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.
7878 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.
Uchit Sharma lodged a complaint with the Chhattisgarh Chief Minister alleging that Aman Kumar Singh (an IRS officer and former Principal Secretary to the erstwhile Chief Minister) and his wife Yasmin Singh held assets disproportionate to their known income. This led to a preliminary inquiry and, in February 2020, registration of an FIR under Section 13(1)(b)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120-B IPC. Aman Singh and Yasmin Singh challenged the FIR before the Chhattisgarh High Court, which quashed it, holding that the FIR did not disclose a cognizable offence and appeared based on mere "probabilities." The State of Chhattisgarh and the original complainant, Uchit Sharma, appealed to the Supreme Court against this quashing.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had exceeded its limited jurisdiction to quash an FIR, at the registration/investigation stage, only a suspicion of a cognizable offence is needed, not proof or even a strong prima facie case, and courts must not conduct a "mini-trial" by weighing evidence at this stage. It found the FIR did contain sufficient particulars (including some allegation of disproportionality) to warrant investigation, and that the proper course was to let the investigation proceed to its logical conclusion, with any closure report or chargesheet to be tested later before the trial court. The Court also separately rejected the respondents' fallback argument that the FIR was vitiated by political mala fide, noting that the pleadings were vague, that the Chief Minister (against whom mala fide was alleged) had not been personally impleaded as required by law, and that even a politically motivated FIR is not automatically invalid if the underlying material otherwise justifies investigation: genuine corruption prosecutions should not be defeated merely because they also carry political overtones. It set aside the High Court's judgment, restored the FIR, dismissed the writ petitions, and allowed the appeals, while extending interim protection against coercive steps for three weeks to let the respondents pursue other remedies.
High Courts should be extremely cautious about quashing an FIR, especially in corruption/disproportionate-assets cases, at the investigation stage; suspicion of an offence (not proof) is enough to justify an investigation, and allegations of political mala fide against unnamed or un-impleaded officials, without more, will not by themselves defeat a corruption investigation that is otherwise supported by some material.
