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.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1073
In circumstantial-evidence cases, forensic and DNA evidence must actually corroborate the alleged crime: a conviction cannot survive where the most crucial scientific evidence, on its own terms, points away from rather than toward the prosecution's theory.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1074
A conviction based purely on circumstantial evidence requires every link in the chain, timeline, witness credibility, forensic matches, and motive, to be proven beyond reasonable doubt; gaps or suppressed evidence at any link entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt, even in a serious case like a double murder.
Criminal Miscellaneous Case · 2026:DHC:8505
Courts will not quash a criminal case merely because the accused has a plausible alibi-type defence; unless that defence is conclusive and undisputed, the matter must be tested through the ordinary trial process.
Criminal Miscellaneous Case · 2026:DHC:8547
A private compromise between victim and accused cannot by itself secure quashing of a case involving serious, heinous allegations like attempted murder with a weapon: such matters must proceed to trial regardless of settlement.
First Appeal from Order · 2026:DHC:8563
Railway Claims Tribunals cannot reject a bona fide passenger's death claim based on speculative inferences when there is no direct evidence of an alternative cause of death; the compensation scheme under the Railways Act is to be interpreted generously in favour of victims' families.
Criminal Miscellaneous Case · 2026:DHC:8559
In matrimonial offences, courts can and do quash criminal proceedings once a genuine compromise is verified directly with the complainant, sparing both parties a prolonged and pointless trial.
Bail Application · 2026:DHC:8541
A co-accused's bail does not automatically extend to another accused where their actual roles in the offence differ materially; delay caused by one's own defence counsel cannot later be used as a ground for bail.
Execution Petition · 2026:DHC:8567
An arbitral award must be adequately stamped before a court can enforce it; courts give only a limited window to cure such defects, after which the award becomes legally unusable until the deficiency is fixed.
Arbitration Petition · 2026:DHC:8555
A genuine settlement reached through mediation renders a pending arbitration-related court petition moot, allowing parties to close out litigation quickly once they resolve their dispute privately.
9257 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 moreLegal 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 ___).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The respondent, a Messenger at the State Bank of India in Puducherry, was convicted under Section 324 IPC (causing hurt with a dangerous weapon) for stabbing two men with a broken soda bottle during a political dispute, and was given probation rather than jail time because imprisonment would have cost him his job. The Bank nonetheless discharged him from service on the ground that his conviction was for an offence involving "moral turpitude," which disqualifies a person from bank employment under the Banking Regulation Act. The Madras High Court's Division Bench set aside the discharge and ordered his reinstatement with partial back wages, reasoning that the probation order was meant to let him keep his job and that the Bank hadn't properly explained its reasons, prompting the Bank's appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's specific reasoning: it held the Bank had in fact given adequate reasons for discharge, that a criminal court's grant of probation does not create any right for an employee to keep their job, and that a criminal court's views are not binding on an employer, who remains free to deal with employees as it sees fit. However, the Court still upheld the High Court's ultimate outcome on a different basis: it examined whether the respondent's specific conviction actually amounted to an offence "involving moral turpitude," and, applying tests such as whether the act would shock the moral conscience of society and whether it stemmed from a base motive, concluded that a simple assault causing only minor injuries, arising from a political scuffle with no intent to kill, did not meet that standard. Since the offence did not involve moral turpitude, the discharge was not justified under the Banking Regulation Act, and the appeal was dismissed.
Not every criminal conviction disqualifies someone from their job: "moral turpitude" is a specific, serious standard (acts that are inherently base, vile, or shock the public conscience), and employers cannot rely on it to dismiss an employee convicted of a comparatively minor offence like a simple assault with no depraved motive.
