashvi, as a witness. The Trial Court rejected this application, but the Gujarat High Court reversed that decision and permitted the child's examination, prompting the accused to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that Section 311 CrPC, though a wide power, must be exercised sparingly and only when the evidence sought is genuinely indispensable to arriving at the truth: a standard not met here. It found no material on record (not the FIR, the investigation statements, or the complainant's testimony) to show the child was actually present at the scene of the incident; the assumption that she witnessed it was speculative. The Court also noted the child was of very tender age at the time, more than seven years had since passed, and she had been living with her maternal grandparents throughout that period, raising a reasonable apprehension that her testimony could be unreliable or tutored. Since the application was made only after 21 witnesses had already testified, at an advanced stage of trial, allowing it would merely protract the proceedings and prejudice the accused. The Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the Trial Court's order declining to summon the child witness, directing the trial to proceed.

Lesson Learnt

The power to recall or summon an additional witness at a late stage of a criminal trial is not to be used routinely. It is reserved for evidence that is truly indispensable to reaching the truth, and courts will be cautious about placing weight on the memory of a child witness, especially where there is a real risk of the child's account having been shaped by time or by those she has lived with since the events.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)
Mayankkumar Natwarlal Kankana Patel & Anr. vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware