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 former Tamil Nadu MLA, M.K. Balan, went missing after his morning walk in December 2001 and was later found to have been kidnapped, held captive, and murdered by a group of 18 accused who intended to extort money or property from him; his body was later cremated under a false identity to cover up the crime. The trial court convicted most of the accused on charges including conspiracy, kidnapping, wrongful confinement, extortion, murder, and destruction of evidence. Several convicted men appealed, and this particular case was referred to a three-judge Bench because an earlier two-judge Bench hearing some of the appeals had split: one judge voted to acquit, the other to uphold the convictions.
The three-judge Bench examined the evidence afresh, including testimony from two accomplice-witnesses who described the abduction, the captivity at a factory, and the eventual killing. It held that accomplice evidence can be relied upon to convict if the courts find the witnesses credible, even without independent corroboration in every detail, and that since the accused were last known to have had the victim in their custody before his death, a legal presumption arose that they were responsible for the murder unless they explained what happened to him (which they did not). The Court upheld the convictions of all six appealing groups of accused under various combinations of Sections 364, 365, 347, 387 and 201 of the IPC, with only two of the connected appeals being dismissed as withdrawn. All appeals were otherwise dismissed, and the appellants who had been out on bail were ordered to surrender to serve their sentences.
Under Indian criminal law, if an accused is shown to have had a kidnapped or missing person in their custody shortly before that person is found dead, the burden shifts to the accused to explain what happened: silence or lack of explanation on a fact especially within their own knowledge can itself support a presumption of guilt for murder.
