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 juvenile (above 16 but below 18 years) was accused of causing a death in a motor vehicle accident, an offence under Section 304 IPC which carries a maximum sentence of up to 10 years (or life) but prescribes no minimum sentence. The Juvenile Justice Board and the Children's Court held this to be a "heinous offence" under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, meaning the juvenile could be tried as an adult. The Delhi High Court disagreed, holding that since no minimum sentence of 7 years was prescribed, the offence did not meet the Act's definition of "heinous offence." The victim's sister appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court. It held that under Section 2(33) of the JJ Act, a "heinous offence" is one where the minimum punishment prescribed by law is 7 years or more, and an offence like this one, with no minimum sentence (or a minimum below 7 years) but a maximum exceeding 7 years, falls into a gap the legislature had seemingly overlooked, not clearly fitting any of the Act's three defined categories (petty, serious, heinous). The Court declined to rewrite the statute by simply deleting the word "minimum," holding that courts cannot add or subtract words from clear legislative text unless the legislature's intent to do so is unmistakable. However, exercising its power under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court directed that until Parliament fixes this gap, such offences should be treated as "serious offences" under the Act, meaning such juveniles cannot be automatically tried as adults.
Courts will interpret a statute's plain wording rather than stretch its meaning to cover gaps left by the lawmakers, even where that gap seems to defeat the law's purpose; but courts can use their special constitutional powers to provide a practical, protective interim solution for the gap until Parliament corrects it: here, ensuring a juvenile is not automatically tried as an adult merely because no minimum sentence is specified for the offence.
