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 3 May 2009, Prem Singh's wife left their two sons, aged about 9 and 6, in his care while she went to visit her ailing grandmother. That day he took the boys to the Haiderpur Canal in Delhi; soon afterwards he told a petrol-pump worker, staff at the water treatment plant and the police that the children had accidentally slipped into the canal. Post-mortem reports showed both boys had died of asphyxia from manual strangulation, not drowning. The prosecution's case was that the appellant, a heavy drinker who doubted his wife's fidelity and the paternity of the children, strangled them and threw the bodies into the canal to stage an accident. The trial court convicted him under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment; the Delhi High Court affirmed in 2016.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction. It held that the chain of circumstances was complete: the children were last seen alive alone with their father (a fact confirmed even by his wife, who otherwise turned hostile), they died of homicidal strangulation, their bodies were pulled from the canal, and the appellant immediately spread a false story of accidental drowning: a false explanation that itself became a strong link in the chain. Because the facts of what happened at the canal were specially within the appellant's knowledge, Section 106 of the Evidence Act placed a heavy burden on him to explain, which he never did, not even in his Section 313 CrPC statement. Although the wife denied any marital discord, her own uncles and even the appellant's brother testified to strained relations and his suspicion about the boys' paternity; in any event, absence of a proved motive cannot displace an otherwise complete chain of evidence. The Court also rejected the belated plea of unsoundness of mind under Section 84 IPC and Section 329 CrPC. There was no evidence of mental incapacity at the time of the crime or during trial (only a stint at a de-addiction centre and some post-conviction psychiatric treatment in jail), and the calculated manner of the killings and cover-up showed an alert mind. The request to reduce the offence to culpable homicide under Section 304 IPC was likewise refused.
When a death occurs in circumstances known only to the accused, such as children in the sole custody of a parent, the law expects that person to give a truthful explanation, and a false story offered instead can strengthen the case against them. A history of alcohol abuse or later mental-health treatment does not amount to legal insanity unless it is shown that the person could not understand the nature of the act at the time it was committed.
