Supreme Court: Complete Absence Of Motive Is A Circumstance Which Weighs In Favour Of An Accused In A Case Based On Circumstantial Evidence

The Court partially set aside the conviction of the Appellant, by acquitting him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 5 read with 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act. However, his conviction under Section 201 of the IPC was sustained. The Court explained the “significant difference” in the evidentiary burden to be discharged by the prosecution and the accused. Whereas the former is expected to discharge its burden beyond reasonable doubt, the latter is only required to prove a defence on the anvil of preponderance of probabilities.

The Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held, “The present case ticks the boxes of an accidental gunshot injury, both in theory and in fact. Contrarily, the aforesaid discussion indicates that the possibility of a homicidal death is very weak in the present case. It must also be kept in mind that the imprints on the pistol have not been matched with the appellant and therefore, no direct nexus exists to conclude that the trigger was pulled by the appellant. On this aspect as well, we may note with dismay that the High Court rejected the defence of the appellant by simply observing that the homicidal death of the deceased was ‘admitted’ by the appellant on oath.”

Advocate Satyajit A. Desai appeared for the Appellant, while AOR Aaditya Aniruddha Pande represented the Respondent.

Brief Facts

This case involved two friends, the Appallant and the deceased, who were studying in a Homeopathy Medical College. Both friends had left college together on the deceased’s scooter and arrived at the Appellant’s house in the afternoon. When the deceased’s father discovered that his son had not reached home, he lodged a missing report. Later, the dead body of the deceased was found, and a criminal case was registered. Investigation commenced, and the father of the deceased raised suspicion against the Appellant, leading to the registration of an FIR under Section 302 of the IPC.

Court’s Reasoning

The Supreme Court noted, “In the factual matrix of the present case, it could be observed at the outset that certain facts stand duly admitted. We may first consider such facts. The cause of death of the deceased is undisputed, as it is admitted that the deceased was shot by the service pistol belonging to PW-12, the father of the appellant. Although, the investigating officer did not obtain any ballistic report to ascertain the nexus between the bullet injury and the service pistol of PW-12, however, it could be seen from the record that the nexus has not been questioned by the defence.”

“Going further, it is also admitted that the appellant had indeed removed the dead body of the deceased and had cleaned up the scene of crime. It is also a matter of record that the discoveries made under Section 27 of Evidence Act were not challenged by the appellant as the appellant had admitted that various articles belonging to himself and the deceased, and connected with the alleged incident, were discovered in furtherance of his disclosures,” the Bench further noted.

The Court remarked, “On a careful reading of the impugned judgment, one would unmistakably note that the subsequent conduct of the appellant in indulging in destruction of evidence weighed heavily against him in the mind of the Court. The inability of the appellant to explain certain aspects also weighed against him. Undoubtedly, in a case based on circumstantial evidence, facts indicating subsequent conduct are relevant facts under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. Equally, the inconsistencies in the version of the appellant are also relevant.”

“There is no rule of law that the absence of motive would ipso facto dismember the chain of evidence and would lead to automatic acquittal of the accused. It is so because the weight of other evidence needs to be seen and if the remaining evidence is sufficient to prove guilt, motive may not hold relevance. But a complete absence of motive is certainly a circumstance which may weigh in favour of the accused,” the Bench held.

The Court stated, “A young boy studying in first year of college, with no criminal background and with no motive in sight, would certainly have become scared on seeing that his friend has accidentally shot himself in the living room of his house with the pistol belonging to his father and is lying in a pool of blood. The subsequent conduct of cleaning up the scene and restoring the living room in its original shape, although punishable in law, does not become so unnatural that it could be made the basis to convict him for the commission of murder without additional evidence to that effect. More so, when such conclusion is not consistent with the surrounding evidence on record, especially medical evidence, as discussed above.”

Consequently, the Court ordered, “In light of the foregoing discussion, we hereby conclude that the High Court has erred in arriving at the finding of guilt and in upholding the verdict of the Trial Court. The circumstantial evidence on record is not consistent and leaves a reasonable possibility of an alternate outcome i.e. of innocence of the appellant on the charges of murder and illegal usage of fire arm. Accordingly, the impugned order and judgment are partially set aside to the extent of conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 IPC and Section 5 read with 25(1)(a) of Arms Act. Consequently, the appellant is acquitted for the offences under Section 302 of IPC and Section 5 read with 25(1)(a) of Arms Act. His conviction under Section 201 IPC is sustained and he is sentenced for the period already undergone by him, for reasons discussed above.”

Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the Appeal.

Cause Title: Vaibhav v. The State Of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 800)

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocates Satyajit A. Desai, Siddharth Gautam, Ananya Thapliyal, Abhinav K. Mutyalwar, Sachin Singh and Pratik Kumar Singh; AOR Anagha S. Desai

Respondents: AOR Aaditya Aniruddha Pande; Advocates Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Shrirang B. Varma, Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh, Aditya Krishna and Adarsh Dub

Click here to read/download the Judgment