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

Pulkit @ Monu v. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 543Decided 20 May 2026
Crl.A. No.-001818-001818 - 2022
Justice Manoj Misra · Justice Manmohan

Background

Four persons, including the appellant Pulkit @ Monu, were tried for the murder of one Ashok Bakdiya in 2008. While three co-accused were convicted for the murder itself, the appellant was separately convicted for criminal conspiracy to commit murder under Section 302/120B IPC, based on circumstantial evidence such as an alleged pre-incident meeting, overheard remarks, a disclosure statement, an old dispute with the deceased, and a mobile phone call made after the crime. Both the trial court and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh upheld his conviction, even after discarding the testimony of two key prosecution witnesses whose statements were found to have been recorded after illegal detention.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court re-examined each circumstance relied upon by the lower courts and found them individually weak and, taken together, insufficient to form a complete chain pointing conclusively to the appellant's guilt. It held that the disclosure statement did not lead to any fresh "discovery of fact" admissible under the Evidence Act, that the seized mobile phone and its call records lacked proper certification and probative value, and that mere prior friction with the deceased did not establish a conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt. Concluding that the circumstances did not rule out every other reasonable hypothesis except guilt, the Court set aside the conviction, allowed the appeal, and acquitted the appellant.

Lesson Learnt

A conviction for criminal conspiracy cannot rest on a patchwork of ambiguous or weakly-linked circumstances: every link in the chain of circumstantial evidence must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and must exclude every reasonable hypothesis other than the accused's guilt.

Pulkit @ Monu v. The State of Madhya Pradesh – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware