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.
Following the unnatural death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput at his Mumbai residence in June 2020, his father filed a complaint in Patna, Bihar, alleging offences including abetment of suicide and criminal breach of trust against the actor's partner, actress Rhea Chakraborty, and others. Rhea Chakraborty filed this petition asking the Supreme Court to transfer the Patna FIR and all related proceedings to Mumbai, arguing that the alleged events occurred in Maharashtra, that Mumbai Police (who were separately conducting a limited inquiry into the cause of death) were the competent authority, and that the Bihar case had been registered only due to political pressure. By the time of the hearing, the Bihar government had already handed the investigation over to the CBI.
The Court held that under Section 406 CrPC it has the power to transfer only "cases or appeals," not ongoing police investigations, so it could not grant the specific relief sought. It found that Mumbai Police's Section 174 CrPC proceedings were merely a limited inquiry into the cause of death and not a full criminal investigation, and that since allegations of breach of trust/misappropriation also had a jurisdictional link to Patna (where the complainant resided and funds were to be accounted for), the Bihar Police had not acted illegally in registering the FIR. Invoking its special constitutional power under Article 142 to do "complete justice," the Court approved the CBI's ongoing investigation as lawful and additionally directed that if any separate case is later registered in Mumbai over the same death, the CBI would investigate that too, to avoid parallel and potentially conflicting investigations by two state police forces whose impartiality had both been publicly questioned.
The Supreme Court cannot directly transfer a police investigation (as opposed to a pending court case) from one state to another under ordinary law, but it can use its special constitutional powers to ensure a single, credible investigating agency like the CBI handles all related angles of a high-profile case when rival state police forces are in conflict over jurisdiction.
