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

Thatireddigari Maheswara Reddy vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Not available · 2024 INSC 495Decided 8 Jul 2024
Not available
Justice Abhay S. Oka · Justice Pankaj Mithal

Background

The appellant was convicted of murder and rioting for his role in the 1997 killing of a lawyer who had defeated him in a local water-users' association election and was suspected of tipping off police about an illicit liquor case against the appellant. Eleven persons were originally charged; the trial court convicted six (including the appellant) based on the testimony of three eyewitnesses, two of whom were the deceased's brothers.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that being a relative of the deceased does not automatically make an eyewitness's testimony unreliable: what matters is whether the testimony is consistent, cogent, and free of material contradictions on cross-examination. Here, all three eyewitnesses independently gave a clear and matching account of which accused struck which blow, one of them was not even related to the deceased, hunting sickles recovered from the accused were bloodstained, and there was no delay in filing the complaint. Finding no reason to disturb the concurrent findings of the trial court and High Court, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, while granting the appellant time to surrender and directing the State to consider his case for permanent remission in line with co-accused who had already received it.

Lesson Learnt

A relative's eyewitness account is not automatically suspect in a murder trial. Courts assess its reliability on its own merits, and consistent, corroborated testimony can sustain a conviction even years after the incident.

Thatireddigari Maheswara Reddy vs The State of Andhra Pradesh – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware