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

Thirumoorthy vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police

Not available · 2024 INSC 247Decided 22 Mar 2024
Not available
Justice B.R. Gavai · Justice Sandeep Mehta

Background

In July 2016, a six-year-old girl went missing from Salem, Tamil Nadu, and was later found dead in the appellant's house; the appellant was arrested and tried before a Sessions Court, which convicted him in 2019, a conviction the Madras High Court affirmed in 2021. It later emerged that the appellant's own school records showed a date of birth making him a juvenile (a "child in conflict with law") at the time of the offence, yet he was charge-sheeted and tried directly before the Sessions Court without ever being produced before the Juvenile Justice Board or assessed as the Juvenile Justice Act requires.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the mandatory procedure under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, including production before the Juvenile Justice Board and a preliminary assessment, is not optional, and skipping it vitiated the entire investigation and trial regardless of the offence's gravity. Since the appellant was now about 23 years old, sending the matter back for a fresh Board assessment would serve no real purpose. The Court therefore did not examine the evidence or merits of the murder charge at all, and instead quashed the conviction on the procedural ground alone and ordered the appellant's release.

Lesson Learnt

When an accused is found to be a juvenile at the time of an offence, following the special Juvenile Justice Act procedure is mandatory, not a formality, failing to do so can unravel an otherwise-completed trial and conviction, no matter how serious the crime.

Thirumoorthy vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware