Back
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, K. VINOD CHANDRAN
Subhash Aggarwal – Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
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.
Circumstantial evidence can establish guilt in murder cases even in the absence of motive, particularly when supported by forensic findings like gunshot residue.
(1) Murder and disappearance of evidence – In a case based on circumstantial evidence, facts indicating subsequent conduct are relevant facts under Section 8 of Evidence Act – When Court is faced wit....
In cases of direct evidence, the presence or absence of motive is less significant, and credible eyewitness testimony can suffice to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
: : (1) Absence of motive in a case depending on circumstantial evidence is a factor that weighs in favour of accused. (2) Circumstance of last seen together does not by itself and necessarily lead t....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in murder cases, especially when relying on circumstantial evidence, and the presumption of innocence remains strong in acquittals.
It is also well settled that if other evidence on record clearly establishes that the deceased was murdered by a person, then the factum of motive loses its importance.
Credible eyewitness accounts can outweigh minor discrepancies, and motive becomes irrelevant when there is trustworthy eyewitness testimony.
The conviction under Sections 302 IPC and Arms Act was upheld based on corroborative evidence and the significance of prompt FIR lodging, affirming established motive and forensic linkage.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
