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.
On 28 February 2012, Vrindawan was having land near his septic tank levelled with a JCB when his cousins Prasad Pradhan and Lingraj Pradhan, neighbours with whom the family had a long-running land dispute, began abusing him, climbed over the wall armed with axes and attacked him; Prasad struck him on the head and Lingraj on the legs, and when Vrindawan's daughter tried to intervene she was also hit on the leg with an axe. Vrindawan suffered a fractured skull and multiple other injuries, underwent surgery, never left hospital and died 20 days later; the post-mortem attributed death to cardio-respiratory failure resulting from the injuries. The trial court convicted both men (and a third accused, later acquitted by the High Court) of murder and sentenced them to life imprisonment; the Chhattisgarh High Court upheld their conviction, and they appealed to the Supreme Court arguing the eyewitnesses were interested relatives, the incident was a sudden unpremeditated quarrel, and the death, occurring 20 days later, was not directly caused by their blows.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the murder conviction and life sentences. It held that witnesses being relatives of the deceased does not by itself make them unreliable; the daughter was herself injured in the attack, had no reason to lie, and was corroborated by three other witnesses. Applying the classic tests from Virsa Singh and Rayavarapu Punnayya, the Court found the accused deliberately inflicted axe blows to the head, a vital part, that were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, bringing the case within "murder" under Section 300 thirdly. Neither exception applied: there was no "sudden fight" because the accused were the unprovoked aggressors who came armed (showing premeditation) and took undue advantage of an unarmed man, and no "grave and sudden provocation" was shown beyond an old land dispute, with the accused offering no evidence of any trigger. Finally, the Court reiterated that a victim surviving for some days (here 20; in earlier cases 12 to 14 days) does not by itself reduce murder to culpable homicide: what matters is whether the injuries were sufficient to cause death and whether death was directly linked to them, which the medical evidence established.
Arming yourself and attacking an unarmed person on the head over an old grudge is murder, not a lesser offence, even if the victim dies days or weeks later in hospital. The law looks at the nature of the injury intended, not the time death takes. An old quarrel is not "sudden provocation," and the accused bears the burden of showing facts that bring the case within an exception.
