Gunshot Residue Found on Right Hand of Accused, Not a Coincidence: Supreme Court Upholds Father’s Conviction for Murdering Son

“Motive May Be Absent, But Circumstantial Evidence Speaks Louder”, - Supreme Court of India, in the case of Subhash Aggarwal v. State of NCT of Delhi, upheld the conviction of a father for murdering his only son, rejecting his plea of innocence based on alleged lack of motive and absence of direct evidence. Emphasizing the strength of forensic and circumstantial evidence, the Bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran held that the explanation given by the accused was "a deliberate falsehood" and that the presence of gunshot residue on his right hand was “clinching evidence” of guilt. The Court observed, “The circumstances… lead only to the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and not to any hypothesis of innocence.”

Subhash Aggarwal was tried and convicted by the Trial Court for the murder of his youngest child and only son. On the night of December 14/15, 2012, the son was found dead in the family home in Delhi with a gunshot wound to the chest. Subhash, the father, attempted to convince his family and neighbours that the death was by suicide using a screwdriver. However, as the Court noted, “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 mother and two daughters, who were asleep in another room, testified that they were woken by the father’s screams. His behavior at the scene and subsequent statements raised suspicion. The Trial Court sentenced him to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and rigorous imprisonment under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, which was upheld by the High Court. Subhash then appealed to the Supreme Court.

At the heart of the appeal was whether the prosecution had successfully proved that the death was homicidal, and whether the absence of motive was sufficient to cast doubt on the circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court held otherwise.

The accused argued that there was no direct evidence and that “he had no reason to kill his only son.” His daughters also testified that he had a good relationship with his son. Yet the Court noted, “Falsity of the assertion of suicide with a screwdriver… coupled with the falsity of the claim of forceful rubbing of a cotton with a gunshot residue particle on his hands… is another circumstance against the accused.”

Rejecting the plea that there was no motive, the Court stated, “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 Court placed particular emphasis on the scientific and forensic evidence, which included expert testimony from a ballistics expert (PW-10) and a doctor (PW-20). While the doctor distinguished between “contact range” and “close range” injuries, the ballistic expert categorically deposed, “The range of firing… was within 3 feet… from the muzzle end of the barrel.”

On the question of suicide, the Court emphasized that “self-inflicted firearm wounds are usually contact wounds,” and that “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.” Citing standard authorities like Taylor’s Medical Jurisprudence and Dr. R.M. Jhala, the Court noted that suicidal firearm injuries rarely target the chest and are more commonly inflicted at the temple or mouth.

The Court also observed the significance of the gunshot residue found on the accused’s right hand, declaring, “His explanation in the Section 313 statement… was a deliberate falsehood.” The Court found it implausible that the police planted residue only on one hand if such tampering had occurred, especially given that the accused was admittedly right-handed.

Though the investigating officer failed to submit residue analysis from the deceased’s hands, the Court held that even if gunshot residue had been found, “it would not lead to a definite conclusion of a self-inflicted injury,” because the shot was fired from close range.

Responding to the accused’s suggestion that someone else could have fired the weapon, the Court stated, “The gun was owned by the father… No such suggestion [of others having access] was made to PW-1, 3 & 4.” The attempt to later claim that the children had hidden the gun was deemed an “inconsistent and unreliable explanation.”

The Court elaborated extensively on the role of motive in cases based on circumstantial evidence. Quoting Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar, the Bench noted: “The absence of proof of motive does not render the evidence bearing on the guilt of the accused nonetheless untrustworthy or unreliable.”

It further emphasized: “Motive remains hidden in the inner recesses of the mind of the perpetrator… 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.”

In reinforcing its view, the Court quoted from Sukhpal Singh v. State of Punjab, stating: “To say that absence of motive… will irrespective of other material… be fatal to the prosecution, is far-fetched.”

The Supreme Court concluded that the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete and pointed solely to the guilt of the accused. The attempt to portray the death as suicide was ruled out on both medical and factual grounds. The attempt to explain away incriminating forensic evidence was dismissed as deceitful. The Court said:

“The explanation given by the accused… 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.”

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were affirmed.

Date of Decision: April 17, 2025