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.
The respondent, a Chief Engineer at TANGEDCO (a Tamil Nadu state power company), was charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly demanding a bribe to revoke an employee's suspension, and his trial dragged on for years with dozens of adjournments. Late in the trial, the prosecution applied under Section 311 CrPC to recall two already-examined witnesses (the TANGEDCO Chairman and the investigating Deputy Superintendent of Police) solely to formally exhibit a Board resolution approving the sanction to prosecute, because the defence argued the sanction order had been signed by the Chairman alone, without the Board's approval. The Trial Court dismissed this recall application as belated, and the Madras High Court upheld that dismissal, prompting the State to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that Section 311 CrPC confers wide power to recall or examine witnesses whenever their evidence appears "essential to the just decision of the case," and that the duration of pendency of a case cannot by itself override this requirement, relying on its earlier ruling in Manju Devi v. State of Rajasthan and the principles summarized in Natasha Singh v. CBI. Since the document sought to be exhibited went directly to a contested, decisive issue, whether the prosecution sanction was validly granted by the Board, the Court found the recall was essential and not a mere attempt to fill a gap in the prosecution's case. It therefore set aside the High Court's order, allowed the recall applications (with the respondent given liberty to cross-examine the recalled witnesses), and directed that the long-pending trial be completed by 31 July 2021.
Courts can and should allow a party to recall a witness, even late in a trial, if the evidence sought is genuinely essential to reaching a correct and complete decision: the age or slow pace of a case is not, by itself, a valid reason to shut out important evidence.
