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.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1094
An older qualification must still satisfy the eligibility rules governing the appointment sought. Here, the certificate's early date did not secure reinstatement, and rejection of eligibility should not be confused with a conclusive finding that the certificate was forged.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1095
A party benefiting from a conditional stay must meet its deposit requirement or face enforcement. The additional ₹15 crore deposit secures the pending dispute; it does not settle the land's final compensation or amount to an immediate payment to the landowners.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1093
An alleged attempt to kill does not become a lesser offence simply because the victim avoided a fatal injury. Restoring this charge means the accusation must be tried; it does not establish that the accused is guilty.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1090
For the assessment in this case, assistance reducing ordinary manufacturing costs was taxable even though the government wanted to encourage industry. The purpose and actual operation of the particular subsidy mattered more than its general development label.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1091
Proof that someone caused a serious injury does not by itself prove the additional ingredients of robbery. A court can substitute a lesser offence supported by the evidence; the sentencing reduction here depended on Appa's particular circumstances.
Special Leave Petition (Civil) · 2026 INSC 1092
Someone challenging an election must ensure that the personal-presentation requirement is met and can be proved. Merely entering the court building does not establish compliance, and a filing defect can end the challenge before the election allegations are examined.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1088
An employee who retires on 30 June may be entitled to the increment that falls due on 1 July after completing a year of service. Authorities that delay paying the amounts due must pay interest after the deadline set by the court.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1089
Recruitment must follow the qualifications stated in the advertisement and the governing Recruitment Rules. A court will not override a merit-based eligibility decision made under those rules merely because the candidate concerned was higher in the written test.
Writ Petition (Criminal) · 2026:DHC:8797
A person who occupied property only because of employment has no independent right to remain once the employment and decree end. Even when a petition fails, courts can make practical arrangements to let a person recover personal belongings.
14543 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 moreIn 2003, in a village in Rajasthan, the respondent Leela Ram and two others allegedly attacked Ram Kumar Swami with an axe, inflicting a fatal skull injury during a confrontation near a hand pump. The trial court convicted Leela Ram of murder (Section 302 IPC) based on four eyewitnesses, medical evidence, and recovery of the blood-stained axe, while acquitting his two co-accused. The Rajasthan High Court partly allowed Leela Ram's appeal, downgrading his conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part-II), reasoning the act was unpremeditated and happened in a sudden flare-up, and sentenced him only to time already served (about five years and five months). The State of Rajasthan appealed this downgrading to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court's finding of "no premeditation" was based on surmise and ignored the clear eyewitness evidence of a deliberate, forceful axe blow to the skull, a vital part of the body, using a lethal weapon. Reviewing a line of precedent on single-blow murder cases (Mahesh Balmiki, Hukam Chand, Dhirajbhai Gorakhbhai Nayak, Pulicherla Nagaraju, Singapagu Anjaiah, Som Raj), the Court explained that Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC (reducing murder to culpable homicide) requires an unpremeditated sudden fight without undue advantage: none of which was established here, since the deceased was unarmed and simply assaulted. The Court found the injury was of a nature the accused must have known was so imminently dangerous that it would in all probability cause death, squarely falling under Section 300 "Fourthly." It held the High Court's judgment was "manifestly perverse," allowed the State's appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the trial court's conviction and life sentence under Section 302 IPC, directing Leela Ram to surrender immediately.
A single blow with a deadly weapon aimed at a vital part of the body can still amount to murder, not a lesser offence: courts look at the weapon used, the body part targeted, and the force involved to judge intent, not merely the number of blows struck.
