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 Patel & Anr. vs The State of Uttar Pradesh

Special Leave Petition (Crl.)Decided 13 Apr 2022
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5604 of 2009
A.M. Khanwilkar · Abhay S. Oka

Background

The applicant was convicted by a Sessions Court in 2006 for murder (Section 302 IPC) for an offence committed in January 2004, and sentenced to life imprisonment; his appeal to the Allahabad High Court and his Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court were both dismissed by 2009. Years later, he filed a fresh application claiming that, based on his school records, he was actually a juvenile (about 17 years and 7 months old) on the date of the offence and should therefore have been tried under the Juvenile Justice Act instead of as an adult. The Supreme Court had earlier directed the Juvenile Justice Board at Maharajganj to hold an inquiry into this claim.

Decision Breakdown

The Juvenile Justice Board, after examining documentary and oral evidence, held that the applicant's correct date of birth made him a juvenile at the time of the offence, and this finding was not challenged by the State. Under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000, once a court records such a finding, the adult sentence is deemed to have no effect and the person must be sent to the Juvenile Justice Board, which could at most have ordered up to three years in a special home. Since the applicant had already spent over 17 years in custody, far beyond what a Juvenile Justice Board could have imposed, the Court held it would be unjust to send him back to the Board at this stage, and instead directly ordered his immediate release.

Lesson Learnt

A person's claim of having been a juvenile at the time of an offence can be raised and examined even years after a conviction has become final, and if the person has already served longer in custody than the maximum period a Juvenile Justice Board could have ordered, courts will order release rather than mechanically remit the matter to the Board.

Sanjay Patel & Anr. vs The State of Uttar Pradesh – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware