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.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1094
An older qualification must still satisfy the eligibility rules governing the appointment sought. Here, the certificate's early date did not secure reinstatement, and rejection of eligibility should not be confused with a conclusive finding that the certificate was forged.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1095
A party benefiting from a conditional stay must meet its deposit requirement or face enforcement. The additional ₹15 crore deposit secures the pending dispute; it does not settle the land's final compensation or amount to an immediate payment to the landowners.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1093
An alleged attempt to kill does not become a lesser offence simply because the victim avoided a fatal injury. Restoring this charge means the accusation must be tried; it does not establish that the accused is guilty.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1090
For the assessment in this case, assistance reducing ordinary manufacturing costs was taxable even though the government wanted to encourage industry. The purpose and actual operation of the particular subsidy mattered more than its general development label.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1091
Proof that someone caused a serious injury does not by itself prove the additional ingredients of robbery. A court can substitute a lesser offence supported by the evidence; the sentencing reduction here depended on Appa's particular circumstances.
Special Leave Petition (Civil) · 2026 INSC 1092
Someone challenging an election must ensure that the personal-presentation requirement is met and can be proved. Merely entering the court building does not establish compliance, and a filing defect can end the challenge before the election allegations are examined.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1088
An employee who retires on 30 June may be entitled to the increment that falls due on 1 July after completing a year of service. Authorities that delay paying the amounts due must pay interest after the deadline set by the court.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1089
Recruitment must follow the qualifications stated in the advertisement and the governing Recruitment Rules. A court will not override a merit-based eligibility decision made under those rules merely because the candidate concerned was higher in the written test.
Writ Petition (Criminal) · 2026:DHC:8797
A person who occupied property only because of employment has no independent right to remain once the employment and decree end. Even when a petition fails, courts can make practical arrangements to let a person recover personal belongings.
14543 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 moreAccording to the prosecution, the appellant Pankaj visited a juice shop in Bharatpur, Rajasthan in March 1998 and, after a prior grudge with the shop owner's family, fired a country-made pistol at Raj Kumar, who later died of the injury. A charge-sheet was filed against Pankaj and others under Section 302 (murder) read with the Arms Act, and the Trial Court convicted him; the Rajasthan High Court dismissed his appeal, upholding the conviction. Pankaj appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the reliability of the eyewitness testimony and the forensic evidence linking him to the shooting.
The Supreme Court scrutinised the sole key eyewitness (PW-8) and the forensic ballistics report, which showed that while a country-made pistol was recovered at the appellant's instance and was a serviceable, previously-fired weapon, the bullet actually recovered from the scene had NOT been fired from that pistol, meaning there was no scientific link between the recovered weapon and the fatal injury. The Court also found the prosecution's motive theory unconvincing and noted the well-settled principle that where the genesis and manner of an incident are doubtful, a conviction cannot be sustained on evidence lacking quality and credibility. Finding PW-8's testimony unreliable and the forensic evidence actually undermining rather than supporting the prosecution's case, the Court held the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt, set aside his conviction and sentence, and allowed the appeal.
A criminal conviction cannot stand merely on an eyewitness's account if the forensic evidence actively contradicts the prosecution's own theory (here, the recovered bullet did not match the recovered weapon): the benefit of any genuine doubt about how the crime actually occurred must go to the accused.
