Recently, the Supreme Court on 17 April 2025 dismissed a Criminal appeal filed by the appellant, who was convicted for murdering of his son. Absence of Motive Cannot ground for acquittal.

Absence of Motive Cannot Ground For Acquittal : Circumstantial Evidence

The Supreme Court observed that if the case is based on circumstantial evidence only, the absence of motive will be a factor that will weigh in favour of the accused. Just a strong motive by itself does not result in a conviction, absence of motive on sole ground cannot result in an acquittal.

The Supreme Court has reiterated that absence of motive alone cannot be a ground for acquittal especially when there is strong circumstantial or direct evidence against the accused to prove guilt.

The Court upheld the decision of the Trail Court and confirmed by the High Court, in which the appellant was convicted and sentenced for killing of his son punishable under section 302 IPC.

Brief Facts

The Brief facts of the case is that the appellant/father filed a Criminal Appeal against the judgment and order passed by High Court by which the High Court confirmed the trial Court’s judgment wherein the appellant was tried and convicted for the murder of his son Punishable under section 302 IPC read with section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and The Trail Court sentenced the accused to imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment respectively of one year and seven year for offences under section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, besides a fine a Rs. 1,000/- with default sentence, confirmed by the High Court.

Read Also: Satendra Kumar Antil vs CBI

The accused convicted was based on circumstantial evidence, in fact the appellant is right handed and gunshot residue was found only on the swab taken from his right hand. Initially, they claimed their son had stabbed himself with screwdriver, a report not supported by the Doctor and the ballistic expert. The medical report was found dead with a gunshot wound to the chest. Though the doctor did not give a definite opinion on whether the wound was homicide or not, no questions were asked to the ballistic expert.

The High Court upheld the conviction, relying on forensic findings and doctor’s opinion.

Contentions of the Appellant

The Learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that there is no direct material evidence, and the circumstances attempted to be proved by the prosecution fail to directly convict the accused. The deceased was the only son of the accused and there was no motive to support the accusation of murder, even the allegation was not made.

In Cross-Examination, the wife (PW-3) of the accused stated that the accused is an innocent person and maintained a very good relationship with his son. (PW-1) his daughter also stated that just before the incident she saw the accused sleeping peacefully in his room. There is no such motive or incident due to which the accused killed his son.

Further, the learned counsel of the appellant stated that there was no definite opinion of the death being homicide. The doctor examined as PW- 20 refused to give any definite opinion on the cause of death and even the ballistic expert was not able to give any definite opinion. There is no report or evidence regarding the analysis made.

The statement of the accused/appellant under section 313 CrPC has clarified that all other members of the family except his wife could handle and operate the gun and it was kept hidden by the children.

Contentions of the Respondent/State

The Leaned Counsel for the Respondent/State argued that there is strong evidence against the accused. The accused was the person who first saw the dead body and he tried to convince the family and neighbours who came to the spot that his son has killed himself with a screwdriver. There was no blood stain on the screwdriver. PW-11, the neighbour who was summoned to his house, testified that when he asked the accused about the fact of no blood marks on the screwdriver, the accused had no explanation.

The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the incident clearly shows that the death was a homicide and there is no reasonable excuse for suicide as the ballistic report PW-10 has clearly testified. If there are very strong circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused and the evidence of the family members clearly shows that the behavior of the accused was wrong and he did not maintain good relations with the wife and children, then motive is not necessary. Absence of motive is not ground for the acquittal.

Absence of Motive Cannot Ground For Acquittal : Circumstantial Evidence

Court’s Reasoning

After the considering the submissions, the Supreme Court referred decisions in case of Jan Mohammad vs. State of Bihar SCC the court held that “in a case where there is direct evidence against 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.”

Suresh Chandra Bihari vs. State of Bihar SCC 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, the court further stated that absence of motive cannot be a ground to altogether reject the prosecution case.

The appellant relied upon the judgment in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra.

In the present case the Supreme Court observed that “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.”

The Court also considering the ballistic evidence held that the medical report was found dead with a gunshot wound to the chest. Though the doctor did not give a definite opinion on whether the wound was homicide or not, no questions were asked to the ballistic expert.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court in the matter of Subhash Aggrawal vs. The State of NCT of Delhi decision on 17 April 2025 held that absence of motive alone cannot be a ground for acquittal especially when there is strong circumstantial or direct evidence against the accused to prove guilt.

That lack of motive would not be fatal to the prosecution’s case if there is strong circumstantial evidence proving the guilt of the accused beyond doubt.

Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed and upheld the conviction.

Case Cited: - Subhash Aggrawal vs. The State of NCT of Delhi

High Court Duty to Examine Under Section 313 CrPC

Absence of Motive Cannot Ground For Acquittal : Circumstantial Evidence