Date of the Judgment: April 17, 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 499
Judges: Sudhanshu Dhulia, J., K. Vinod Chandran, J.

In a perplexing case of filicide versus suicide, the Supreme Court of India deliberated on the conviction of a father, Subhash Aggarwal, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The core issue revolved around determining whether the death of Aggarwal’s son was a case of murder or suicide. The bench, comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran, examined the evidence and arguments presented by both the appellant and the State to ascertain the truth behind the tragic incident.

Case Background

The case originates from an incident on the night of December 14th/15th, 2012, in Delhi. Subhash Aggarwal resided with his wife and three younger children, while his two elder daughters were married and lived elsewhere. On the night in question, the mother and two daughters were sleeping in one room, the deceased son in an adjacent room, and the father in the drawing room. Around 12:45 am, the mother and daughters awoke to the father’s shouts, indicating that their brother was “no more.” They found the deceased in a pool of blood.

According to the depositions of the mother (PW-3) and sisters (PW1 and PW-4), the accused brandished a screwdriver, attempting to convince them that the death was a suicide caused by a self-inflicted wound. A neighbor (PW-11), summoned by PW1, corroborated this version, noting the absence of blood stains on the screwdriver.

Timeline:

Date Event
Night of December 14th/15th, 2012 Incident occurred; family members were sleeping in separate rooms.
Approximately 12:45 am Mother and daughters awoke to the father’s shouts.
Following the incident Accused allegedly tried to convince family it was suicide using a screwdriver.

Legal Framework

The legal framework central to this case includes:

  1. Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with the punishment for murder. It states: “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
  2. Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959: These sections pertain to offenses related to the possession and use of firearms.
  3. Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section allows the accused to explain circumstances appearing in the evidence against them.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Subhash Aggarwal):

  • The appellant’s counsel argued that the family of the accused had resorted to character assassination, leading to the prosecution and conviction.
  • There was no direct evidence linking the accused to the crime, and the circumstances presented by the prosecution were insufficient to establish guilt.
  • The deceased was the only son of the accused, and there was no discernible motive for the accused to commit murder.
  • Witnesses, including the wife (PW-3) and daughter (PW-1), testified that the accused maintained good relations with his son and was seen sleeping peacefully before the incident.
  • The medical opinion on the cause of death was not definitive, with indications suggesting suicide rather than homicide.
  • The ballistic expert’s opinion was also not conclusive. Gunshot residue was found only on the swab from the accused’s right hand, which is inconsistent with the typical residue pattern on the hand holding the barrel.
  • The accused explained in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, that other family members could handle the gun, and it was kept hidden by the children.
See also  Supreme Court clarifies property disposal under Section 452 CrPC: BSNL vs. Suryanarayanan (2018)

Respondent’s Arguments (The State of NCT of Delhi):

  • The State argued that there was clinching evidence against the accused.
  • The accused was the first to discover the body and attempted to convince the family and neighbors that his son had committed suicide with a screwdriver.
  • The absence of blood stains on the screwdriver contradicted the suicide theory.
  • The ballistic expert (PW-10) categorically stated that the death was a homicide.
  • Motive is not essential when strong circumstances point to the guilt of the accused.
  • Evidence from family members indicated that the accused had strained relations with his wife and children.

Argument Table

Main Submission Appellant’s Sub-Submissions Respondent’s Sub-Submissions
Lack of Direct Evidence ✓ No eyewitnesses
✓ Circumstantial evidence weak 		✓ Accused first to find body
✓ Attempt to mislead family about suicide
Questionable Medical and Ballistic Evidence ✓ Doctor’s opinion not definitive
✓ Ballistic report inconclusive 		✓ Ballistic expert confirmed homicide
✓ Gunshot residue on accused’s hand
Absence of Motive ✓ Deceased was only son
✓ Good relations with son 		✓ Motive not imperative with strong circumstances
✓ Strained family relations

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

  1. Whether the death was a suicide or homicide.
  2. Whether the circumstances pointed towards the guilt of the accused.
  3. Whether the absence of motive was a factor in favor of the accused.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Issue Court’s Decision Brief Reasons
Whether the death was a suicide or homicide Homicide Ballistic expert’s testimony, nature of the wound, and accused’s conduct
Whether the circumstances pointed towards the guilt of the accused Yes Accused’s false claim of suicide, gunshot residue on his hand, and ownership of the gun
Whether the absence of motive was a factor in favor of the accused No Strong circumstances pointed to guilt, making motive less significant

Authorities

The court considered the following authorities:

Authority Court How Considered
Machindra v. Sajjan Galfa Rankhamb & Ors. [(2017) 3 SCR 36] Supreme Court of India Not relevant to the present case
C.T. Ponnappa v. State of Karnataka [(2004) 11 SCC 391] Supreme Court of India Distinguished; mere ownership of the gun not sufficient to implicate the accused
Nandu Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1454] Supreme Court of India Distinguished; absence of motive weighed in favor of the accused in that case
State of U.P. v. Kishanpal [(2008) 16 SCC 73] Supreme Court of India Motive is important but not always possible to explain
Jan Mohammad v. State of Bihar [(1953) 1 SCC 5] Supreme Court of India Absence of apparent motive may be a fact in favor of the accused
Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar [1995 Supp (1) SCC 80] Supreme Court of India Absence of motive cannot reject the prosecution case
Sukhpal Singh v. State of Punjab [(2019) 15 SCC 622] Supreme Court of India Absence of motive not fatal to the prosecution
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116] Supreme Court of India Referred to regarding missing link and presumption of innocence
See also  Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence in Chhattisgarh Murder Case: Chhannu Lal Verma vs. State of Chhattisgarh (28 November 2018)

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

Submission How Treated by the Court
Lack of Direct Evidence Rejected; circumstantial evidence was strong and pointed to the accused.
Questionable Medical and Ballistic Evidence Rejected; the ballistic expert’s testimony was crucial in establishing homicide.
Absence of Motive Rejected; motive is not imperative when there is strong circumstantial evidence.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

  • Machindra v. Sajjan Galfa Rankhamb & Ors. [(2017) 3 SCR 36]: Not relevant.
  • C.T. Ponnappa v. State of Karnataka [(2004) 11 SCC 391]: Distinguished; the mere fact of the shot having been made from the gun was not sufficient to implicate the appellant.
  • Nandu Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1454]: Distinguished; the total absence of motive also weighed with the Court in acquitting the accused.
  • State of U.P. v. Kishanpal [(2008) 16 SCC 73]: Referred to; motive is something which is primarily known to the accused themselves and it is not possible for the prosecution to always explain.
  • Jan Mohammad v. State of Bihar [(1953) 1 SCC 5]: Referred to; absence of an apparent motive, though not necessarily fatal to the prosecution case, may reasonably be regarded as a fact in favor of the accused.
  • Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar [1995 Supp (1) SCC 80]: Referred to; absence of motive cannot be a ground to altogether reject the prosecution case.
  • Sukhpal Singh v. State of Punjab [(2019) 15 SCC 622]: Referred to; absence of a motive for 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.
  • Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116]: Referred to; 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.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

  • The ballistic expert’s testimony, which indicated that the death was a homicide.
  • The nature of the wound, which was inconsistent with a self-inflicted injury.
  • The conduct of the accused, who attempted to mislead the family and neighbors about the cause of death.
  • The presence of gunshot residue on the accused’s right hand.
  • The accused’s ownership of the gun and his inconsistent statements regarding its accessibility.
Reason Percentage
Ballistic Expert Testimony 30%
Nature of the Wound 25%
Accused’s Conduct 20%
Gunshot Residue 15%
Ownership of the Gun 10%

“Fact:Law”: Create ratio table for showing the sentiment analysis of the Supreme Court to show the ratio of fact:law percentage that influenced the court to decide. Fact is defined as “percentage of the consideration of the factual aspects of the case” and Law is defined as “percentage of legal considerations”.

Category Percentage
Factual Aspects 65%
Legal Considerations 35%

Key Takeaways

  • In cases of circumstantial evidence, the absence of motive is not always a sufficient ground for acquittal.
  • The testimony of expert witnesses, such as ballistic experts, carries significant weight in determining the cause of death.
  • The conduct of the accused and any attempts to mislead investigators can be strong indicators of guilt.
See also  Supreme Court Transfers PIL on Building Concessions: Janhit Manch vs. State of Maharashtra (2017)

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence of the accused, finding no reason to interfere with the decisions of the Trial Court and the High Court. The Court concluded that the circumstances, coupled with the false claims made by the accused, led to the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and not to any hypothesis of innocence.

Category

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860
    • Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Arms Act, 1959
    • Section 25, Arms Act, 1959
    • Section 27, Arms Act, 1959
  • Criminal Law
    • Homicide
    • Filicide
    • Suicide
    • Circumstantial Evidence

FAQ

  1. What is filicide?
    Filicide is the act of a parent killing their own child.
  2. What is circumstantial evidence?
    Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact.
  3. What role does motive play in a murder trial?
    Motive is a relevant fact but not always essential, especially when there is strong circumstantial evidence.
  4. What is the significance of gunshot residue in a case involving firearms?
    Gunshot residue can provide crucial evidence about who fired a weapon and the distance from which it was fired.

Source: Subhash Aggarwal vs. The State of NCT of Delhi