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.
9257 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.
On 12 July 2004, two young men threw acid on a 19-year-old college-going girl from a scooter, causing 16% burn injuries. The trial court convicted them under Section 307 (attempt to murder) read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment. The Himachal Pradesh High Court altered the conviction to the lesser offence under Section 326 IPC (voluntarily causing grievous hurt) given the extent of the burns, reducing the sentence to 5 years with an enhanced fine, and the convicts had already served this sentence and were released by late 2008. The State appealed to the Supreme Court seeking restoration of the original 10-year sentence, while the convicts argued even the reduced sentence was more than warranted; the victim additionally sought compensation.
The Supreme Court declined to restore the Section 307 conviction, holding that the High Court's conclusion, based on medical evidence that the burns, while serious, were not life-threatening to the degree required for attempt-to-murder, and its sentence under Section 326 IPC did not call for interference, relying on its own precedent in similar acid-attack cases (Sachin Jana, Ravada Sasikala). However, noting the severity of the crime and the victim's lasting suffering, the Court held this was an appropriate case to award additional victim compensation beyond the fine already imposed. It directed each accused to personally pay the victim Rs. 1,50,000 additional compensation (with a default sentence of six months' imprisonment if unpaid), and separately directed the State of Himachal Pradesh to pay compensation to the victim under its Victim Compensation Scheme, to be deposited with the trial court for disbursement.
In serious crimes like acid attacks, courts can award victim compensation over and above the criminal sentence and fine, both from the convicted persons personally and from the State under its statutory victim compensation scheme, recognising that punishment alone may not address a victim's ongoing suffering.
