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.
Mukesh Kumar, a death-row convict in the 2012 Delhi "Nirbhaya" gangrape and murder case, had exhausted his appeal, review and curative remedies, with the Supreme Court having earlier confirmed his death sentence. After his curative petition was dismissed on 14.01.2020, he filed mercy petitions to the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and the President of India, which were rejected within days (President's rejection on 17.01.2020). He then filed this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, alleging that relevant materials were kept from the President, that the rejection was rushed and pre-determined, and that he had suffered solitary confinement and prison mistreatment that were never considered.
The Court held that judicial review of a President's or Governor's decision on a mercy petition under Articles 72/161 is extremely limited: confined to grounds like non-application of mind, mala fides, reliance on wholly irrelevant considerations, or arbitrariness. After examining the actual files, the Court found that all relevant documents (trial court, High Court and Supreme Court judgments, case records, and government recommendations) had in fact been placed before the President. It rejected the solitary-confinement claim based on the Director General of Prisons' affidavit showing the petitioner was housed in a single room with access to mingle with other inmates, not in true solitary confinement. It also held that speedy consideration and rejection of a mercy petition is not, by itself, evidence of a pre-determined or closed mind, only undue delay can be a ground for review, not promptness. Finding no ground for judicial interference, the Court dismissed the writ petition.
The President's or Governor's power to grant mercy is a constitutional duty subject only to very narrow judicial review: courts will not second-guess the decision on merits, only check that due process (consideration of relevant material, absence of mala fides) was followed; a quick decision is not, on its own, proof of an unfair one.
