LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

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

Raj Kumar @ Suman vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

Criminal Appeal · 2023 INSC 520Decided 11 May 2023
Criminal Appeal No. 1471 of 2023
Abhay S. Oka · Rajesh Bindal

Background

In 1995, a group of men allegedly attacked a family running a cable TV network in Delhi over a business dispute, resulting in one death and serious injuries to others. The appellant, accused no. 2, was convicted of murder and conspiracy and sentenced to life imprisonment; the only evidence against him was one witness's testimony that he stood outside the house holding a country-made pistol while other accused went inside. The Delhi High Court upheld his conviction, and he appealed to the Supreme Court on the ground that this key circumstance against him was never actually put to him when he was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which requires the court to question the accused on every incriminating circumstance and allow him to explain it.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the mandatory duty under Section 313 CrPC is meant to give the accused a fair opportunity to explain the specific evidence against him, and where the only material connecting an accused to a crime is never put to him, serious and incurable prejudice results, especially since he cannot be expected to plug this gap himself decades later. Rejecting the State's argument that the objection came too late, the Court found the omission fatal in this case since it was the sole incriminating circumstance against the appellant, and remand for retrial would be unjust given the passage of time. The Court set aside the conviction and sentence as they applied to this appellant alone, directed his release, and also urged trial courts to use the statutory option (Section 313(5) CrPC) of taking prosecution and defence counsel's help while framing questions, to avoid such omissions in future, directing that the judgment be circulated to judicial academies.

Lesson Learnt

Before convicting anyone, a court must specifically confront the accused with every piece of evidence against him and let him respond, skipping this step, especially where it is the only evidence tying him to the crime, can be enough to overturn even a decades-old conviction.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)
Raj Kumar @ Suman vs. State (NCT of Delhi) – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware