Absence of Motive in Circumstantial Evidence May Favour Accused, But Not Grounds for Acquittal If Chain of Evidence Is Convincing: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a criminal appeal filed by Subhash Aggarwal, who was convicted for the murder of his son, reiterating that while the absence of motive in a case based solely on circumstantial evidence may weigh in favour of the accused, it cannot by itself justify an acquittal if the chain of evidence unerringly establishes guilt.

A Bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran upheld the judgment of the Delhi High Court and the conviction recorded by the Trial Court under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The Court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment for murder and rigorous imprisonment of one and seven years under the Arms Act, respectively, along with a fine.

Case Background

The incident occurred on the night of December 14–15, 2012, in the appellant’s residence, where he lived with his wife and five children. The youngest son—the deceased—was found dead from a close-range gunshot wound to the chest. The father, Subhash Aggarwal, was the first to alert the family, claiming the boy had died by suicide using a screwdriver.

Prosecution witnesses included the wife (PW-3) and daughters (PW-1 and PW-4) of the appellant, all of whom testified about the appellant’s conduct after the incident. A neighbour (PW-11) corroborated their account, stating that the appellant tried to explain the death as suicide by screwdriver, which bore no blood stains.

Arguments Before the Court

For the Appellant:
Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Varun Dev Mishra, argued that there was no direct evidence implicating the accused and the circumstantial evidence did not form a complete chain. It was stressed that there was no alleged motive, and the accused maintained good relations with his son. It was also contended that the presence of gunshot residue (GSR) on the appellant’s right hand was improperly explained and did not conclusively establish guilt.

The appellant, in his Section 313 CrPC statement, claimed that he was tortured by the police and GSR was forcibly transferred to his hands using cotton soaked in residue.

For the Respondent-State:
Appearing for the State, Ms. Aakanksha Kaul argued that the evidence on record—including medical and ballistic reports—established beyond doubt that the death was homicidal. The absence of blood on the screwdriver, the false narrative offered by the appellant, and the presence of GSR on his right hand were relied upon to substantiate guilt.

Court’s Analysis and Observations

The Court rejected the theory of suicide, noting several critical inconsistencies and incriminating circumstances:

1. Medical and Ballistic Evidence:
   
   • PW-20, the doctor, deposed that the firearm injury on the chest was from a close range (under one metre but not contact range), which is inconsistent with suicide.
     
   • PW-10, the ballistic expert, confirmed that the gun used—a double-barrel breech-loading firearm—could be fired with one hand and had caused the entry wound from a distance of about three feet.
     
   • Gunshot residue was found on the appellant’s right hand, and not on the screwdriver or other objects, undermining the suicide theory.
     
2. False Explanation and Conduct:
   
   • The appellant attempted to mislead his family and neighbour by attributing the death to a screwdriver injury, which was clearly false.
     
   • He provided no explanation for how he came upon the body at night when others were asleep.
     
   • His assertion that the GSR was forcibly applied lacked credibility, as the residue would then have appeared on both hands, which it did not.
     
3. Ownership and Control of Weapon:
   
   • The gun was admitted to be owned by the appellant, and family testimony indicated it was accessible only to him.
     
   • His shifting stance on the storage of the gun and the licence further cast doubt on his defence.
     

On Motive and Circumstantial Evidence

The Court acknowledged that no motive was alleged or proved. However, it emphasized 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. 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.”

Citing decisions including Jan Mohammad v. State of Bihar [(1953) 1 SCC 5], Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar [1995 Supp (1) SCC 80], and Sukhpal Singh v. State of Punjab [(2019) 15 SCC 622], the Court held that motive, though relevant, is not essential where circumstantial evidence conclusively establishes guilt.

Conclusion and Final Decision

Finding that the circumstantial evidence formed a complete and cogent chain leading only to the inference of guilt, and rejecting the alternative hypothesis of suicide, the Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court.

“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.”

The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Citation: Subhash Aggarwal vs State Of NCT Of Delhi, Criminal Appeal No. __ of 2025 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 1069 of 2025), decided on April 17, 2025.