2025 INSC 499

Page 1 of 25

Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.1069 of 2025

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. of 2025

(@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.1069 of 2025)

SUBHASH AGGARWAL ...APPELLANT

Versus

THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ...RESPONDENT

J U D G E M E N T

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, 1860

1

read with Section 25/27

of the Arms Act, 1959. The Trial Court sentenced the

accused to imprisonment for life under Section 302 and

rigorous imprisonment respectively of one year and seven

years for offences under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act,

1

‘the I.P.C.’

Page 2 of 25

Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.1069 of 2025

1959 besides a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default sentence,

confirmed by the High Court.

3. We heard Mr. Varun Dev Mishra, learned counsel

appearing for the appellant and Ms.Aakanksha Kaul,

learned counsel representing the State.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the

family of the accused ha d resorted to character

assassination of the accused before the police and the

Court, which alone led to the prosecution and the resultant

conviction. There is no direct evidence, and the

circumstances attempted to be proved by the prosecution

fails to find the guilt, squarely on the accused. The deceased

was the only son of the accused and there was absolutely no

motive not even alleged, to support the accusation of

murder. The wife of the accused examined as PW-3 stated

in cross-examination that the accused maintained very good

relations with his son. PW-1, his daughter, also said that just

prior to the incident she saw the accused sleeping

peacefully in his room. There is no motive or even a

proximate incident which could lead to the accused killing

Page 3 of 25

Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.1069 of 2025

his own son. Even his daughters who were examined as PW-

1 and PW-4 did not speak of any instance of harassment or

violence perpetrated by the accused on his son.

5. There was no definitive opinion of the death being

homicide and the clear indication is that it was a suicide. The

doctor, examined as PW-20, refused to give a definite

opinion on the death and even the ballistic expert was not

able to come forth with a definite opinion. In fact, the

appellant is right-handed, and gunshot residue was found

only on the swab taken from his right hand; while the

possibility of such residue being present is more probable

on the hand which holds the barrel, that too more likely on

the back of the hand and not on the palm. More pertinently,

though similar swabs were taken from the hands of the

deceased, there is no report or evidence regarding the

analysis made. The appellant has explained in his statement

under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

2

that except his wife all the other family members could

handle and operate the gun, and it was kept hidden by the

2

‘the Cr.P.C.’

Page 4 of 25

Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.1069 of 2025

children. The learned counsel fervently argued for acquittal

also on the plea taken that there was no conceivable reason

why he should kill his only son, who is the youngest of his

five children.

6. The learned counsel for the State pointed out that there

is clinching evidence against the accused. The accused was

the first person to detect the body, and he tried to convince

the family and the neighbours, who came to the scene of

occurrence, that his son had killed himself with a

screwdriver. There was no blood stain on the screwdriver

and PW-11, the neighbour who was summoned to his house

deposed that when he accosted the accused with the fact of

absence of blood on the screwdriver, the accused had no

explanation. Clearly the death was a homicide and there is

no plausible reason to find suicide as has been categorically

deposed by the ballistic expert, PW-10. Motive is not

imperative, if there are very strong circumstances pointing

to the guilt of the accused and the evidence of the family

members clearly indicates the wayward ways of the

Page 5 of 25

Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.1069 of 2025

accused and that he did not maintain good relations with his

wife and children.

7. On facts, the family of the accused consisted of

himself, his wife and five children: the deceased was the

youngest son. Two of his elder daughters were married and

the accused was staying along with his wife and three

younger children in the house which was the scene of

occurrence. On the night of 14

th

/15

th

December 2012, the

mother and two daughters were sleeping in a room, the

deceased son in an adjacent room and the father in the

drawing room. At about 12:45 am, the mother and daughters

woke up hearing the shouts of the father; that the brother is

no more. The mother and daughters in their deposition

corroborated each other on the narration of how they came

out of the room and found the deceased in a pool of blood.

The mother who was examined as PW-3 and the sisters of

the deceased who were examined as PW1 and PW-4 spoke

in tandem about the accused having bran dished a

screwdriver, trying to convince them that the death was a

suicide by reason of a self-inflicted wound, with the

Page 6 of 25

Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.1069 of 2025

screwdriver. PW-11, a nearby resident, who was summoned

by PW1, in his deposition corroborated the said version.

PW-11 also went on to say that he had confronted the

accused on the absence of blood stains on the screwdriver.

8. The cause of death is spoken of by PW-20, the doctor

and PW-10, the ballistic expert. A single firearm entry

wound was noticed as below: -

“Firearm entry wound with irregular margin

present from central line of chest 2cms

between 5 and 6

th

rib of left side of chest,

sorrounding area of wound show abrasion

collar, blackening present and margin of

wound is inverted wound is round in shape

and size of wound is 2 x2 cms. It is 14cms away

from the left nipple and 16 cms from the right

nipple and 20 cms. away from centre of

clavical and 21 cms., away from umblicus and

depth of the wound is about 15 cms. No other

external injury were noted.” [sic]

9. The death was deposed to be by reason of

hemorrhagic shock and huge blood loss consequent upon

firearm injury which was ante-mortem in nature, fresh in

duration, caused by a bullet fired from close range. The

Page 7 of 25

Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.1069 of 2025

sole injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary

course of nature, as deposed by the doctor. The doctor also

spoke of the trajectory of the bullet inside the body, which

was obliquely downwards from the left side of chest, first

puncturing the lung and then taking an oblique turn to hit

the heart. On cross examination, the doctor was queried on

what was meant by close range. The doctor distinguished

close range and contact range to depose that close range

means below one meter, which excludes contact range; the

latter of which denotes that the weapon was in touch with the

human body, when it was fired. On the question whether it

could be a self-inflicted injury, the doctor did answer that it

could only be spoken of by the ballistic expert.

10. The evidence of the doctor must be considered in

juxtaposition with the evidence of the ballistic expert who

was examined as PW-10; who was not questioned on the

suicide angle as to whether the injury could be self-inflicted,

even when he was recalled under Section 311, after the

doctor’s examination. PW-20 was also not the doctor who

conducted the post-mortem but spoke based on the report

Page 8 of 25

Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.1069 of 2025

and his expertise. PW-10 categorically 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.” [sic]. In cross examination PW-10 had

also deposed that during test fire conducted by him with the

weapon of offence, it did not exhibit any performance

resulting in an injury to the person who fired it. The Counsel

for the accused never questioned PW10 as to the theory of

suicide, even after the doctor deposed that the ballistic

expert only could speak on that. When the witness was

recalled, there was only a casual query whether the police

had enquired with him as to the wound being self-inflicted

or caused by someone else, without being followed up. The

evidence of the ballistic expert coupled with that of the

doctor clearly indicates that the death was caused due to a

gunshot injury sustained by the deceased and that it could

not have been a self-inflicted injury.

Page 9 of 25

Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.1069 of 2025

11. The accused argues that the gunshot residue would

normally be on the arm holding up the barrel and not the

firing arm. The deposition of PW-10 indicates that parcel no.

8 contained the swab used to hand wash the right hand of

the accused marked as RHS-1 and parcel no. 9 contained the

swab from the left hand of the accused marked as LHS-1.

The swab taken from around the hole of the entry wound

marked as H-1 and H-2 showed gunshot residue particles

both on the shirt and the banyan, respectively numbered as

H-1 and H-2; worn by the deceased at the time of his

sustaining the wound. Characteristic gunshot residue

particles were detected in swab RHS-1 relating to the right

hand.

12. That the accused was right-handed was elicited from

PW-1, the daughter, in her cross examination. It also must

be emphasized that the accused does not have a case that

he handled the weapon after the body was found. This

clinches the culpability of the accused insofar as the gunshot

residue particles having been found in the right hand of the

accused. His explanation in the Section 313 statement, is

Page 10 of 25

Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.1069 of 2025

also that he was tortured at the police station, made to sign

on blank papers and the police officers inserted a cotton

into the barrel of the gun and forcefully rubbed it on his

hands. PW-1, 3 & 4 and PW-11 spoke of the accused having

tried to convince them that the deceased killed himself with

a screwdriver and brandished one, to fortify the contention.

There were no blood stains seen on the screwdriver and the

injury clearly is a gunshot injury and not one caused by a

screwdriver. The falsity of the assertion of suicide with a

screwdriver, at the scene of occurrence, coupled with the

falsity of the claim of forceful rubbing of a cotton with a

gunshot residue particle on his hands; since then, gun-shot

residue would have been detected on both hands of the

accused, is another circumstance against the accused.

13. Another plea taken by the learned counsel was that the

best evidence of gunshot residue in the hands of the

deceased was suppressed. True, the IO spoke of the doctor

who conducted the post-mortem having taken swabs from

the hands of the deceased; the result of analysis of which has

not been placed before Court. We cannot but observe that

Page 11 of 25

Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.1069 of 2025

even if gunshot residue was found in the hands of the

deceased that would not lead to a definite conclusion of a

self-inflicted injury, since the shot fired was in close range,

as deposed by PW-20, which could even otherwise have left

gunshot residue on the hands of the injured who was shot.

‘Medical Jurisprudence’ by Dr. R.M. Jhala and Sh. V.B. Raju,

Retired Judge, speaks of the “Nature of injuries whether

suicidal, homicidal or accidental” in the following

manner:

“The most important and interesting point

from legal point of view in the fire-arm injuries

is the nature. It is always necessary to decide

the question of the suicidal, homicidal or

accidental nature of the injury. However, it

should be realized and appreciated that the

question cannot be answered correctly and

confidently. A useful policy, from point of view

of investigation would be to consider every

fire-arm injury as homicidal unless proved

otherwise. As with other types, of injuries,

accessibility is the main factor. Certain

situations are very often preferred in case of

suicide. About 80% of the wounds are in the

Page 12 of 25

Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.1069 of 2025

region of temple. It is peculiar that heart is

rarely the site for suicide, while chest is often

the choice of homicidal fire-arm injury.

Cadaveric spasm when present with revolver

grasped firmly in hand is a very important

confirmatory sign pointing to suicidal nature.

The other important sign helping in

determining the nature is the distance from

which the weapon is alleged to be fired. As

discussed in the earlier pages, the distance

can be assessed from the type of the injury,

powder marks, marks of explosion and

burning. These prove useful in arriving at an

authentic opinion as to the alleged weapon as

well as the way in which it could be caused. In

suicidal cases generally signs of firing from

close vicinity and in accessible areas are

present.”

(underlining by us for emphasis)

The gun in the present case was not in the grip of the

deceased and the wound was on the chest and not on the

temple.

14. Taylor’s; ‘Principles and Practice of Medical

Jurisprudence’, in Chapter XI deals with ‘Firearm Injuries’.

Page 13 of 25

Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.1069 of 2025

Under the heading “Evidence of the proximity of the weapon

when fired’, it is stated that: ‘Self-inflicted firearm wounds are

usually contact wounds. Accidents may occur when a person

is cleaning a gun or pistol with the muzzle pointed towards

him, and then the wound is situated in front, close but not in

contact.” [sic-page 303]. It has also been stated that “If a near

wound be inflicted by a second person it may be impossible,

in the absence of evidence, to say whether it was accidental

or homicidal. It is very necessary to compare the particulars

of the wound very carefully with the statements made by the

person implicated. They must be consistent” (sic-page-304).

In the present case, it has been deposed by the doctor that

the injury was inflicted at close range, as distinguished from

contact range. Though the doctor had specifically spoken of

a definite opinion being possible only by the ballistic

expert; no such question was put to PW-10, even when he

was recalled after the evidence of PW-20. In the wake of the

above, it is our duty to examine the conduct of the person

implicated, the accused, and the attendant circumstances,

Page 14 of 25

Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.1069 of 2025

to understand whether they are consistent with the case set

up of a self-inflicted injury.

15. At the risk of repetition, it must be stated, as already

found by us that the accused had a case that the deceased

died by a self-inflicted injury with a screwdriver and he

does not have any explanation as to how he detected the

body in the night when everybody was asleep. What

assumes significance is also the aspect of gunshot residue

detected on the right hand of the accused. The appellant has

a contention that gunshot residue would be normally seen

on the left hand which holds up the barrel, which remains a

mere conjecture without any substantiation, not even from

the ballistic expert. No questions were asked to the ballistic

expert, confronting him with the weapon as to whether it

could have been fired with one hand, without holding up the

barrel. Here we must notice that PW4, one of the police

officers who reached the crime scene first, deposed, on

identifying the gun as Ext. P1, that it was a small double

barrel gun. PW10 the ballistic expert also deposed that the

weapon was a double-barreled gun, without butt and a

Page 15 of 25

Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.1069 of 2025

shortened barrel. PW14, the Investigating Officer spoke of

the gun as a small one without a handgrip; thus, capable of

being fired with one hand. The gunshot residue found on the

right hand of the accused also has not been explained

properly by him and the version in the Section 313

statement has been found to be a deliberate falsehood. The

statement made by the accused and the explanation

proffered are not consistent with the theory of self-inflicted

injury. The decision in Machindra v. Sajjan Galfa

Rankhamb & Ors.

3 is not relevant. We also must presume;

in accepting the contention, without any substantiation, that

a right-handed man would only shoot with that hand.

16. In C.T. Ponnappa v. State of Karnataka

4, the gun

belonging to the father was recovered from the joint family

house and the ballistic expert report also indicated that the

shot was fired by the said gun. Since there was nothing to

show that the owner of the gun handed it over to the

accused, the mere fact of the shot having been made from

the gun was not sufficient to implicate the appellant, was the

3

(2017) 3 SCR 36

4

(2004) 11 SCC 391

Page 16 of 25

Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.1069 of 2025

finding. In the present case, the gun was owned by the

father and his only explanation is that the gun was hidden

by the children. No such suggestion was made to PW-1, 3 &

4. The accused towards the end of his Section 313

questioning also stated that the gun was in the house

accessible to all and that the licence was misplaced: quite

contrary to his earlier statement.

17. One other compelling contention taken by the

accused is that there was no motive ascribed to the accused

to kill his son, who was the only boy child of his five children.

We cannot accept the fervent plea, as to the impossibility of

the father killing the only boy child, which argument we

reject at the outset as puerile. The thrust of the argument

was on no motive existing for the alleged crime; especially

when the accusation was that the father killed the son. There

was neither a long-standing animosity between the father

and son nor was there any immediate proximate incident

which could lead to any inference of any motive is the

argument, relying on precedents.

Page 17 of 25

Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.1069 of 2025

18. Nandu Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

5, was a case in

which the deceased was found missing and later his body

recovered. One of the witnesses deposed that the deceased

was seen going out with the accused from a hotel which was

the sole circumstance connecting the accused with the

deceased which according to the learned Judges could not

even be brought under the theory of last seen together,

since there was nothing to indicate that they were seen

together proximate to the crime. The total absence of motive

also weighed with the Court in acquitting the accused.

19. Reliance was placed on State of U.P. v. Kishanpal

6

wherein it was held that motive is something which is

primarily known to the accused themselves and it is not

possible for the prosecution to always explain what

prompted or excited them to commit a particular crime.

Motive is a very important link in the circumstances which

could prove the guilt of the accused, and it loses its

importance only when there is direct evidence of

eyewitnesses, which is convincing and conclusive as to the

5

2022 SCC OnLine SC 1454

6

(2008) 16 SCC 73

Page 18 of 25

Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.1069 of 2025

guilt of the accused. However, it was also noticed that even

if there may be a very strong motive for the accused to

commit a particular crime, it does not lead to a conviction

by itself, if the eyewitnesses are not convincing or the chain

of circumstances is not complete.

20. The declaration in the cited decisions and the

decisions relied on therein, is to the effect 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.

Page 19 of 25

Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.1069 of 2025

21. We extract paragraph 17 from a three-judge bench

decision, Jan Mohammad v. State of Bihar

7; which also is

of vintage flavour, succinctly putting forth the proposition:

“Motive is a relevant fact under the Evidence

Act (Section 8). It is an important element in a

chain of presumptive proof where the

evidence is purely circumstantial, but it may

lose importance in a case where there is

direct evidence by witnesses implicating the

accused. In a case such as the present where

the prosecution evidence itself shows that the

relations between the deceased and the

appellants were cordial, the absence of an

apparent motive, though not necessarily fatal

to the prosecution case, may reasonable be

regarded as a fact in favour of the accused.

We think, therefore, that the attempt to prove

a motive against any of the appellants has

failed.” [sic]

22. Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar

8 held that in a

case based on circumstantial evidence, proof of motive

would ‘supply a link in the chain of circumstances’ but all

7

(1953) 1 SCC 5

8

1995 Supp (1) SCC 80

Page 20 of 25

Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.1069 of 2025

the same, absence of motive cannot be a ground to

altogether reject the prosecution case. Para 21 reads as

follows:

“21. At the very outset we may mention that

sometimes motive plays an important role and

becomes a compelling force to commit a

crime and therefore motive behind the crime

is a relevant factor for which evidence may be

adduced. A motive is something which

prompts a person to form an opinion or

intention to do certain illegal act or even a

legal act but with illegal means with a view to

achieve that intention. In a case where there is

clear proof of motive for the commission of the

crime it affords added support to the finding

of the court that the accused was guilty of the

offence charged with. But it has to be

remembered that the absence of proof of

motive does not render the evidence bearing

on the guilt of the accused nonetheless

untrustworthy or unreliable because most

often it is only the perpetrator of the crime

alone who knows as to what circumstances

prompted him to a certain course of action

leading to the commission of the crime…..”

Page 21 of 25

Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.1069 of 2025

(underlining by us for emphasis)

23. Sukhpal Singh v. State of Punjab

9 found that if

prosecution establishes motive, it will undoubtedly

strengthen the prosecution case, but to say that absence of

motive will be fatal to the prosecution, irrespective of other

material before the court in the form of circumstantial

evidence is far-fetched. Para 15 reads as follows:

“15. The last submission which are called

upon to deal with is that there is no motive

established against the appellant for

committing murder. It is undoubtedly true that

the question of motive may assume

significance in a prosecution case based on

circumstantial evidence. But the question is

whether in a case of circumstantial evidence

inability on the part of the prosecution to

establish a motive is fatal to the prosecution

case, we would think that while it is true that if

the prosecution establishes a motive for the

accused to commit a crime it will undoubtedly

strengthen the prosecution version based on

circumstantial evidence, but that is far cry

from saying that the absence of a motive for

9

(2019) 15 SCC 622

Page 22 of 25

Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.1069 of 2025

the commission of the crime by the accused

will irrespective of other material available

before the court by way of circumstantial

evidence be fatal to the prosecution. In such

circumstances, on account of the

circumstances which stand established by

evidence as discussed above, we find no merit

in the appeal and same shall stand dismissed.

(underlining by us for emphasis)

24. 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.

25. The other decisions relied on by the accused/

appellant are all with respect to the missing link and

presumption of innocence unless proved guilty, and we

need only refer to the celebrated judgment in Sharad

Page 23 of 25

Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.1069 of 2025

Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra

10. In the present

case, the 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.

10

(1984) 4 SCC 116

Page 24 of 25

Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.1069 of 2025

26. 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. 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.

Page 25 of 25

Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.1069 of 2025

27. We 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.

28. The appeal stands dismissed.

29. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed

of.

………… .……………………. J.

(SUDHANSHU DHULIA)

………… .……………………. J.

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN )

NEW DELHI;

APRIL 17, 2025.