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.
7878 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.
BLS Infrastructure Ltd. had filed eight criminal complaints against Rajwant Singh and others under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (cheque dishonour) between 2011 and 2017. In three of these cases the complainant had already been cross-examined, and by an order dated 26.10.2017 this cross-examination was treated as adopted for the remaining cases too, closing the complainant's evidence. While an application to summon further witnesses was pending, the complainant's counsel allegedly misled the company into believing a settlement was underway, so the company did not appear on the next date. The Magistrate dismissed all eight complaints for non-appearance on 25.01.2019, and the Delhi High Court upheld this dismissal.
The Supreme Court examined Section 256 of the CrPC, which lets a Magistrate acquit the accused if a complainant fails to appear, but its proviso allows the Magistrate to dispense with the complainant's presence and decide the case on merits if the complainant is represented by counsel or if personal attendance isn't necessary. Relying on its earlier rulings in Associated Cement Co. and S. Anand, the Court held that once a complainant's evidence has already been recorded and cross-examined, dismissing the case merely because the complainant was personally absent (rather than deciding it on the existing evidence) is not justified. Both the Magistrate and the High Court had failed to consider this proviso and the fact that evidence already existed on record. The Court set aside both orders and restored the complaints to the Magistrate's file, directing that proceedings resume from the stage they had reached before the dismissal.
A criminal complaint cannot automatically be thrown out just because the complainant misses a hearing if their evidence has already been recorded on record: the Magistrate must consider deciding the case on the merits of the existing evidence rather than mechanically ordering acquittal.
