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 LawDelhi High Court

Vikrant @ Ashu vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Criminal Appeal · 2026:DHC:8142Decided 23 Sept 2026New Delhi Bench
CRL.A. 980/2025CNR: DLHC010444452025
Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha

Background

On 9 April 2021, the appellant, Vikrant, was walking through a street in Shahbad Dairy, Delhi using abusive language. When the injured (PW3) objected because women and families lived in the area, an altercation followed. Vikrant left, returned shortly with a knife, and stabbed PW3 multiple times causing grievous injuries to his chest, abdomen and arm. A trial court convicted him under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder) and sentenced him to 7 years' rigorous imprisonment; he appealed the conviction, arguing the attack was a sudden, unpremeditated reaction rather than an attempt to kill.

Decision Breakdown

The High Court held that the accused's act of leaving the scene, procuring a knife, and returning to attack was proof of an intervening period that negated any claim of a sudden, spur-of-the-moment reaction. The nature of the injuries (targeting the chest and abdomen, described by doctors as "dangerous") and the repeated stabbing supported the intention required for Section 307 IPC. The Court rejected a defence theory that the victim had a personal grudge against the accused's family, since this was never put to the prosecution witnesses during cross-examination. The conviction was upheld, but the sentence was reduced from 7 years to 6 years' rigorous imprisonment considering the overall circumstances.

Lesson Learnt

Leaving the scene of a quarrel to fetch a weapon and returning to attack is treated by courts as evidence of premeditation, not a spontaneous reaction: this can be the difference between a lesser assault charge and a conviction for attempted murder.

Vikrant @ Ashu vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware