Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Supreme Court
Just As Strong Motive Doesn’t By Itself Result In Conviction, Absence Of Motive On That Sole Ground Can’t Result In Acquittal: Supreme Court
|The Supreme Court dismissed a Criminal Appeal of a father who was convicted for allegedly killing his son.
The Supreme Court observed that just as a strong motive does not by itself result in a conviction, the absence of motive on that sole ground cannot result in an acquittal.
The Court observed thus in a Criminal Appeal filed by an accused father was tried and convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, for allegedly killing his son.
The two-Judge Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held, “The declaration in the cited decisions and the decisions relied on therein, is to the effect that if the case is built solely upon circumstantial evidence, absence of motive will be a factor that weighs in favour of the accused. Just as a strong motive does not by itself result in a conviction, the absence of motive on that sole ground cannot result in an acquittal.”
The Bench added that when the eyewitnesses are not convincing, a strong motive cannot by itself result in conviction, likewise when the circumstances are very convincing and provide an unbroken chain leading only to the conclusion of guilt of the accused and not to any other hypothesis; the total absence of a motive will be of no consequence.
AOR Varun Dev Mishra appeared on behalf of the Appellant/Accused while Advocate Aakanksha Kaul appeared on behalf of the Respondent/State.
Facts of the Case
The Appellant-father was accused of committing murder of his own son. The Trial Court sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC and rigorous imprisonment respectively of one year and seven years for offences under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, besides a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default sentence, confirmed by the High Court.
The 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. It was further contended that the deceased was the only son of the accused and there was absolutely no motive not even alleged, to support the accusation of murder. Being aggrieved by his conviction, the accused was before the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, said, “Motive remains hidden in the inner recesses of the mind of the perpetrator, which cannot, oftener than ever, be ferreted out by the investigation agency. Though in a case of circumstantial evidence, the complete absence of motive would weigh in favour of the accused, it cannot be declared as a general proposition of universal application that, in the absence of motive, the entire inculpatory circumstances should be ignored and the accused acquitted.”
The Court noted that the accused and the deceased along with the wife of the accused and his two other children were residing in the house which was the scene of occurrence and the wife and two daughters were sleeping in another room, and they woke up hearing the shouts of the accused, who first detected the body.
“They came out and saw the youngest child lying in a pool of blood and one of the daughters summoned the neighbours. The family members and the neighbour who were examined before Court spoke of the accused having tried to convince them that it was a suicide by a self-inflicted injury; found to be a deliberate falsehood”, it added.
The Court further observed that the accused does not say what led him to the body at the dead of the night, when all were asleep and admitted that he owned the gun, but his explanation was that it was hidden by his children, which is not plausible in the teeth of the corroborated deposition of the witnesses that it was in the custody of the husband and that only he could use it.
“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 by reason of which the son succumbed. 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”, it also said.
Furthermore, the Court noted that the doctor deposed that the wound was not from a contact range. It, therefore, concluded that the circumstances coupled with the falsity of the claim made by the accused immediately after the detection of the body, to the onlookers and the false explanation given by the accused in his statement under Section 313, regarding both his hands having been forcefully smeared with gunshot residue provides 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.
Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the Appeal and upheld the conviction of the accused.
Cause Title- Subhash Aggarwal v. The State of NCT of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 499)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Varun Dev Mishra, Advocates Mrinmoi Chatterjee, and Kirti Lal.
Respondent: ASG Vikramjeet Banerjee, AOR Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advocates Aakanksha Kaul, Vijay Awana, Pratap Venugopal, Bhakti Vardhan Singh, and P V Yogeswaran.