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

Vishwajeet Kerba Masalkar vs The State of Maharashtra

Not available · 2024 INSC 788Decided 17 Oct 2024
Not available
Justice B.R. Gavai · Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra · Justice K.V. Viswanathan

Background

The appellant was convicted of murdering his mother, wife, and two-year-old daughter in Pune in 2012, allegedly because he wanted to leave his wife to marry another woman. He was sentenced to death, and both the trial court and the Bombay High Court upheld the conviction and sentence based mainly on the testimony of an injured neighbour and recoveries of a hammer and blood-stained clothes.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court found the sole eyewitness's testimony unreliable: his statement to police was recorded six days after the incident despite evidence he was conscious and able to speak earlier, no neighbours corroborated his account, and he himself admitted learning the "facts" from the police rather than witnessing them directly. Treating the case as one of circumstantial evidence, the Court applied the well-established "panchsheel" test requiring a complete, unbroken chain of proof excluding every hypothesis except guilt, and found the recovery of the murder weapon (from an open canal, and improbably still blood-stained after being submerged for three days) and other recoveries similarly unreliable. Concluding that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt, the Court acquitted the appellant and ordered his release.

Lesson Learnt

A criminal conviction, especially one carrying the death penalty, cannot rest on suspicion or a chain of circumstances with unexplained gaps and contradictions; the prosecution must prove guilt through a complete, credible chain of evidence that excludes every other reasonable explanation.

Vishwajeet Kerba Masalkar vs The State of Maharashtra – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware