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.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1056
In railway accident compensation claims, a victim's family does not have to produce the physical train ticket to prove bona fide travel. A sworn statement explaining its loss is enough to shift the burden onto the Railways, and any delay by the Railways in conducting its own mandatory investigation cannot be used against the claimants.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1055
In a bareboat charter with a clause designating the charterer a mere "gratuitous bailee" after termination, a validly served termination notice ends the charterer's status immediately. Physical handover of the vessel is just the mechanical follow-through, not a condition for the termination to take legal effect; this matters directly for maritime creditors deciding whom, and which vessel, to target for arrest.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1054
A court cannot pick and choose parts of a witness's testimony to convict on one charge while rejecting the same testimony to acquit on a closely related charge arising from the same facts. If the witness's account is unreliable for one charge, that unreliability cannot simply be set aside for a more serious, connected charge.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1050
Even in the gravest crimes, a death sentence cannot be sustained unless the prosecution affirmatively rules out the possibility of the offender's reform and shows that no lesser punishment (including life imprisonment without remission) would meet the ends of justice, and courts must give the accused a genuine, separate hearing on sentence with full background material, not decide punishment on the same day as conviction.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1057
When commercial parties in an arbitration-bound contract are willing to agree on a sole arbitrator, courts will readily facilitate that agreement and let the arbitral tribunal itself take over interim relief, rather than continuing to litigate stay applications through multiple court levels.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1047
In government/paramilitary service disputes over wrongful dismissal, what matters under Article 311 is the officer who actually issued the final, unconditional appointment order (not a preliminary conditional call-letter or offer), and courts will read the specific service rules to see which ranks are legally empowered to both appoint and discipline an employee. A call for training is not the same as an appointment.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1048
A trial court cannot order that a convict "remain in prison for the rest of their natural life" without any possibility of remission, only the Supreme Court or a High Court can impose such a sentence, and even then only in appropriately grave cases, after weighing both the brutality of the crime and factors like time already served and conduct in custody.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1049
A criminal complaint under a special protective law like POCSO is not automatically true merely because it was registered; courts must carefully scrutinise such allegations, especially when they surface during an acrimonious custody battle, since false accusations of this kind cause lasting damage both to the falsely accused parent and to the child caught in the middle.
Civil Appeal (Interim Order) · 2026 INSC 1043
There is no final ruling yet. The present custody arrangement is temporary, and the case is still pending.
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 ___).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 Appeal Nos. 429-430 of 2020
The appellant was convicted of sexually assaulting and then killing his six-year-old step-daughter at their home in Madhya Pradesh in April 2018, with the child's mother (who was confined in another room during the assault) as the sole eyewitness. The Trial Court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court both convicted him and confirmed a death sentence. During the Supreme Court appeal, it emerged that the mother's original cross-examination at trial had been conducted by a legal-aid lawyer appointed on the very day her testimony was recorded, raising fair-trial concerns, so the Supreme Court itself directed and obtained a further, proper cross-examination of the mother in 2025 before deciding the appeal.
The Supreme Court held that the fresh cross-examination cured the earlier fair-trial infirmity, and, after minutely re-examining the mother's testimony against medical evidence, the child's own disclosures, phone records, the appellant's conduct and an extra-judicial confession, found her account reliable and upheld the conviction under Sections 302, 376(2)(f), 376(2)(n), 376AB and 201 IPC and Sections 5-6 of the POCSO Act. On sentence, however, the Court found that the Trial Court had violated Section 235(2) CrPC by pronouncing conviction and the death sentence on the same day, denying a genuine hearing on sentence, and that no mitigating material (the appellant's background, custody conduct, reform prospects) had ever been placed on record, a defect the Supreme Court cured by itself commissioning a psychological/mitigation investigation report. Weighing this fresh material, the Court found the appellant had no criminal antecedents, unblemished jail conduct, and unexcluded potential for reform, and, following its own jurisprudence (Manoj v. State of MP, Vasanta Sampat Dupare) and the "middle path" intermediate sentencing option recognised in Union of India v. V. Sriharan, commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life without any possibility of remission, while affirming the other sentences to run concurrently.
Even in the gravest crimes, a death sentence cannot be sustained unless the prosecution affirmatively rules out the possibility of the offender's reform and shows that no lesser punishment (including life imprisonment without remission) would meet the ends of justice, and courts must give the accused a genuine, separate hearing on sentence with full background material, not decide punishment on the same day as conviction.
