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

Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh vs. The State of Maharashtra

Criminal AppealDecided 14 Jul 2022
Criminal Appeal No. 739 of 2017
Surya Kant · J.B. Pardiwala

Background

The appellant and the deceased, both labourers who slept near a railway bridge in Vile Parle, Mumbai, had a quarrel over money on the night of 10 December 2006. Later that night, a temple priest (the first informant) and another labourer witnessed the appellant assaulting the deceased with a hammer, and the appellant reportedly admitted to the killing when asked. The trial court convicted him under Section 302 IPC, and the Bombay High Court upheld the conviction on appeal. He then approached the Supreme Court by special leave.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court examined the eyewitness testimony of the priest and the co-labourer, along with the recovery of the hammer, and found the ocular evidence credible and consistent with the medical (post-mortem) evidence. The Court separately analysed the "discovery of weapon" evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, holding that the disclosure statement here did not, by itself, prove the appellant concealed or used the weapon, though it remained relevant as "conduct" under Section 8. Even after setting aside reliance on the discovery evidence, the Court held the direct eyewitness testimony was sufficient on its own to sustain the conviction. Finding no merit in the appeal, the Court dismissed it and affirmed the conviction and sentence.

Lesson Learnt

A conviction can stand on credible eyewitness testimony alone; a legal technicality about how weapon-recovery evidence is treated (Section 27 vs. Section 8 of the Evidence Act) does not automatically undo a conviction if the rest of the evidence independently proves guilt.

Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh vs. The State of Maharashtra – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware