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

Sivamani vs State Represented by Inspector of Police

Criminal Appeal · 2023 INSC 1027Decided 28 Nov 2023
Criminal Appeal No. 3619 of 2023
Vikram Nath · Ahsanuddin Amanullah · Hima Kohli as the second judge

Background

Following a long-running civil land dispute between neighbours, a quarrel escalated into a physical confrontation at the complainant's shop in 2012, where the appellants (along with others) allegedly attacked the complainant and his mother. The appellants were convicted by the trial court under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder) and sentenced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment; the Madras High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to 5 years. The appellants challenged the Section 307 conviction itself before the Supreme Court, arguing the injuries were simple and there was no real intent to kill.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court noted that while a conviction under Section 307 does not require a life-threatening injury, intent to kill must still be inferable from the weapon used, the nature of the attack, and surrounding circumstances. Here, there were no repeated or severe blows, the injuries on both victims were medically found to be simple, and the confrontation arose from an ongoing quarrel rather than a planned attack. The Court held that only offences under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) and 324 (causing hurt by a dangerous weapon) of the IPC were made out, not attempt to murder, and modified the conviction accordingly, reducing the sentence to time already served while maintaining the fine.

Lesson Learnt

A conviction for attempt to murder requires clear evidence of intention to kill inferred from the weapon, the severity and repetition of the attack, and the surrounding circumstances, inflicting only minor injuries during a sudden quarrel, without more, will not sustain a Section 307 IPC conviction.

Sivamani vs State Represented by Inspector of Police – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware