SUBHASH AGGARWALversusTHE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

                 [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 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,
       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 had resorted to character assassination of the accused
       before the police and the Court, which alone led to the prosecution


1    ‘the I.P.C.’
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                         1323

                     Subhash Aggarwal v. The State of NCT of Delhi


       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 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, 19732 that except
       his wife all the other family members could handle and operate the
       gun, and it was kept hidden by the 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


2    ‘the Cr.P.C.’
1324                                                      [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


     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 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 14th/15th 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 brandished a screwdriver, trying to convince them
     that the death was a suicide by reason of a self-inflicted wound, with
     the 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 6th 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]
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                       1325

             Subhash Aggarwal v. The State of NCT of Delhi


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 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 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.
1326                                                      [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


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 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 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
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                              1327

             Subhash Aggarwal v. The State of NCT of Delhi


     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 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’. 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
1328                                                        [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


     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,
     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 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
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                      1329

               Subhash Aggarwal v. The State of NCT of Delhi


     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
    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.
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.


3   [2017] 3 SCR 36
4   (2004) 11 SCC 391
5   2022 SCC OnLine SC 1454
1330                                                            [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


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 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.
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


6   (2008) 16 SCC 73
7   (1953) 1 SCC 5
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                             1331

               Subhash Aggarwal v. The State of NCT of Delhi


            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 Bihar8 held that in a case based
    on circumstantial evidence, proof of motive would ‘supply a link in
    the chain of circumstances’ but all 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…..”
                                      (underlining by us for emphasis)

23. Sukhpal Singh v. State of Punjab9 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



8   (1995) Supp. 1 SCC 80
9   (2019) 15 SCC 622
1332                                                           [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


             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 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 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


10   (1984) 4 SCC 116
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                       1333

                Subhash Aggarwal v. The State of NCT of Delhi


     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.
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.
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.

     Result of the case: Appeal dismissed.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan