CASE NAME: Subhash Aggarwal v. The State of NCT of Delhi
CASE NUMBER: Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 1069 of 2025
DATE: 17 April, 2025
QUORUM: Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran
FACTS OF THE CASE
This appeal is concerned with the murder of the son of the appellant in the early morning of 15 December 2012. Subhash Aggarwal, the father, was subsequently convicted of murdering his son. The crime was committed within the family house, where Subhash cohabited with his wife and children. As per his account, he found the body of his son and asserted that the boy had murdered himself with a screwdriver.
But that cover-up fell apart upon investigation. Post-mortem indicated the boy died due to a gunshot, not a stab. There were also no traces of bloodstains on the screwdriver. An appellant-licensed firearm was retrieved. Gunpowder residue was found on his right hand after forensic analysis. On the basis of this and other circumstantial evidence, he was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. His conviction was upheld by the High Court.
Subhash moved the Supreme Court, asking whether the courts had been wrong in convicting him when there was no direct evidence and no established motive.
ISSUES
- Whether the deceased died a suicide or was killed?
- Whether the circumstantial evidence is sufficiently strong to uphold a conviction under Section 302 IPC?
- Whether the lack of motive dilutes the prosecution’s case?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 (Punishment for murder), Arms Act, 1959 – Sections 25 and 27, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313 (Statement of accused), Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 8 and 106 (Motive and burden of proof in certain circumstances)
APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS
The appellant stated that the courts were wrong to base their conclusions on circumstantial evidence alone. He insisted that he got along with his son, and there was no indication of strife. His wife and daughters agreed to this while giving evidence. The GSR discovered on his right hand was not a result of shooting a gun, according to him, but because the police forcefully applied material to his skin during questioning.
He also drew attention to the fact that though swabs had been collected from the hands of the deceased, they were never presented. In his opinion, this lost evidence might have revealed that the boy could have possibly shot himself. Subhash continued to assert that he had not fired the gun in question and that it had been concealed by the children and made available to others.
RESPONDENT CONVENTIONS
The State argued that the narrative presented by the appellant was untrue from the beginning. The theory of screwdriver was without evidence. The medical expert agreed that the death was due to a bullet wound inflicted from close range. There were no wounds typical of stabbing, and no blood on the screwdriver.
The prosecution also pointed to the fact that there was the residue of gunshot on the right hand of the appellant—his shooting hand—and that this led directly to him as the one who did the shooting. The gun employed belonged to him, and no one was proven to have used it or possessed knowledge of its use before him.
They also pointed out that motive is not required where the evidence constitutes a complete and consistent chain. The appellant’s effort to deceive his family and the police was in itself a strong proof of guilt.
ANALYSIS
The Court examined the timeline and the scientific data in detail. The ballistics and medical experts both testified that the shot originated from a close but not contact range. The direction of the bullet, being downward from the chest, made self-inflicted injury improbable. The wound was consistent with a shot from another individual.
Gunshot residue was present on the right hand alone of the accused. This was in contrast to his assertion that the residue had been planted, as fake contamination would have impacted both of his hands. His account in his Section 313 statement, such as the assertion that the gun had been concealed by the children and that he was tortured, was inconsistent and improbable.
Importantly, while the defence questioned the absence of a GSR report on the deceased, the Court observed that even if such residue had been found, it would not necessarily indicate suicide. Residue can also appear on a person shot at close range.
On the question of motive, the Court reaffirmed the rule from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra—motive is useful, but not necessary. The Court also referred to Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar, where it was held that circumstantial evidence may be conclusive even without a proved motive if it presents a consistent and complete story pointing unerringly to the accused.
Appellant’s actions shortly after the incident—attempting to give a false explanation—were considered important. His version was considered to be misleading and knowingly meant to divert attention. This together with forensic evidence, bolstered the case for the prosecution.
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court ruled that the conviction was warranted. The chain of events, though circumstantial, was strong, consistent, and raised no reasonable doubt. GSR found on the firing hand of the appellant, the fabricated explanation of suicide by screwdriver, and the medical reports were conclusive. The appeal was rejected.
CONCLUSION
This case reiterates that circumstantial evidence, if consistent and complete, is legally sufficient to convict. Although there was no direct witness and no established motive, the accused’s conduct and the forensic evidence presented a strong case for guilt. The Court’s rationale demonstrates that the law does not demand that every missing detail be filled in where the overall picture is clear.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY LALITHA SASANKA G
