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.
In August 1998, Dharmendra was found stabbed to death in Meghdoot Garden, Indore, with 31 injuries on his body. His father, Prem Narain (PW-5), told police he had gone to the garden looking for his son and saw the accused (Vijay, Babbu alias Nandkishore and Mahesh) stabbing him; about three months earlier the same men had allegedly beaten the deceased's elder brother, and there was admitted enmity between the families. The trial court convicted the accused of murder and sentenced them to life imprisonment, and the Madhya Pradesh High Court affirmed this in 2008. The accused appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the conviction rested solely on the father's contradictory testimony.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and acquitted the accused. It noted that the two other claimed eyewitnesses (the deceased's brothers) had been disbelieved by both courts below, and that the police constables, the guard and a kulfi vendor at the garden had all not supported the prosecution, leaving only the father's evidence. While a conviction can rest on a single witness, that witness must be "wholly trustworthy, reliable and cogent"; here the father admitted he went to the garden purely by chance, that it was dark near the bridge where the assailants supposedly fled, and that he could not identify the 7-8 people gathered there. Given the admitted prior enmity, which the Court called a "double-edged weapon" that supplies motive but also raises the possibility of false implication, and the material contradictions, the Court doubted whether he had really witnessed the incident at all and gave the accused the benefit of doubt.
A criminal conviction can rest on a single eyewitness, but only if that testimony is completely reliable; where the sole witness is a close relative with an admitted grudge against the accused and his account has serious gaps, the benefit of doubt goes to the accused.
