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 Singh vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh

Not available · 2024 INSC 128Decided 21 Feb 2024
Not available
Justice Abhay S. Oka · Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Background

According to the prosecution, the appellant Ram Singh, allegedly instigated by a co-accused (also named Lala Ram), came to the informant's house and fired a country-made pistol at the informant, but the bullet instead struck and killed the informant's mother, who was sitting nearby. The Sessions Court convicted Ram Singh under Section 301 (transferred intent) read with Section 302 IPC for the death and under Section 307 IPC for the attempt on the informant's life, while the co-accused Lala Ram was acquitted on the same evidence. The Allahabad High Court upheld Ram Singh's conviction, and he appealed to the Supreme Court decades after the 1982 incident.

Decision Breakdown

Reviewing the eyewitness testimony and surrounding circumstances after decades of pendency, the Supreme Court found the evidence created a lingering doubt about the appellant's actual involvement in the shooting, particularly since the co-accused who was alleged to have instigated the same incident was acquitted by the trial court on the very same body of evidence. Applying the principle that any reasonable doubt must benefit the accused, and noting the inconsistency of convicting one alleged participant while acquitting another on identical evidence, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, quashed the judgments of both the trial court and the High Court, and ordered Ram Singh's release.

Lesson Learnt

A criminal conviction cannot stand where the same evidence that convicts one accused was found insufficient to convict a co-accused allegedly involved in the identical act. Courts must give the accused the benefit of any genuine, lingering doubt rather than inconsistent treatment of identical evidence.

Ram Singh vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware