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.

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

P. Sasikumar vs. The State rep. by the Inspector of Police

Not available · 2024 INSC 474Decided 8 Jul 2024
Not available
Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia · Justice Prasanna B. Varale

Background

In November 2014, a 14-year-old girl was brutally murdered inside her home in Salem, Tamil Nadu, allegedly by two men: one reportedly obsessed with and stalking the victim's elder sister, and the appellant, described as an accomplice. There was no direct evidence against the appellant; the case rested on circumstantial evidence, including identification by two witnesses who had never seen him before and had only glimpsed him from a distance while he wore a monkey cap covering most of his face. No formal Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted by police before the witnesses identified him in court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court set aside the appellant's conviction and life sentence, and acquitted him. It held that when an accused is a complete stranger to eyewitnesses, a court identification made for the first time during trial ("dock identification") is inherently weak evidence unless corroborated by a properly conducted TIP before trial, especially where witnesses only saw the accused's partially covered face from a distance. Since no explanation was given for skipping the TIP, and the identification evidence was doubtful, the prosecution failed to prove the appellant's identity beyond reasonable doubt. The Court ordered his immediate release after eight years in custody, clarifying that this acquittal had no bearing on the separate case against the other accused.

Lesson Learnt

When police fail to conduct a proper identification parade before an unfamiliar accused is put up for a courtroom identification, that identification becomes weak evidence, and a conviction cannot rest on it if serious doubt remains about who actually committed the crime.

P. Sasikumar vs. The State rep. by the Inspector of Police – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware