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

Virendra Kumar Chamar vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh

Not available · 2024 INSC 606Decided 7 Aug 2024
Not available
Justice Abhay S. Oka · Justice Augustine George Masih

Background

The appellant was convicted for murder under Section 302 IPC as one of three accused, alleged to have stabbed the victim with a knife after two co-accused shot him with pistols. The prosecution's case rested almost entirely on the testimony of one eyewitness, the deceased's brother, since the original complainant (another brother) had died before trial and no other eyewitness was examined. The appellant had already spent sixteen years in prison by the time the appeal reached the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court scrutinized the sole eyewitness's testimony and found serious inconsistencies, in cross-examination, the witness admitted he arrived at the scene two to three minutes after the shots were fired, that no one was present when he arrived, that the deceased had likely already died by then, and that he had not actually witnessed the shooting or the stabbing. The Court also noted that death was caused by firearm injuries, yet no charge under Section 34 IPC (common intention) had even been framed against the appellant for the knife assault. Concluding that the conviction rested on unreliable, doubtful eyewitness evidence, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, directing his immediate release.

Lesson Learnt

A criminal conviction, especially one carrying a life sentence, cannot stand on the testimony of a single witness whose own cross-examination reveals he did not actually see the crime occur; courts must scrutinize eyewitness credibility rigorously rather than accept testimony at face value.

Virendra Kumar Chamar vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware