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 LawDelhi High Court

Prosecutrix "R" vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors

Criminal Revision Petition · 2026:DHC:7954Decided 17 Sept 2026New Delhi Bench
CRL.REV.P. 410/2017CNR: DLHC012480952017
Justice Saurabh Banerjee

Background

In 2016, a minor schoolgirl alleged she was abducted from outside her school and gang-raped by two men known to her, who also threatened to circulate a video of the assault. A trial court in 2017 framed charges against the two accused for kidnapping, criminal intimidation, and rape/gang-rape, but declined to frame additional charges under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, a provision of the POCSO Act relating to using a child for pornography, and a provision on administering a harmful substance. The victim challenged that partial refusal, arguing the trial court wrongly required proof that the crime was committed solely because of her caste, when the law only requires that the accused knew her caste.

Decision Breakdown

The High Court held that different provisions of the SC/ST Act carry different legal thresholds: some require proving the act was committed "only" because of caste, but the specific provision dealing with sexual touching/acts merely requires that the accused knew the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste. Since one accused had a personal relationship with the victim, lived in the same neighbourhood, and was shown (through her statement to investigators) to have taunted her about her caste, the Court held there was enough material to frame that specific caste-related charge against him, though not against the second accused, who the victim herself said she had never met before the incident. The Court upheld the trial court's refusal to frame the pornography-related and harmful-substance charges for lack of supporting evidence (no video, phone, or forensic proof was recovered), and rejected as too late an objection that the trial court itself lacked jurisdiction, since it had been raised for the first time nine years into the case.

Lesson Learnt

Delay or inconsistency in a survivor's early statements about caste-based abuse should not automatically be held against her: courts recognise that trauma can affect how quickly and completely a victim is able to articulate every detail, and later elaboration deserves fair consideration rather than automatic dismissal as an afterthought.

Prosecutrix "R" vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware