Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

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.

Frequently asked questions

Is this suitable for use in legal research and court filings?+

Legal 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 ___).

How is a "lesson learnt" different from the judgment's holding?+

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.

Is the full judgment available, or just a summary?+

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.

Can I filter judgments by date or case type?+

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.

Can I search judgments by a specific judge?+

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.

What is Legal Case Shots?+

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.

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Taqdir vs The State of Haryana

Criminal AppealDecided 2 Mar 2022
Criminal Appeal No.1537 of 2018
Uday Umesh Lalit · S. Ravindra Bhat · Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha · Uday Umesh Lalit along with Justices S. Ravindra Bhat

Background

The appellant Taqdir had contested and lost panchayat elections against one Rakesh alias Kala and allegedly bore a grudge against him. Rakesh was later shot dead by four assailants who stormed into his hospital room, an incident captured on the hospital's CCTV cameras. A trial court convicted 10 of 27 accused, including Taqdir (as the alleged mastermind) and the four assailants (Kuldeep alias Bhandari, Anil, Jyoti Prakash and Arun), and the Punjab & Haryana High Court upheld the convictions of Taqdir and the four assailants while acquitting five others. Taqdir appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court, while the four assailants filed separate Special Leave Petitions against theirs.

Decision Breakdown

For the four assailants, the Court found the CCTV footage (preserved on a hard disk and transferred to a pendrive and CD, duly certified under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act) clearly showed them entering the hospital armed, going into the deceased's room, and fleeing, corroborated by the injuries the deceased suffered, and rejected the argument that the footage was inadmissible merely because the original hard disk itself was not played in court; their Special Leave Petitions were accordingly dismissed. For Taqdir, however, the Court held the evidence against him was "completely inadequate" to sustain a conspiracy conviction: the prosecution's case rested only on the "slender thread" that he had lost an election to the deceased and there was no evidence linking him to the actual assailants, especially since the alleged link-man (absconding accused Mukesh) was later tried separately and acquitted, and a key prosecution witness had turned hostile. The Court therefore gave Taqdir the benefit of the doubt, set aside his conviction, and ordered his release unless wanted in another case.

Lesson Learnt

A conspiracy conviction cannot rest on motive alone (such as an election rivalry) without concrete evidence linking the accused to those who actually committed the crime; by contrast, well-certified CCTV/electronic evidence under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act can be relied upon by courts even if the original storage device itself is not physically played in court, so long as the certified copies are properly proved.

Taqdir vs The State of Haryana – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware