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

Rajendra vs. State of Maharashtra

Not available · 2024 INSC 422Decided 15 May 2024
Not available
Justice Abhay S. Oka · Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Background

The appellant's wife, Rekha, a police constable, suffered fatal burn injuries at her police-colony residence in Ambajogai in 2002. The prosecution's case was that she was subjected to cruelty by her husband (the appellant) and his brother, who allegedly tied her up, gagged her, and set her on fire with kerosene. She gave two dying declarations before dying two days later. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment; the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) upheld the conviction, leading to this appeal to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court examined the reliability of the two dying declarations and reiterated that when multiple dying declarations exist, each must be independently assessed for evidentiary value rather than being rejected solely because of variations between them. The Court found the first dying declaration (recorded by a doctor's attending witness) credible and corroborated by the medical history recorded at the time, and held that minor inconsistencies among prosecution witnesses did not undermine the core narrative. It concluded the appellant's guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt and dismissed the appeal, directing the appellant (who had been on bail since 2016) to surrender within two weeks to serve his sentence.

Lesson Learnt

A dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction if the court finds it truthful and voluntary, and the existence of more than one dying declaration does not automatically weaken the case: each is weighed independently on its own merits.

Rajendra vs. State of Maharashtra – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware