1. Conviction under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and Arms Act, 1959 for the murder of a son involving a firearm. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 645
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ.
Subhash Aggarwal – Appellant
Versus
The State of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2038 of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.1069 of 2025)
Decided On : 17-04-2025
Important Points
Circumstantial evidence can establish guilt in murder cases even in the absence of motive, particularly when supported by forensic findings like gunshot residue.
Subject
Criminal Law - Murder
Act Referred
ARMS ACT : S.25, S.27
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.313
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.302
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.313
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.302
Headnote
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Arms Act, 1959 - Sections 25 and 27 - Conviction for murder of son - Accused sentenced to life imprisonment - No direct evidence of homicide; however, circumstantial evidence strongly indicates guilt - Gunshot residue found on accused's right hand, indicating he fired the weapon - Court emphasizes that absence of motive does not absolve guilt if circumstantial evidence is compelling. (Paras 2, 6, 10, 26)
(B) Circumstantial Evidence - Importance of motive - While absence of motive can weigh in favor of the accused, it does not negate strong circumstantial evidence pointing to guilt. (Paras 17, 20, 24)
Facts of the case:
The accused was convicted for the murder of his youngest son, with the prosecution arguing that the death was a homicide, while the defense claimed it was a suicide. The family members testified against the accused, and gunshot residue was found on his hands.
Findings of Court:
The court found the circumstantial evidence compelling, leading to the conclusion that the accused was guilty of murder.
Issues: The main issues were whether the death was a homicide or suicide and the significance of motive in the absence of direct evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the circumstantial evidence, including gunshot residue and the accused's behavior, established guilt beyond reasonable doubt, despite the absence of a clear motive.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
(B) Circumstantial Evidence - Importance of motive - While absence of motive can weigh in favor of the accused, it does not negate strong circumstantial evidence pointing to guilt. (Paras 17, 20, 24)
Facts of the case:
The accused was convicted for the murder of his youngest son, with the prosecution arguing that the death was a homicide, while the defense claimed it was a suicide. The family members testified against the accused, and gunshot residue was found on his hands.
Findings of Court:
The court found the circumstantial evidence compelling, leading to the conclusion that the accused was guilty of murder.
Issues: The main issues were whether the death was a homicide or suicide and the significance of motive in the absence of direct evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the circumstantial evidence, including gunshot residue and the accused's behavior, established guilt beyond reasonable doubt, despite the absence of a clear motive.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Varun Dev Mishra, AOR Ms. Mrinmoi Chatterjee, Adv. Ms. Kirti Lal, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, A.S.G. (NP) Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Vijay Awana, Adv. Mr. Pratap Venugopal, Adv. Mr. Bhakti Vardhan Singh, Adv. Mr. P V Yogeswaran, Adv. Ms. Aakanksha Kaul, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Varun Dev Mishra, AOR Ms. Mrinmoi Chatterjee, Adv. Ms. Kirti Lal, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, A.S.G. (NP) Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Vijay Awana, Adv. Mr. Pratap Venugopal, Adv. Mr. Bhakti Vardhan Singh, Adv. Mr. P V Yogeswaran, Adv. Ms. Aakanksha Kaul, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over whether the death was homicidal or suicidal, the significance of gunshot residue, and the impact of the absence of motive. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
3. Ballistic evidence excluded self-inflicted injury; the accused's false claims regarding a screwdriver and gunshot residue, combined with weapon ownership, established guilt. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 14 , 15 , 25 , 26 )
4. Absence of motive in circumstantial evidence cases is not fatal if other evidence forms an unbroken chain leading solely to the conclusion of guilt. (Para 20 , 24 )
5. Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed. (Para 27 , 28 )
6. Does the absence of motive necessarily lead to acquittal in cases based on circumstantial evidence?
No. While the absence of motive may weigh in favor of the accused, it is not fatal to the prosecution if the circumstantial evidence is convincing and provides an unbroken chain leading only to the conclusion of guilt and not to any other hypothesis. (Para 20 , 24 )
7. What is the legal and medical significance of the distinction between close range and contact range in firearm injuries?
Contact range denotes the weapon was in touch with the body, often characteristic of suicides. Close range (below one meter) excludes contact range; if the injury is not self-inflicted, this distinction helps determine if the act was homicidal. (Para 9 , 14 )
8. How is the presence of gunshot residue on the accused's hand evaluated when the accused claims police fabrication?
The court evaluates the plausibility of the explanation. If the claim of forceful rubbing is found to be a deliberate falsehood and inconsistent with the residue's distribution, it serves as a link in the chain of circumstances supporting culpability. (Para 11 , 12 , 26 )
JUDGMENT :
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. 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, 1860,1[‘the I.P.C.’] read with Section 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The Trial Court sentenced the accused to imprisonment for life under Section 302 and rigorous imprisonment respectively of one year and seven years for offences under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 besides a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default sentence, confirmed by the High Court.
3. We heard Mr. Varun Dev Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Ms. Aakanksha Kaul, learned counsel representing the State.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the family of the accused had resorted to character assassination of the accused before the police and the Court, which alone led to the prosecution and the resultant conviction. There is no direct evidence, and the circumstances attempted to be proved by the prosecution fails to find the guilt, squarely on the accused. The deceased was the only son of the accused and there was absolutely no motive not even alleged, to support the accusation of murder. The wife of the accused examined as PW-3 stated in cross-examination that the accused maintained very good relations with his son. PW-1, his daughter, also said that just prior to the incident she saw the accused sleeping peacefully in his room. There is no motive or even a proximate incident which could lead to the accused killing his own son. Even his daughters who were examined as PW-1 and PW-4 did not speak of any instance of harassment or violence perpetrated by the accused on his son.
5. There was no definitive opinion of the death being homicide and the clear indication is that it was a suicide. The doctor, examined as PW-20, refused to give a definite opinion on the death and even the ballistic expert was not able to come forth with a definite opinion. In fact, the appellant is right-handed, and gunshot residue was found only on the swab taken from his right hand; while the possibility of such residue being present is more probable on the hand which holds the barrel, that too more likely on the back of the hand and not on the palm. More pertinently, though similar swabs were taken from the hands of the deceased, there is no report or evidence regarding the analysis made. The appellant has explained in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,2[‘the Cr.P.C.’] that except his wife all the other family members could handle and operate the gun, and it was kept hidden by the children. The learned counsel fervently argued for acquittal also on the plea taken that there was no conceivable reason why he should kill his only son, who is the youngest of his five children.
6. The learned counsel for the State pointed out that there is clinching evidence against the accused. The accused was the first person to detect the body, and he tried to convince the family and the neighbours, who came to the scene of occurrence, that his son had killed himself with a screwdriver. There was no blood stain on the screwdriver and PW-11, the neighbour who was summoned to his house deposed that when he accosted the accused with the fact of absence of blood on the screwdriver, the accused had no explanation. Clearly the death was a homicide and there is no plausible reason to find suicide as has been categorically deposed by the ballistic expert, PW-10. Motive is not imperative, if there are very strong circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused and the evidence of the family members clearly indicates the wayward ways of the accused and that he did not maintain good relations with his wife and children.
7. On facts, the family of the accused consisted of himself, his wife and five children: the deceased was the youngest son. Two of his elder daughters were married and the accused was staying along with his wife and three younger child
