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

Sabitri Samantaray vs The State of Odisha

Criminal AppealDecided 20 May 2022
Criminal Appeal No. 988 of 2017
N.V. Ramana · Krishna Murari · Hima Kohli

Background

A husband and wife were tenants of a landlord. One evening, an unknown man was found dead inside their rented portion of the house, having allegedly attacked them; police later found the body had died from strangulation and acid was poured on it to hide identity. The deceased turned out to be a man romantically involved with the couple's daughter. The trial court convicted the couple (and their daughter) for murder; the High Court acquitted the daughter but downgraded the parents' conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, sentencing them to five years' imprisonment.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court examined whether the prosecution had proved its case using circumstantial evidence, given no eyewitness saw the actual killing. It held that where a death occurs in secrecy inside a house, the prosecution's initial burden is lighter, and Section 106 of the Evidence Act then shifts the burden onto the inmates of the house to explain what happened: silence is not an option. The Court found the testimony of the deceased's sister and friends established a credible motive (a soured relationship and a money dispute with the couple's daughter), and medical evidence confirmed homicidal strangulation. Finding no error in the High Court's reasoning, the Supreme Court dismissed both appeals, upheld the conviction under Sections 304(II)/201/34 IPC, and directed the couple to surrender to serve their sentence.

Lesson Learnt

When a crime happens inside a house with only the residents present, the law does not let them stay silent and blame an unexplained stranger, under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, once suspicious circumstances are shown, the occupants must offer a credible explanation, or their silence itself becomes evidence against them.

Sabitri Samantaray vs The State of Odisha – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware