Real judgements, distilled
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 1094
An older qualification must still satisfy the eligibility rules governing the appointment sought. Here, the certificate's early date did not secure reinstatement, and rejection of eligibility should not be confused with a conclusive finding that the certificate was forged.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1095
A party benefiting from a conditional stay must meet its deposit requirement or face enforcement. The additional ₹15 crore deposit secures the pending dispute; it does not settle the land's final compensation or amount to an immediate payment to the landowners.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1093
An alleged attempt to kill does not become a lesser offence simply because the victim avoided a fatal injury. Restoring this charge means the accusation must be tried; it does not establish that the accused is guilty.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1090
For the assessment in this case, assistance reducing ordinary manufacturing costs was taxable even though the government wanted to encourage industry. The purpose and actual operation of the particular subsidy mattered more than its general development label.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1091
Proof that someone caused a serious injury does not by itself prove the additional ingredients of robbery. A court can substitute a lesser offence supported by the evidence; the sentencing reduction here depended on Appa's particular circumstances.
Special Leave Petition (Civil) · 2026 INSC 1092
Someone challenging an election must ensure that the personal-presentation requirement is met and can be proved. Merely entering the court building does not establish compliance, and a filing defect can end the challenge before the election allegations are examined.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1088
An employee who retires on 30 June may be entitled to the increment that falls due on 1 July after completing a year of service. Authorities that delay paying the amounts due must pay interest after the deadline set by the court.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1089
Recruitment must follow the qualifications stated in the advertisement and the governing Recruitment Rules. A court will not override a merit-based eligibility decision made under those rules merely because the candidate concerned was higher in the written test.
Writ Petition (Criminal) · 2026:DHC:8797
A person who occupied property only because of employment has no independent right to remain once the employment and decree end. Even when a petition fails, courts can make practical arrangements to let a person recover personal belongings.
14543 more judgements for members
You're seeing the newest cases. Log in — it's free — to keep scrolling, search by name or judge, and filter by court or legal area.
Log in to see moreA nine-year-old boy, Arjun, went missing in Surat in February 2001, and a decomposed body was later found nearby. The prosecution alleged the appellants had kidnapped the child at another person's instigation and murdered him, relying on a "last seen together" theory, an alleged extra-judicial confession by Accused No. 1, and circumstantial recovery evidence. The trial court acquitted all the accused, but the Gujarat High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted the appellants under Sections 302, 363, 364, 364-A, 365 and 120-B IPC along with Arms Act and Explosives Act offences, sentencing them to life imprisonment and other terms.
The Supreme Court found the High Court's reliance on the "last seen" witnesses riddled with unexplained contradictions, and noted a long and unexplained time gap between when the accused was last seen with the child and the estimated time of death, undermining the last-seen theory. It also found the medical evidence contradictory and insufficient to confirm the recovered body was even that of the victim (no DNA test was conducted, and the estimated age/decomposition timeline did not match), and held the alleged extra-judicial confession unreliable and uncorroborated, citing settled law that extra-judicial confessions are inherently weak evidence requiring strong corroboration. Applying the rule that circumstantial-evidence convictions require an unbroken chain of circumstances pointing only to guilt, and that an appellate court must give due weight to a trial court's acquittal and the presumption of innocence, the Court held the prosecution had failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions, and restored the acquittal, directing the appellants' release.
A conviction built entirely on circumstantial evidence, especially a "last seen together" theory and an extra-judicial confession, must form one complete, unbroken chain pointing only to guilt; gaps, contradictions, or an unexplained time lapse between the accused being last seen with the victim and the victim's death can be fatal to the prosecution's case, and an appellate court cannot lightly overturn a reasoned trial-court acquittal.
