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.
Kewal Krishan was convicted of murder by a trial court based on circumstantial evidence: he was allegedly last seen with the deceased the evening before the body was found, he allegedly made an extra-judicial confession to a Panchayat member, and a knife was recovered based on his disclosure. The Punjab & Haryana High Court overturned the conviction and acquitted him, doubting the prosecution's timeline of his arrest and finding the "last seen" witness unreliable, the confession unconvincing, and the knife recovery unconnected to the crime (no forensic report linked it to blood). The State appealed this acquittal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court reiterated the settled principle that it will not interfere with an acquittal unless the High Court's reasoning was perverse or resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice: mere possibility of a different view is not enough. Examining each circumstance, the Court agreed that the "last seen" evidence was inconclusive given the large time gap between when the deceased was last seen and when the body was found (with autopsy findings suggesting death could have occurred later than the prosecution's timeline), that the extra-judicial confession was weak evidence with no explanation of why the accused would confide in that witness, and that the knife recovery lacked forensic corroboration. Since the circumstantial evidence did not form a complete, unbroken chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence, and the burden-shifting rule under Section 106 of the Evidence Act only applies once the prosecution has first made out a prima facie case, the Court held the High Court's view was a plausible one it should not disturb. The appeal was dismissed and the acquittal upheld.
A conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires an unbroken chain of proven facts that excludes every reasonable possibility other than the accused's guilt: weak links like an unexplained extra-judicial confession or an unverified time gap in "last seen" evidence can be fatal to the prosecution's case, and appellate courts will not reverse a High Court's acquittal merely because another view was possible.
