Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran has held that absence of motive is not fatal to the prosecution’s case when there exists strong, convincing, and unbroken circumstantial evidence proving the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Subhash Aggarwal v. The State of NCT Of Delhi (2025).

What was the Background of Subhash Aggarwal v. The State of NCT Of Delhi (2025) Case? 

• Subhash Aggarwal was charged with the murder of his son under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and violations under Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959. 
• The incident occurred on the night of 14th/15th December 2012 at the family residence, where Aggarwal lived with his wife and three children, including the deceased who was his youngest son and only male child among five children. 
• The prosecution alleged that Aggarwal shot his son using a licensed double-barrel gun without a butt and with a shortened barrel, causing a fatal gunshot to wound to the chest. 
• The initial claim made by Aggarwal was that his son had committed suicide using a screwdriver, which was later contradicted by medical evidence showing a gunshot wound. 
• Forensic evidence revealed gunshot residue on Aggarwal's right hand (his dominant hand), and residue was also found around the entry wound on the deceased's clothing. 
• The wife (PW-3) and two daughters (PW-1 and PW-4) testified that they were sleeping in a separate room when they were awakened by Aggarwal's shouts about his son being dead. 
• A neighbor (PW-11) testified that when he arrived at the scene, Aggarwal was attempting to convince everyone that the deceased had committed suicide with a screwdriver, despite there being no blood on the implement. 
• The Trial Court convicted Aggarwal of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment, with additional sentences for offences under the Arms Act. The High Court subsequently confirmed this conviction. 
• The defence primarily argued that there was no established motive for Aggarwal to kill his only son, suggesting instead that the death was a suicide. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court held that absence of motive is not fatal to a prosecution case when strong circumstantial evidence establishes an unbroken chain leading only to the conclusion of guilt of the accused. 
• The Court observed that while motive is a relevant fact under Section 8 of the Evidence Act and constitutes an important element in circumstantial evidence cases, it becomes less significant when there is compelling direct evidence implicating the accused. 
• The Court noted 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." 
• The Court emphasized that even if there may be a very strong motive for the accused to commit a particular offence, it does not lead to a conviction by itself if the eyewitnesses are not convincing or the chain of circumstances is incomplete. 
• Conversely, the Court stated that when circumstances are convincing and provide an unbroken chain leading only to the conclusion of guilt, the total absence of a motive becomes inconsequential. 
• The Court referred to established precedent in Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar (1995), which held that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, proof of motive would "supply a link in the chain of circumstances," but absence of motive cannot be grounds to reject the prosecution case entirely. 
• The Court rejected the appellant's explanation that the gun was hidden by his children as implausible, given testimony that the weapon was in his exclusive custody and only he knew how to operate it. 
• The Court found the appellant's conduct immediately after discovering the body—falsely claiming suicide by screwdriver—to be a deliberate falsehood that strengthened the case against him. 
• The Court determined that the medical evidence showing the gunshot was fired from "close range" rather than "contact range" undermined the suicide theory. 
• The Court concluded that the circumstances formed a complete chain that led only to the hypothesis of the appellant's guilt and not to any hypothesis of innocence. 

What is Section 6 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA ) ? 

• Previously this Section was covered under Section 8 of Indian Evidence Act,1872. 
• Section 6 of the BSA establishes that facts showing or constituting motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact are themselves relevant. 
• The conduct of any party or agent to a proceeding, in reference to such proceeding or any fact in issue, is legally relevant. 
• The conduct of a person against whom an offence is the subject of proceedings is relevant if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact. 
• Both previous and subsequent conduct may be deemed legally relevant under this section. 
• "Conduct" under this section specifically excludes statements unless those statements accompany and explain acts other than statements themselves. 
• This exclusion of statements from the definition of conduct does not affect the relevancy of statements under other sections of the Act. 
• When a person's conduct is relevant, any statement made to them or in their presence and hearing that affects such conduct is also deemed relevant. 
• The section creates a legal framework for admitting evidence of motive, preparation, and conduct that might otherwise be considered too remote from the primary facts at issue. 
• Section 6 establishes a causal connection requirement between the conduct and facts in issue - the conduct must either influence or be influenced by facts in issue. 
• The section encompasses both pre-incident conduct (showing preparation or motive) and post-incident conduct (potentially showing consciousness of guilt or innocence).