“Absence of Motive Cannot Result in Acquittal When Circumstances Are Convincing” | Supreme Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based on Complete Chain of Evidence
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the appellant challenging his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The Court upheld the findings of the Trial Court and the High Court, which had found the appellant guilty of the murder of his son. The Court affirmed the sentence of life imprisonment and other concurrent sentences imposed on the appellant. The appeal was dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of.
The case arose from the death of the appellant’s minor son, which occurred during the night of 14th/15th December 2012 at the family residence in Delhi. The appellant, his wife, and their five children resided in the same house. On the night in question, the wife and two daughters were sleeping in one room, the deceased son in an adjacent room, and the appellant in the drawing room. At approximately 12:45 AM, the appellant alerted the family, stating that the boy was no more. The mother and daughters found the boy lying in a pool of blood.
The appellant was tried before the Trial Court under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The Trial Court found him guilty, sentencing him to life imprisonment under Section 302, and rigorous imprisonment of one year and seven years respectively under the Arms Act provisions, along with a fine. The Delhi High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence. The present appeal was filed by the appellant against those findings.
The appellant’s primary contention was that there was no direct evidence linking him to the crime and that the death of his son was a suicide. He submitted that he had a good relationship with his son, as corroborated by his wife (PW-3) and daughter (PW-1), and there was no motive or provocation. It was also argued that the prosecution failed to establish motive and that gunshot residue (GSR) evidence was inconclusive. Additionally, the appellant claimed that the investigating officers had fabricated the residue evidence and that the weapon could be handled by anyone in the household.
The prosecution, represented by the State of NCT Delhi, submitted that the circumstantial evidence was conclusive. It was noted that the appellant attempted to mislead the family by claiming the death was caused by a screwdriver, though the injury was clearly a gunshot wound. The post-mortem and ballistic reports indicated that the shot was fired from a close range, and GSR was detected on the appellant’s right hand. No residue reports were filed from the deceased’s hands, though samples were collected.
The prosecution relied on medical and ballistic expert testimony, which indicated that the injury was not self-inflicted. The prosecution argued that the inconsistencies in the appellant’s narrative and the absence of plausible alternative explanations supported a finding of guilt.
The Court began by framing the central question as follows:
“Filicide or suicide is the vexing question in the above case where a father was tried and convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.”
On the accused’s contention that he had no motive to commit the crime, the Court stated: “We cannot accept the fervent plea, as to the impossibility of the father killing the only boy child, which argument we reject at the outset as puerile.”
The Court found the theory of suicide to be unsupported and noted the contradictory and false assertions made by the appellant:
“The falsity of the assertion of suicide with a screwdriver, at the scene of occurrence, coupled with the falsity of the claim of forceful rubbing of a cotton with a gunshot residue particle on his hands... is another circumstance against the accused.”
With regard to the forensic evidence, the Bench stated:
“The accused, admittedly a right-handed person, had gunshot residue particles in his right hand. There were also gunshot residue particles around the gunshot wound... Though a definitive opinion was not given by the doctor as to whether the wound was homicidal, no question was put to the ballistic expert.”
The Court referred to the trajectory and nature of the injury:
“The wound was not from a contact range. The circumstances coupled with the falsity of the claim... and the false explanation given by the accused in his statement under Section 313... leads only to the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and not to any hypothesis of innocence.”
The Bench further remarked on the appellant’s failure to challenge expert opinions effectively: “No questions were asked to the ballistic expert, confronting him with the weapon as to whether it could have been fired with one hand, without holding up the barrel.”
Addressing the absence of motive, the Court cited multiple decisions, including Jan Mohammad v. State of Bihar and Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar, stating: “The absence of proof of motive does not render the evidence bearing on the guilt of the accused nonetheless untrustworthy or unreliable...”
The Court also held: “In the present case... the accused does not say what led him to the body at the dead of the night, when all were asleep.”
The accused’s conduct after discovering the body, as well as his inconsistent statements regarding the weapon, were held to be further incriminating: “The explanation proffered are not consistent with the theory of self-inflicted injury.”
Finally, summarizing its conclusions, the Court held: “The circumstances... provide further links in the chain of circumstances which is complete and leads only to the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and not to any hypothesis of innocence.”
The Supreme Court dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the appellant. The Court held that it found no reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court.
It concluded that the evidence on record established a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances leading to the singular inference that the appellant was guilty of murdering his son.
The Court found that the alternative theory of suicide, as advanced by the appellant, was baseless and unsupported by the expert testimony or any credible evidence.
The explanations provided by the appellant, including the false claim that the deceased used a screwdriver and the allegations of forced contamination with gunshot residue, were held to be demonstrably false.
The Court stated that motive, while relevant, is not a sine qua non for conviction in cases based on circumstantial evidence, provided the chain of events is compelling and leads to only one conclusion.
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, along with the concurrent sentences under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, were upheld.
The Court also ordered that all pending applications, if any, stood disposed of.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Varun Dev Mishra, AOR; Mrinmoi Chatterjee, Advocate; Kirti Lal, Advocate
For the Respondents: Vikramjeet Banerjee, Additional Solicitor General (NP); Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR; Vijay Awana, Advocate; Pratap Venugopal, Advocate; Bhakti Vardhan Singh, Advocate; P.V. Yogeswaran, Advocate; Aakanksha Kaul, Advocate
Full Case Title: Subhash Aggarwal v. State of NCT of Delhi
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 499
Case Number: Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 1069 of 2025
Bench: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia , Justice K. Vinod Chandran
[Read/Download order]
