Justice K. Vinod Chandran’s Verdict: Filicide or Suicide in Subhash Aggarwal

Justice K. Vinod Chandran presided over a two-judge bench that settled a sad case in which a father was found guilty of the murder of his only son. The case was known as Subhash Aggarwal v. State of the National Capital Territory of Delhi.

Using the argument that his son’s death was a suicide rather than a murder, the father filed an appeal against his life sentence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code as well as his incarceration under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

Details on the situation

During the evening of December 14–15, 2012, the accused found his youngest son bleeding inside his residence. At first, he made an effort to convince members of the family as well as a neighbor that the youngster had self-inflicted a wound with a screwdriver.

He even brandished the tool and said that it was because the boy had committed suicide. The lack of blood on the screwdriver was seen by the neighbors, and the accused could not provide any explanation that might be considered believable. Later on, forensic specialists determined that the boy had sustained a gunshot wound to the chest at a close range.

There was gunshot residue found on swabs taken from the right hand of the accused, and ballistic testing demonstrated that the weapon, which was a tiny double-barreled gun, could be controlled with one hand.

Regulations of the Law

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which stipulates that a person must serve life in jail for murder, was the primary crime. Both unauthorized ownership and use of weapons are punishable under the Arms Act, namely sections 25 and 27. According to Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, courts have the authority to examine the accused based on unfavorable evidence.

Section 8 of the Evidence Act includes a provision that considers motivation to be a significant factor, especially in situations that include circumstantial evidence. Furthermore, existing precedents require that a chain of evidence must eliminate every possibility other than guilt.

Main Concerns

The appeal brought up three fundamental questions: whether the killing may have been self-inflicted; whether the presence of gunshot residue on the accused’s hand was definitive evidence of his guilt; and whether the lack of evident motivation should have led to an acquittal in a case that was based on circumstantial evidence.

The Court’s Evaluation

In his ruling, Justice Chandran emphasized that once the trial court and the High Court have conclusively determined that there is no direct proof of suicide, the presumption must necessarily favor murder. The forensic physician stated that the wound, which was inflicted from a distance of less than one meter, perforated both the lung and the heart.

These injuries are very improbable to have been self-inflicted due to the size of the weapon and the fact that the wound was located on the chest rather than the temple. The ballistics expert certified that there was no self-injury that occurred as a result of the test fire and approved shooting from the same gun at close range.

The Importance of Circumstantial Examples

The notion that a strong chain of circumstantial evidence may even convict a defendant in the absence of eyewitness testimony was reiterated by the Supreme Court.

In this instance, the accused’s willful fabrication of a screwdriver tale, conflicting responses under Section 313, and inexplicable GSR on his dominant hand established a sequence that was unbroken and pointed entirely to guilt.

The Obligation and the Reason

Despite the fact that the Evidence Act acknowledges motivation as a fact that is significant, the courts emphasized that the lack of motive does not automatically exonerate when other factors are convincing.

Utilizing previous cases such as Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. Maharashtra, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that in situations when forensic and behavioral data are in agreement, the absence of a detectable purpose cannot be used to break the chain of proof.

The Supreme Court ultimately decided to reject the appeal because it was of the opinion that the totality of circumstantial and forensic evidence rendered any notion of suicide untenable.

The decision made by Justice Chandran exemplifies the dedication of the judicial system to adopt scientific jurisprudence and established evidence rules in the process of assessing guilt. This commitment ensures that justice is achieved even in difficult situations involving the choice between suicide and filicide.