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 accused were alleged to have shot and fatally assaulted a man on his way to his fields in 1993, following prior enmity between the families over an earlier shooting incident. The trial court convicted all three accused of murder based on the testimony of the complainant and two eyewitnesses (including the deceased's wife) and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The Allahabad High Court, on appeal, found these witnesses unreliable and acquitted all three accused. The State of Uttar Pradesh then appealed that acquittal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court examined the credibility of the three key prosecution witnesses and found serious problems with each: the complainant had not personally witnessed the incident and was admittedly hostile to the accused's family; the alleged eyewitness gave contradictory statements between his police statement and his court testimony and could not explain his presence at the scene; and the deceased's wife's claimed month-long unconscious state after the incident had no supporting medical evidence. The Court also noted a witness who claimed to have overheard a murder conspiracy the night before never warned the victim and was disbelieved even by the trial court. Agreeing with the High Court's assessment that the prosecution had failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the Supreme Court found no illegality in the acquittal and dismissed the State's appeal.
An appellate court will not disturb an acquittal, even in a serious case, where the prosecution's own witnesses are inconsistent, lack credible independent corroboration, or have an evident motive to implicate the accused: the burden remains on the State to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, not on the accused to disprove it.
