Supreme Court upholds father’s conviction for son’s murder; finds circumstantial evidence complete despite absence of motive

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran heard an appeal against conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, arising from the death of the sole son of the accused and the question whether the injury was homicidal or self-inflicted. The appeal challenged the trial and High Court findings on grounds of absence of motive, alleged suppression of best evidence and the possibility of suicide, relying largely on the contention of the accused that family statements and forensic inferences did not conclusively establish guilt.

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentences awarded by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court, holding that the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete and pointed only to the guilt of the appellant. The Court noted the corroborated testimony of family members and a neighbour that the accused tried to portray the death as a suicide with a screwdriver; the forensic evidence that the firearm injury was from close range; and detection of gunshot-residue on the accused’s right hand. The Court observed that the ballistic expert had deposed: "On the basis of above observations, the range of firing with reference to hole H1 on the shirt marked Ex.C1 and double barrel breech loading gun was within 3 feet (approximately) distance from the muzzle end of the barrel of double barrel breech loading gun." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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 concluded, "We find absolutely no reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence of the accused," and recorded that "The appeal stands dismissed."

Background The accused, Subhash Aggarwal, was tried for the murder of his youngest son on the night of 14–15 December 2012. The prosecution case rested on ocular testimony of the mother and two daughters who said they found the son in a pool of blood after hearing the father's shouts; the father was first to detect the body and allegedly brandished a screwdriver, telling others the wound was self-inflicted. A neighbour who was summoned corroborated that there was no blood on the screwdriver. Medical evidence recorded a single firearm entry wound to the chest causing hemorrhagic shock; the doctor described the wound as ante‑mortem, fresh and sufficient to cause death. The ballistic expert gave evidence that the shot had been fired from within three feet. Swabs showed characteristic gunshot‑residue particles on a right‑hand swab of the accused and on the clothing around the entry wound.

Defence argued there was no direct evidence and no motive for a father to kill his only son; it pointed to the absence of gunshot‑residue reports from the deceased’s hands and advanced an explanation that the children had access to and hid the licensed gun. The accused also alleged police fabrication and torture to explain residue on his hands. The trial court convicted and sentenced the accused to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and concurrent terms under the Arms Act; the High Court confirmed. The Supreme Court examined medical, ballistic and circumstantial material, rejected the defence explanations as implausible or deliberately false, applied settled principles on motive in circumstantial cases, and found the chain of circumstances complete. No interim directions were necessary; the appeal was dismissed.

Case No.: 2025 INSC 499 (Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.1069 of 2025) Case Title: Subhash Aggarwal v. The State of NCT of Delhi Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Varun Dev Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Ms. Aakanksha Kaul, Advocate