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.

Constitutional LawSupreme Court of India

Om Prakash @ Israel @ Raju @ Raju Das v. Union of India

Criminal Appeal · 2025 INSC 43Decided 8 Jan 2025
Crl.A. No.-004229-004229 - 2024 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2214 of 2022)
Justice M.M. Sundresh · Justice Aravind Kumar

Background

The appellant was convicted of murder for an offence committed in 1994 and sentenced to death, with the trial court treating him as an adult based on the fact that he had once opened a bank account. He had, in fact, been about 14 years old at the time and repeatedly raised a claim of juvenility (through appeal, review, a curative petition, a mercy petition, and a subsequent writ petition) supported by school records and a jail-ordered ossification test, all of which indicated he was a minor at the time of the offence. His death sentence was eventually commuted by the President to life imprisonment, but his juvenility claim was never properly examined on its merits, and he ultimately spent close to 25 years in prison.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 allows a claim of juvenility to be raised "at any stage," including after a conviction has become final, and that the courts and executive at every earlier stage had failed to properly examine this constitutional and statutory protection. Accepting the unrebutted school and medical evidence that the appellant was a juvenile at the time of the offence, the Court set aside the sentence to the extent it exceeded what the juvenile justice law permits, while leaving the underlying conviction undisturbed, and ordered his immediate release. It also directed the state legal services authority to help him reintegrate into society after nearly a quarter-century in custody.

Lesson Learnt

A genuine claim that the accused was a minor at the time of the crime can be raised and must be examined at any point in the legal process, even years after a conviction is final, because juvenile justice protections are a fundamental right, not a technicality that expires with the passage of time.

Om Prakash @ Israel @ Raju @ Raju Das v. Union of India – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware