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 1056
In railway accident compensation claims, a victim's family does not have to produce the physical train ticket to prove bona fide travel. A sworn statement explaining its loss is enough to shift the burden onto the Railways, and any delay by the Railways in conducting its own mandatory investigation cannot be used against the claimants.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1055
In a bareboat charter with a clause designating the charterer a mere "gratuitous bailee" after termination, a validly served termination notice ends the charterer's status immediately. Physical handover of the vessel is just the mechanical follow-through, not a condition for the termination to take legal effect; this matters directly for maritime creditors deciding whom, and which vessel, to target for arrest.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1054
A court cannot pick and choose parts of a witness's testimony to convict on one charge while rejecting the same testimony to acquit on a closely related charge arising from the same facts. If the witness's account is unreliable for one charge, that unreliability cannot simply be set aside for a more serious, connected charge.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1050
Even in the gravest crimes, a death sentence cannot be sustained unless the prosecution affirmatively rules out the possibility of the offender's reform and shows that no lesser punishment (including life imprisonment without remission) would meet the ends of justice, and courts must give the accused a genuine, separate hearing on sentence with full background material, not decide punishment on the same day as conviction.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1057
When commercial parties in an arbitration-bound contract are willing to agree on a sole arbitrator, courts will readily facilitate that agreement and let the arbitral tribunal itself take over interim relief, rather than continuing to litigate stay applications through multiple court levels.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1047
In government/paramilitary service disputes over wrongful dismissal, what matters under Article 311 is the officer who actually issued the final, unconditional appointment order (not a preliminary conditional call-letter or offer), and courts will read the specific service rules to see which ranks are legally empowered to both appoint and discipline an employee. A call for training is not the same as an appointment.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1048
A trial court cannot order that a convict "remain in prison for the rest of their natural life" without any possibility of remission, only the Supreme Court or a High Court can impose such a sentence, and even then only in appropriately grave cases, after weighing both the brutality of the crime and factors like time already served and conduct in custody.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1049
A criminal complaint under a special protective law like POCSO is not automatically true merely because it was registered; courts must carefully scrutinise such allegations, especially when they surface during an acrimonious custody battle, since false accusations of this kind cause lasting damage both to the falsely accused parent and to the child caught in the middle.
Civil Appeal (Interim Order) · 2026 INSC 1043
There is no final ruling yet. The present custody arrangement is temporary, and the case is still pending.
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 ___).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 Appeal Nos. 1303-1305 of 2022 with Criminal Appeal No. 1306 of 2022
Seventeen people were accused of ambushing and shooting dead a man while injuring his brother (the eyewitness/de-facto complainant, referred to as PW1), following a prior altercation and a long-standing family enmity. The Trial Court convicted four of the accused (A1, A6, A12 and A13) and acquitted the rest; the High Court, in cross-appeals, upheld only A1's conviction while acquitting A6, A12 and A13, and separately confirmed the acquittal of the other accused. The injured brother/complainant filed appeals before the Supreme Court challenging all these acquittals.
The Supreme Court examined the eyewitness testimony and medical evidence in detail, including the postmortem findings on the bullet's trajectory, and rejected the High Court's reasoning that acquitted A6 on the theory that a person restraining the victim would himself have been injured. It restored the conviction of A6 and A12, holding their roles (physically holding down the victim, and exhorting the shooter to kill) were clearly and consistently established by credible eyewitnesses, applying the principle that Indian courts must "separate the grain from the chaff" rather than reject an entire prosecution case because some accused were falsely implicated (falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus does not apply in India). However, it sustained the acquittal of A13, finding his alibi evidence undisplaced, and also upheld the acquittal of the remaining accused, since the testimony against them contained only vague, omnibus allegations of presence without any specific role. A6 and A12 were given two weeks to surrender to serve their restored sentences.
Indian courts can accept the credible part of a witness's testimony implicating some accused while rejecting the same witness's vague or exaggerated claims against others. A prosecution case is not automatically discredited in its entirety merely because it contains some over-implication; but a conviction still requires evidence of each individual's specific role, not just presence in a crowd.
