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.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1094
An older qualification must still satisfy the eligibility rules governing the appointment sought. Here, the certificate's early date did not secure reinstatement, and rejection of eligibility should not be confused with a conclusive finding that the certificate was forged.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1095
A party benefiting from a conditional stay must meet its deposit requirement or face enforcement. The additional ₹15 crore deposit secures the pending dispute; it does not settle the land's final compensation or amount to an immediate payment to the landowners.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1093
An alleged attempt to kill does not become a lesser offence simply because the victim avoided a fatal injury. Restoring this charge means the accusation must be tried; it does not establish that the accused is guilty.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1090
For the assessment in this case, assistance reducing ordinary manufacturing costs was taxable even though the government wanted to encourage industry. The purpose and actual operation of the particular subsidy mattered more than its general development label.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1091
Proof that someone caused a serious injury does not by itself prove the additional ingredients of robbery. A court can substitute a lesser offence supported by the evidence; the sentencing reduction here depended on Appa's particular circumstances.
Special Leave Petition (Civil) · 2026 INSC 1092
Someone challenging an election must ensure that the personal-presentation requirement is met and can be proved. Merely entering the court building does not establish compliance, and a filing defect can end the challenge before the election allegations are examined.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1088
An employee who retires on 30 June may be entitled to the increment that falls due on 1 July after completing a year of service. Authorities that delay paying the amounts due must pay interest after the deadline set by the court.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1089
Recruitment must follow the qualifications stated in the advertisement and the governing Recruitment Rules. A court will not override a merit-based eligibility decision made under those rules merely because the candidate concerned was higher in the written test.
Writ Petition (Criminal) · 2026:DHC:8797
A person who occupied property only because of employment has no independent right to remain once the employment and decree end. Even when a petition fails, courts can make practical arrangements to let a person recover personal belongings.
14543 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 moreA six-year-old boy, Gaurav, went missing from a village in Ambala district on the night of 11 March 2007 after attending a wedding, and his body was found the next morning in a well behind the post office, with signs of sexual assault and smothering. The prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence: a "last seen together" theory (based on shop owners' testimony about the appellant buying namkeen and cold tablets), an alleged extra-judicial confession made two days later to the village Sarpanch, and a disclosure statement leading to identification of the spot. The Trial Court convicted Sahab Singh alias Sat Pal and sentenced him to life imprisonment plus other terms; the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the conviction. He appealed to the Supreme Court after already serving over 16 years and 7 months in prison.
The Supreme Court found the prosecution's case riddled with unexplained contradictions and missing links. Key witnesses (the shop owners) testified that the accused was brought to their shop by police on 12 March 2007, two days before he allegedly confessed to the Sarpanch on 14 March, undermining the entire timeline. The Court held that the "last seen together" theory was not established, the extra-judicial confession was uncorroborated and inherently weak evidence, the namkeen packet recovered was a generic, widely-sold item with no proven link to the accused, and the disclosure statement led to no new discovery since the well's location was already known to police from the earlier site plan. No DNA test matched the semen found on the accused's underwear with that from the victim's rectal swab, so guilt could not be presumed. The Court concluded the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and set aside both the Trial Court and High Court judgments, extending the benefit of doubt to the appellant (who had already been ordered released in July 2026 pending this judgment).
A conviction cannot rest on a weak chain of circumstantial evidence: an extra-judicial confession alone, without independent corroboration, and a "last seen together" theory contradicted by the prosecution's own witnesses, are insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; the benefit of doubt must go to the accused when the prosecution's story has serious, unexplained gaps.
