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.

Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Shivani Tyagi vs. State of U.P. & Anr.

Not available · 2024 INSC 343Decided 5 Apr 2024
Not available
Justice C.T. Ravikumar · Justice Rajesh Bindal

Background

The appellant, a 31-year-old acid attack survivor, suffered a sulphuric acid attack that burned 30-40% of her body, including deep burns to her face, chest and hands. Five men were convicted for offences including attempt to murder and voluntarily causing grievous hurt by acid (with life imprisonment for at least one offence), and the Allahabad High Court had suspended their sentences pending appeal and released them on bail. The victim challenged this suspension of sentence before the Supreme Court, arguing the High Court's order failed to properly consider the seriousness of the crime.

Decision Breakdown

The Court held that Section 389 CrPC requires an appellate court to record real, case-specific reasons before suspending a convict's sentence, and that while short prison terms are ordinarily suspended as a matter of course, the opposite approach should apply for serious offences: suspension should be the exception, not the rule, especially where life imprisonment has been imposed. Examining the High Court's order, the Court found it showed non-application of mind: it failed to weigh the gravity of an acid attack that permanently disfigured a young victim, and merely cited generic factors like custody period and pending appeals. Both judges (writing separately but in agreement) held the impugned order unsustainable, set it aside, cancelled the bail granted to the private respondents, and directed them to surrender within four days, with a warning of re-arrest if they failed to do so. The Court clarified it was not commenting on the merits of the pending conviction appeals themselves.

Lesson Learnt

Bail or suspension of sentence for someone convicted of a serious, life-altering crime like an acid attack cannot be granted routinely. Courts must record specific, serious reasons weighing the gravity of the offence and the impact on the victim, not just generic considerations like time already spent in custody.

Shivani Tyagi vs. State of U.P. & Anr. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware