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

Sanjeet Kumar Singh @ Munna Kumar Singh vs State of Chhattisgarh

Criminal AppealDecided 30 Aug 2022
Criminal Appeal No. 871 of 2021

Background

The appellant was convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act and sentenced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment after police claimed to have recovered 47.370 kg of ganja from a car he was travelling in with a co-accused, Reena Das. The trial court had acquitted Reena Das because the investigating officer failed to follow proper search procedure against her, even though the same officer's account of the search formed the basis for convicting the appellant. Both independent "panch" witnesses to the search turned hostile at trial, denying they had witnessed anything and explaining they had signed blank documents at the police station for an unrelated reason.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court found serious inconsistencies in the investigating officer's timeline and conduct, including notices allegedly served on witnesses before they could physically have received them, and selective omission of search/seizure formalities for the co-accused Reena Das despite her being named in the original information, FIR and charge-sheet. Since both independent witnesses disowned the search and gave a credible explanation for their signatures, the Court held the very fact of search and seizure was in serious doubt, and therefore the presumption of guilt under Section 54 of the Act (which requires a valid recovery first) could not be invoked. Having already given the co-accused the benefit of this doubt, the Court held the appellant was equally entitled to it, set aside both lower courts' convictions, and ordered his immediate release.

Lesson Learnt

A conviction cannot rest solely on an investigating officer's uncorroborated word when the independent witnesses relied upon deny participating in the search. Courts must scrutinize the actual sequence of events, not just recite the law, especially where the same set of facts led to a co-accused's acquittal.

Sanjeet Kumar Singh @ Munna Kumar Singh vs State of Chhattisgarh – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware