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.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1073
In circumstantial-evidence cases, forensic and DNA evidence must actually corroborate the alleged crime: a conviction cannot survive where the most crucial scientific evidence, on its own terms, points away from rather than toward the prosecution's theory.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1074
A conviction based purely on circumstantial evidence requires every link in the chain, timeline, witness credibility, forensic matches, and motive, to be proven beyond reasonable doubt; gaps or suppressed evidence at any link entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt, even in a serious case like a double murder.
Criminal Miscellaneous Case · 2026:DHC:8505
Courts will not quash a criminal case merely because the accused has a plausible alibi-type defence; unless that defence is conclusive and undisputed, the matter must be tested through the ordinary trial process.
Criminal Miscellaneous Case · 2026:DHC:8547
A private compromise between victim and accused cannot by itself secure quashing of a case involving serious, heinous allegations like attempted murder with a weapon: such matters must proceed to trial regardless of settlement.
First Appeal from Order · 2026:DHC:8563
Railway Claims Tribunals cannot reject a bona fide passenger's death claim based on speculative inferences when there is no direct evidence of an alternative cause of death; the compensation scheme under the Railways Act is to be interpreted generously in favour of victims' families.
Criminal Miscellaneous Case · 2026:DHC:8559
In matrimonial offences, courts can and do quash criminal proceedings once a genuine compromise is verified directly with the complainant, sparing both parties a prolonged and pointless trial.
Bail Application · 2026:DHC:8541
A co-accused's bail does not automatically extend to another accused where their actual roles in the offence differ materially; delay caused by one's own defence counsel cannot later be used as a ground for bail.
Execution Petition · 2026:DHC:8567
An arbitral award must be adequately stamped before a court can enforce it; courts give only a limited window to cure such defects, after which the award becomes legally unusable until the deficiency is fixed.
Arbitration Petition · 2026:DHC:8555
A genuine settlement reached through mediation renders a pending arbitration-related court petition moot, allowing parties to close out litigation quickly once they resolve their dispute privately.
7878 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 moreLegal 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.
A two-and-a-half-year-old girl was taken away by the appellant, her relative, on the pretext of returning her home, and was later found dead with signs of brutal sexual assault and bite marks, inside an under-construction building in their village. Medical and forensic evidence, including injuries on both the victim and the appellant consistent with recent sexual intercourse, formed the basis of a conviction built entirely on circumstantial evidence. The trial court convicted the appellant under IPC Sections 302 (murder) and 376A (rape causing death), among other provisions, and sentenced him to death; the Bombay High Court confirmed the death sentence.
The Supreme Court held that the circumstantial evidence was unimpeachable and conclusively established the appellant's guilt, affirming his conviction under all relevant provisions, including Section 302 IPC, Section 376A IPC, Section 376 IPC, and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. However, applying the stricter standard required before imposing a death sentence, the Court found that the murder conviction did not fall within the categories of intentional killing that typically attract death as a punishment, since the appellant had not consciously intended to kill the child even though his assault caused her death. The Court also noted that similar past cases involving child victims who died during sexual assault had generally resulted in life sentences, not death. It therefore commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment for murder and to 25 years' rigorous imprisonment for the Section 376A offence, while upholding the conviction itself in full.
Even in cases of extremely brutal crimes against children, Indian courts apply a very high and specific threshold before confirming a death sentence: the circumstantial evidence must be conclusive, and the nature of the intent behind the killing matters; absent a clear intent to kill, courts have consistently preferred life imprisonment over execution, even while affirming the underlying guilt.
