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

Sanjay Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 735Decided 21 Jul 2026
Crl.A. No.-003316-003316 - 2026 (arising from SLP(Crl) No. 4268/2026, Diary No. 6004/2026)
Justice Sanjay Karol · Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh · Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

Background

In a 1998 incident, the appellant's father was allegedly shot dead by a group of assailants, one of whom (the respondent) was tried separately after the case against him was split off from the others. Both the trial court and, later, the Patna High Court acquitted this respondent, pointing to a mismatch between the FIR (which alleged four gunshot wounds) and the post-mortem report (which showed only three entry wounds), the fact that two independent witnesses turned hostile, and that the remaining witnesses supporting the prosecution were all relatives of the deceased. The son, as the original informant, appealed the acquittal to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, reaffirming that in cases of a concurrent acquittal by both a trial court and a High Court, it will only interfere under Article 136 where there is clear perversity or a gross misreading of evidence, not merely because a different view of the same facts is also possible. It found the inconsistencies flagged by the lower courts to be genuine and material: the mismatch between the number of alleged gunshots and the wounds actually found, the hostility of the only independent witnesses, and the fact that surviving prosecution witnesses were all interested relatives. On this basis, the benefit of the doubt was rightly extended to the accused, and the acquittal was affirmed.

Lesson Learnt

The Supreme Court is highly reluctant to overturn an acquittal that has already been upheld twice (by a trial court and a High Court); real discrepancies between medical evidence and eyewitness accounts, combined with hostile or overly interested witnesses, can validly sustain a reasonable doubt in favour of an accused person.

Sanjay Kumar v. The State of Bihar – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware