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

Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu

Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 525Decided 22 May 2026
Crl.A. No.-002859-002859 - 2025
Justice Sanjay Karol · Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

Background

The prosecutrix alleged the appellant had a sexual relationship with her on a false promise of marriage and threatened to upload a video of her bathing, which he had allegedly recorded. The Trial Court acquitted him of rape, deceitful inducement to a false belief of marriage, and the video-voyeurism charge, but convicted him under Part II of Section 506 IPC (criminal intimidation) and sentenced him to three years' rigorous imprisonment. The Madras High Court confirmed this conviction, and the appellant approached the Supreme Court arguing that since the related charges failed and the phone/video was never recovered, the intimidation conviction could not stand either.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the prosecutrix's testimony, along with the surrounding facts including the long relationship between the parties, was sufficient to sustain the conviction beyond reasonable doubt even without recovery of the phone or video. Applying the settled principle that concurrent findings of fact by the Trial Court and High Court are not to be disturbed absent manifest illegality or serious miscarriage of justice, the Court declined to interfere with the conviction. It did, however, criticise the Investigating Officer for making no apparent effort to recover the digital evidence, calling this a disappointing lapse that should be brought to the notice of the competent authorities. Considering the case was over a decade old, the Court modified the sentence to the period of custody already undergone.

Lesson Learnt

A criminal intimidation conviction can be sustained on credible victim testimony alone, even without recovery of corroborating digital evidence, but investigating officers have a clear duty to actually attempt recovery of such evidence, and failing to do so invites judicial censure even when it doesn't overturn the conviction.

Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware