LexSUBHASH AGGARWAL versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1320 : 2025 INSC 499 Subhash Aggarwal v. The State of NCT of Delhi (Criminal Appeal No. 2038 of 2025) 17 April 2025 [Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Filicide or suicide is the vexing question in the instant case where a father was tried and convicted u/s.302 of the Penal Code, 1860 r/w. s.25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Arms Act, 1959 – ss.25 and 27 – Filicide or Suicide – Chain of circumstances – Appellant accused for murdering of his son – Trial Court convicted accused – Conviction confirmed by the High Court – Correctness: Held: In the instant case, 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 – 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 u/s.313 of CrPC, 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 – No reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence of the accused. [Paras 25, 26, 27] * Author [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1321 Subhash Aggarwal v. The State of NCT of Delhi Evidence – Circumstantial Evidence – Absence of motive: Held: 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. [Para 20] Case Law Cited Jan Mohammad v. State of Bihar (1953) 1 SCC 5; Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar [1994] Supp. 1 SCR 483 : (1995) Supp. 1 SCC 80; Sukhpal Singh v. State of Punjab (2019) 15 SCC 622 – relied on. State of U.P. v. Kishanpal [2008] 11 SCR 1048: (2008) 16 SCC 73; Machindra v. Sajjan Galfa Rankhamb & Ors. [2017] 3 SCR 363; C.T. Ponnappa v. State of Karnataka (2004) 11 SCC 391; Nandu Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1454; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [1985] 1 SCR 88 : (1984) 4 SCC 116 – referred to. Books and Periodicals Cited ‘Medical Jurisprudence’ by Dr. R.M. Jhala and Sh. V.B. Raju; Taylor’s ‘Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence’, Chapter XI, ‘Firearm Injuries’. List of Acts Penal Code, 1860; Arms Act, 1959; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. List of Keywords Filicide; Suicide; Absence of motive; Chain of circumstances; Circumstantial evidence; Presumption of innocence; Gunshot injury; Self-inflicted wound with screwdriver; Gunshot residue particles; Ballistic expert; Proximate incident; Theory of last seen together; Direct evidences of eyewitnesses; Inculpatory circumstances; Hypothesis of guilt; Hypothesis of innocence. 1322 [2025] 4 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 2038 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 03.08.2022 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in CRLA No. 1314 of 2019 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Varun Dev Mishra, Ms. Mrinmoi Chatterjee, Ms. Kirti Lal. Advs. for the Respondent: Vikramjeet Banerjee, A.S.G., Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Vijay Awana, Pratap Venugopal, Bhakti Vardhan Singh, P V Yogeswaran, Ms. Aakanksha Kaul. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment K. Vinod Chandran, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Filicide or suicide is the vexing question in the above case where a father was tried and convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601 read with Section 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The Trial Court sent
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.