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.
The appellant, a Sanitary Inspector in Madurai Municipal Corporation, was accused of demanding Rs. 500 and a mobile phone as a bribe from a contractor's supervisor to process an extension of his sanitation work contract. The trial court acquitted him after finding material contradictions in the prosecution witnesses' testimony, but the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, in an appeal by the State, reversed the acquittal and convicted him under the Prevention of Corruption Act, sentencing him to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The accused appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the trial court's acquittal reflected a "possible view" of the evidence: the complainant had an admitted history of ill-will with the accused (having been insulted on caste grounds), there was an unexplained delay of over an hour between the alleged bribe handover and the phenolphthalein hand-wash test, and the money/phone were produced only when officials specifically asked, not caught in the act. Relying on settled precedent, the Court reiterated that an appellate court cannot overturn an acquittal merely because another view is also possible: it may interfere only where the trial court's view was not a reasonably possible one at all. It also reaffirmed that mere recovery of tainted currency is not enough to convict under the Prevention of Corruption Act; the prosecution must prove demand and voluntary acceptance of the bribe beyond reasonable doubt, which was lacking here given the contradictions in witness testimony. The High Court's conviction and sentence were set aside, and the accused was ordered released.
In bribery prosecutions, mere recovery of money or an object from the accused is not enough to convict: the prosecution must separately prove an actual demand and voluntary acceptance of it as a bribe; and an appellate court reviewing an acquittal must show that the trial court's view was not even a reasonably possible one, not simply that a different view could also have been taken.
