No Motive, No Alibi, No Escape: SC Upholds Father's Murder Conviction.


17 April 2025 Criminal Appeals & Suspension of Sentence >> Criminal Law   |   Murder Homicide >> Criminal Law  

The Supreme Court has affirmed the conviction of a father for the murder of his youngest son, rejecting his claims of suicide and lack of motive. The judgment of Subhash Aggarwal v/s The State of Nct of Delhi, delivered recently, upheld the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court, which had sentenced the accused to life imprisonment under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and additional terms under the Arms Act.

The case centered around the death of the appellant's son, who was found dead in their residence with a single firearm injury to the chest in December 2012. The father was the first to discover the body and allegedly attempted to mislead his wife and daughters, who were sleeping in an adjacent room, and later a neighbor, by suggesting the death was a suicide caused by a self-inflicted wound with a screwdriver.


 

 

During the trial, the prosecution presented circumstantial evidence against the father. The deceased's mother and sisters testified that the accused had brandished a screwdriver at the scene, trying to convince them it was the weapon used for suicide. A neighbor corroborated this account and stated that he questioned the accused about the absence of bloodstains on the screwdriver, to which the father had no answer.

Crucially, medical and ballistic evidence pointed towards a gunshot wound as the cause of death. The doctor who examined the post-mortem report testified to a single, fatal firearm entry wound to the chest, caused by a bullet fired from close range. While the doctor refrained from definitively labeling it as homicide, stating the ballistic expert was better positioned to comment on self-inflicted injuries, the ballistic expert's testimony was significant.

The ballistic expert confirmed that the fatal shot was fired from the father's licensed double-barreled gun at a distance of approximately three feet. Notably, test firings with the weapon did not indicate any recoil that would injure the shooter. Furthermore, gunshot residue particles were detected on the right hand of the right-handed accused.

The accused, in his defense, claimed that his family had falsely implicated him and that the death was indeed a suicide. He also alleged torture by the police, claiming they forcibly rubbed a cotton swab from the gun barrel on his hands to plant evidence. He stated that all family members could handle the gun and that his children had hidden it.

The Supreme Court, however, found these explanations unconvincing. The Court highlighted the accused's immediate and false claim of suicide by screwdriver, the absence of blood on the screwdriver, and the fact that the fatal injury was clearly a gunshot wound. The presence of gunshot residue on the accused's right hand, without a plausible explanation for its presence other than having fired the weapon, was deemed a critical piece of evidence. The Court also noted the implausibility of the police selectively planting residue on only one hand.

Addressing the argument of suppressed evidence regarding gunshot residue on the deceased's hands, the Court opined that even if present, it would not definitively prove suicide given the close range of the shot, which could have deposited residue on the victim's hands even in a homicide. The Court also cited medical jurisprudence texts indicating that suicide by firearm typically involves contact wounds to accessible areas like the temple, unlike the chest wound in this case, and often involves the weapon being clutched in the hand, which was not the situation here.

The defense also vehemently argued the absence of motive, particularly given that the deceased was the accused's only son. However, the Supreme Court rejected this argument as "puerile," stating that the impossibility of a parent killing their child is a flawed premise. Relying on its previous judgments, the Court clarified that while motive can be an important link in circumstantial evidence, its absence is not always fatal to the prosecution's case, especially when the chain of circumstances strongly points to the accused's guilt and excludes any other reasonable hypothesis.

In this case, the Court found the chain of circumstances – the accused being the first to find the body, his immediate and false claim of suicide by screwdriver, the gunshot wound as the cause of death, the gunshot residue on his dominant hand, and his inconsistent statements – to be complete and pointing unequivocally to his guilt.

Consequently, the Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the concurrent verdicts of the lower courts and dismissed the appeal, upholding the father's conviction and sentence for the murder of his son.


Section 302., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Indian Penal Code, 1860  

Arms Act, 1959