Real judgements, distilled
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.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1073
In circumstantial-evidence cases, forensic and DNA evidence must actually corroborate the alleged crime: a conviction cannot survive where the most crucial scientific evidence, on its own terms, points away from rather than toward the prosecution's theory.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1074
A conviction based purely on circumstantial evidence requires every link in the chain, timeline, witness credibility, forensic matches, and motive, to be proven beyond reasonable doubt; gaps or suppressed evidence at any link entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt, even in a serious case like a double murder.
Criminal Miscellaneous Case · 2026:DHC:8505
Courts will not quash a criminal case merely because the accused has a plausible alibi-type defence; unless that defence is conclusive and undisputed, the matter must be tested through the ordinary trial process.
Criminal Miscellaneous Case · 2026:DHC:8547
A private compromise between victim and accused cannot by itself secure quashing of a case involving serious, heinous allegations like attempted murder with a weapon: such matters must proceed to trial regardless of settlement.
First Appeal from Order · 2026:DHC:8563
Railway Claims Tribunals cannot reject a bona fide passenger's death claim based on speculative inferences when there is no direct evidence of an alternative cause of death; the compensation scheme under the Railways Act is to be interpreted generously in favour of victims' families.
Criminal Miscellaneous Case · 2026:DHC:8559
In matrimonial offences, courts can and do quash criminal proceedings once a genuine compromise is verified directly with the complainant, sparing both parties a prolonged and pointless trial.
Bail Application · 2026:DHC:8541
A co-accused's bail does not automatically extend to another accused where their actual roles in the offence differ materially; delay caused by one's own defence counsel cannot later be used as a ground for bail.
Execution Petition · 2026:DHC:8567
An arbitral award must be adequately stamped before a court can enforce it; courts give only a limited window to cure such defects, after which the award becomes legally unusable until the deficiency is fixed.
Arbitration Petition · 2026:DHC:8555
A genuine settlement reached through mediation renders a pending arbitration-related court petition moot, allowing parties to close out litigation quickly once they resolve their dispute privately.
7878 more judgements for members
You're seeing the newest cases. Log in — it's free — to keep scrolling, search by name or judge, and filter by court or legal area.
Log in to see moreLegal 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 ___).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The appellant was convicted for murder (under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC) for an incident that occurred on 20 July 1982, and his conviction was upheld by the Allahabad High Court. Decades later, he claimed before the Supreme Court that he had actually been a juvenile (under 18) on the date of the offence, relying on a 1982 bail order that had estimated his age as 15½-17½ years and on a family register and Aadhaar card. The High Court got a fresh medical board to examine him in 2020, which placed his age at 40-55 years, but by working backward through hypothetical calculations the High Court still concluded he could have been under 17 at the time of the offence, prompting the State to pursue the matter further and the appellant to invoke this finding before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that an ossification/medical age test conducted on a person who is already 40-55 years old cannot reliably reconstruct their exact age at an incident 38 years earlier, since such tests are only meaningfully precise near the age of 18 and are not conclusive even then. It also found that an Arms Licence application the appellant himself had filed before the incident recorded his date of birth as 30 December 1961, making him about 21 years old at the time of the offence: direct documentary evidence outweighing speculative medical extrapolation. The Court further rejected the appellant's argument that disbelieving a witness on one co-accused's role should discredit the witness's entire testimony (rejecting the "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" maxim), and upheld the conviction based on consistent eyewitness and postmortem evidence of the appellant's role in causing the death with a lathi.
A claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage, even decades later, but it must be backed by reliable documentary proof (school records, birth certificates): courts will not treat a decades-old speculative medical ossification test, especially one performed after age 40, as conclusive proof of a person's age at a long-past incident when contemporaneous official documents say otherwise.
