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 complainant, a married woman with three children living in Uttam Nagar, Delhi, began a sexual relationship in 2009-2010 with Naim Ahamed, who rented a house opposite hers. She gave birth to his son in October 2011. In 2012 she visited his native village and discovered he was already married with children, yet continued living with him in separate rented premises; in 2014 she and her husband divorced by mutual consent and she left her three children with him. In March 2015 she filed an FIR alleging that the accused had obtained her consent by falsely promising to marry her. The Sessions Court convicted him of rape and sentenced him to 10 years plus Rs. 5 lakh compensation to her; the Delhi High Court reduced the sentence to 7 years but upheld the conviction and the compensation, which the accused paid. The accused's defence was that the relationship was consensual, that she knew he was married, and that she filed the case only when he refused her demand for Rs. 1.5-2 lakh.
The Supreme Court acquitted the accused. Reviewing its earlier rulings (Uday, Deelip Singh, Deepak Gulati, Dhruvaram Sonar), it drew the key distinction between a false promise (where the man never intended to marry from the very beginning and used the promise only to obtain sex, which vitiates consent) and a mere breach of promise, where a genuine promise later fails because of changed circumstances, which does not. It would be a "folly" to treat every broken promise of marriage as rape. On the facts, the Court found the complainant was a mature married woman who understood the nature and consequences of the relationship; she raised no complaint through the birth of the child, continued with the accused even after learning in 2012 that he was married, divorced her husband in 2014, and complained only in 2015 when disputes arose. Her consent therefore could not be said to have been given under a misconception of fact. The conviction and sentence were set aside, though the Rs. 5 lakh compensation already paid was left undisturbed because the accused had accepted responsibility for the child. Separately, noticing that the complainant's deposition had been recorded only in English though she testified in her own language, the Court directed all trial courts to comply with Section 277 CrPC: evidence must be recorded in the language of the court or of the witness, with a translation prepared, not in an English paraphrase alone.
A sexual relationship becomes rape on the ground of a "promise to marry" only if the promise was false from the outset and was the sole reason for the consent: a relationship that continues for years with full knowledge of the facts is not converted into rape simply because the promise is later broken. Also, trial courts must record what a witness actually says in the witness's own language, because the original words, not a judge's English translation, are what count.
