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.
The complainant alleged that she had a relationship with the appellant for about one and a half years, during which he assured her he would marry her, and that a physical relationship developed over this period with the knowledge of his family. When the appellant later refused to go through with the marriage, she lodged an FIR alleging rape under Section 376 IPC. The Allahabad High Court declined to quash the charge sheet, leaving it to the trial court to decide the matter after evidence. The appellant challenged this before the Supreme Court, arguing the FIR itself showed a consensual relationship with no false promise of marriage from the outset.
The Supreme Court, applying the test laid down in its own precedent Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, held that consent is vitiated by a "misconception of fact" only where the promise of marriage was false from the very beginning, made in bad faith with no real intention of ever honouring it. A mere subsequent breach of promise or change of mind is not the same as a false promise. Reading the FIR and the complainant's own Section 164 CrPC statement, the Court found she had described the relationship as consensual and that the appellant's family was initially willing to proceed with marriage, with the refusal coming only later. Since there was no allegation that the promise was false at its inception, no offence under Section 376 IPC was made out even taking the FIR's allegations at face value. The Court allowed the appeal, quashed both the charge sheet and the trial court's cognizance order, and the appellant's counsel also agreed to drop a related cross-FIR against the complainant.
A rape charge based on an alleged "false promise of marriage" requires proof that the promise was false and made in bad faith right from the start; a relationship that turns consensual and later ends in a broken engagement, without evidence of deceit at the outset, does not by itself amount to rape under the law.
