Appeal concerning a man named Subhash Aggarwal who was convicted of filicide (killing his son). The core of the case revolves around whether the son’s death was a homicide or a suicide, with the father asserting the latter and claiming the family was engaged in character assassination. The prosecution presented circumstantial evidence, including the presence of gunshot residue on the father’s hand and his attempts to mislead others about the cause of death with a screwdriver. The court meticulously examines the forensic evidence, witness testimonies from family members and a neighbour, and legal precedents regarding the importance of motive in circumstantial cases, ultimately upholding the conviction.
Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 – Arms Act, 1959, Section 25 and 27 – Murder – Circumstantial evidence – Motive – Appellant tried for murder of his own son – 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 – 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 – 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 – The accused does not say what led him to the body at the dead of the night, when all were asleep –
The accused 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 PW-1, 3 & 4 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 – In fact, the suggestion was that since the gun did not have a butt, it could cause injury to the person shooting, which was denied based on the tests carried out – The doctor deposed that the wound was not from a contact range – Held 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 -Find absolutely no reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence of the accused as handed down by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court.
(Para 24 to 27)
Subhash Aggarwal V. State Of Nct Of Delhi
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 499: (DoJ 17-04-2025)
