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 vs. The State of M.P.

Criminal AppealDecided 11 Jul 2022
Criminal Appeal No. 466 of 2018
Sanjay Kishan Kaul · M.M. Sundresh

Background

The deceased was allegedly shot dead in 2001 during a long-running property dispute, and the appellant along with two others (one of whom died during trial) were accused. The trial court convicted the appellant and a co-accused (who did not appeal) and sentenced them to life imprisonment; the Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the conviction. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court by special leave, arguing that key prosecution witnesses had actually given evidence supporting the defence.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court closely reviewed the eyewitnesses and found that two key prosecution witnesses (PW1 and PW3) gave testimony that actually undermined the prosecution's version (indicating a different, unidentified person fired the shot) yet the prosecution never declared them hostile or sought to discredit them, so their evidence remained binding on the prosecution's own case. The Court relied on precedent holding that unchallenged testimony favourable to the accused, even from prosecution witnesses, must benefit the accused. It also found the recovery of the firearm from the appellant was not proved in the manner required by law, and that the evidence overall fell short of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court set aside the conviction and directed that the appellant be set at liberty.

Lesson Learnt

If the prosecution's own witnesses give evidence favourable to the accused and the prosecution does not challenge them as hostile, courts must give the accused the benefit of that unchallenged testimony: a conviction cannot survive on selective reliance on only the parts of witness evidence that favour the prosecution.

Virendra vs. The State of M.P. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware