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

Ram Naresh vs. State of U.P.

Criminal Appeal · 2023 INSC 1037Decided 1 Dec 2023
Criminal Appeal No. 3577 of 2023
Abhay S. Oka · Pankaj Mithal

Background

In 1982, four men, including the appellant Ram Naresh, allegedly gheraoed (surrounded) and beat one Ram Kishore to death with lathis and an iron rod near Varanasi, after which the trial court convicted all four under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, a conviction affirmed by the High Court. The Supreme Court had granted limited leave restricted to a single question: whether the appellant, who was one of the four men wielding a lathi but was not proven to have made any specific individual agreement beforehand, actually shared the "common intention" needed to fasten murder liability on him under Section 34 IPC.

Decision Breakdown

The Court reiterated that common intention under Section 34 IPC does not require a prior conspiracy or premeditated plan. It can form spontaneously, even moments before or during the crime, and is inferred from conduct such as arriving together armed, acting in concert, and leaving together. Relying on its own precedent (Krishnamurthy alias Gunodu vs. State of Karnataka), the Court found that the eyewitness account: that all four accused arrived together armed with weapons, surrounded the deceased on a co-accused's instigation, simultaneously assaulted him, and left together: clearly established shared common intention. The Court distinguished a prior ruling (Jasdeep Singh vs. State of Punjab) cited by the appellant, noting that case required some further act in furtherance of a common intention, which was present here since the appellant himself struck blows with a lathi. The appeal was dismissed and the conviction upheld.

Lesson Learnt

Common intention to commit murder can be inferred purely from coordinated conduct (arriving together armed, jointly attacking a victim, and leaving together) without needing proof of any prior planning or explicit agreement between the accused.

Ram Naresh vs. State of U.P. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware