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 moreThe respondent was convicted by the trial court of murder (Section 302 IPC) for fatally shooting a man named Mangla Ram, who died from his injuries six days after the attack. The High Court of Rajasthan partly allowed the respondent's appeal, downgrading the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part-I IPC), reasoning that the shooter may not have known exactly whom he was hitting among the two men on the motorcycle he fired at. The State of Rajasthan challenged this downgrade before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred by overlooking Section 301 IPC's doctrine of transfer of malice, where an accused intends to kill one person but instead kills another, the act is still treated as murder. Relying on its own precedent in State of A.P. vs. Rayavarapu Punnayya, the Court found that the respondent's deliberate firing with intent to cause death, even if he was not certain which of the two men on the motorcycle would be hit, squarely fell within the definition of murder under Section 300 IPC. It therefore allowed the State's appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the trial court's conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC.
Under Indian criminal law, if a person fires with the intent to kill but the bullet strikes and kills a different person than the intended target, the "malice" is legally transferred to the actual victim: the accused cannot escape a murder conviction merely by claiming uncertainty about who exactly would be hit.
