22 April 2025 Legal Updates

  ABSENCE OF MOTIVE NO GROUND FOR ACQUITTAL WHEN THERE EXISTS STRONG CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE : SUPREME COURT  

(a) Case Name:

• Subhash Aggarwal v. The State of NCT of Delhi

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• April 17, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran

Case Summary

This appeal challenged the conviction of Subhash Aggarwal for the murder of his son under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The primary question before the Supreme Court was whether the death was a suicide or filicide (killing of one's child).

Facts

The deceased was the appellant's only son and youngest of five children. On the night of December 14-15, 2012, the family was sleeping in separate rooms. The father (appellant) discovered the body and alerted others. The mother and daughters found the deceased in a pool of blood. The appellant claimed the death was a suicide using a screwdriver. Medical examination revealed death was due to a gunshot wound to the chest.

Key Evidence

Gunshot residue was found on the appellant's right hand (he was right-handed). No blood was found on the screwdriver that the appellant claimed was used for suicide. The ballistic expert testified the shot was fired from approximately 3 feet away. The medical examiner indicated the wound was from close range (not contact range). The gun was a small double-barrel weapon without a butt that could be fired with one hand.

Analysis

1. Circumstantial Evidence:

• The Court held that the circumstances formed a complete chain pointing only to the appellant's guilt.

2. Motive:

• The Court clarified that absence of motive is not fatal to the prosecution case when the circumstantial evidence is strong enough.

3. Self-Inflicted Injury Theory:

The Court rejected this theory based on ballistic evidence and medical jurisprudence which indicates that: 

• Suicidal firearm wounds are usually contact wounds
• Chest is rarely a site for suicide (temple is more common)
• The appellant's conduct and explanations were inconsistent with a suicide theory

Ratio Decidendi

1.    When circumstantial evidence forms a complete chain leading only to the hypothesis of guilt, absence of motive is inconsequential.
2.    False explanations by the accused provide additional links in the chain of circumstantial evidence.
3.    In firearm cases, medical jurisprudence principles can help determine whether an injury is likely suicidal or homicidal.

Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding both the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court.

  DATE OF BIRTH BEING MANIPULATED TO SEEK JUVENILE STATUS': ALLAHABAD HC CALLS FOR STRICT AGE VERIFICATION IN CRIMINAL CASES AS PER S. 94 JJ ACT  

(a) Case title:

• Amarjeet Pandey v. State of UP and 3 Others

(b) Court:

• High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

(c) Bench:

• Hon'ble Justice Krishan Pahal

(d) Date of Decision:

• April 3, 2025

Facts of the Case

The FIR was filed by a complainant alleging that his 16-year-old daughter left for college on September 10, 2024, at 9:00 AM but didn't return. It was alleged that the applicant (Amarjeet Pandey) in collusion with co-accused Rikhimuni Pandey had enticed away the minor girl.The victim in her statement under Section 183 BNSS stated she was in love with the applicant, left voluntarily with him to Gujarat on his promise of marriage, and established a physical relationship with him.
In her statement under Section 180 BNSS, she claimed to be 18 years old and stated she had left home after being scolded by her parents. There was no medical evidence of injury to the victim. The applicant had been in jail since September 25, 2024, and had no prior criminal history.

Court's Reasoning

1. The Court applied the principle of "bail is the rule and jail is an exception" as emphasized in recent Supreme Court decisions including Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024).
2. The Court noted significant factors supporting bail:

• The applicant had no criminal history
• The victim claimed to be 18 years old in one statement
• The victim appeared to be a consenting party based on her Section 183 BNSS statement
• The victim had traveled willingly to Gujarat without raising alarm
• No injuries were sustained by the victim
• Despite court orders, an ossification test could not be conducted to determine the victim's actual age

3.    The Court expressed frustration with administrative failures that prevented the completion of an ossification test, noting:

• Multiple excuses about the victim's location (claimed to be in both Kolkata and Himachal Pradesh)
• Lack of radiological facilities in Ballia district
• Bureaucratic delays and what the Court termed a "red tape approach"

Court's Decision

The Court granted bail to the applicant on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions that he:

• Will not tamper with evidence
• Will remain present in person for key trial proceedings

Notable Observations

1. The Court highlighted systemic issues regarding age verification in criminal proceedings, particularly:

• Deliberate misrepresentation of dates of birth by litigants
• Police failure to properly verify age as required by Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act
• Healthcare infrastructure gaps, particularly the absence of radiologists in Ballia district

2. The Court directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Principal Secretary for Medical Health and Family Welfare, Uttar Pradesh, recommending:

• Development of stringent verification mechanisms
• Police training on proper application of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act
• Appointment of at least one radiologist in Ballia district