New Delhi, Apr 17 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Thursday said the absence of motive cannot be the sole ground for acquittal and upheld the life imprisonment of a man convicted for killing his son in 2012.

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran rejected as “puerile” the fervent argument of the man about the impossibility of a father killing his only son.

The top court said another compelling argument of the appellant was about the absence of a motive to kill his son.

“Just as a strong motive does not by itself result in a conviction, the absence of motive on that sole ground cannot result in an acquittal,” the bench held.

The verdict came on the appeal of the man challenging the Delhi High Court’s August 2022 judgement, which confirmed the man’s conviction and sentencing of life imprisonment by the trial court.

While referring to the top court’s judgements, the bench observed if the case was built solely upon circumstantial evidence, absence of a motive would be a factor weighing in favour of the accused.

“When the eyewitnesses are not convincing, a strong motive cannot by itself result in conviction, likewise when the circumstances are very convincing and provide an unbroken chain leading only to the conclusion of guilt of the accused and not to any other hypothesis, the total absence of a motive will be of no consequence,” the bench said.

Motive, the court pointed out, 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 court noted, the complete absence of motive would weigh in favour of the accused, it couldn’t be declared as a “general proposition of universal application” that in the absence of a motive, the entire circumstances should be ignored to acquit the accused.

It came on record that the family comprised the convict, his wife and five children.

The prosecution alleged during the intervening night of December 14-15, 2012, when the wife and their two daughters woke up to the man screaming his son was no more.

The appellant allegedly tried to convince his family members that the death was a suicide by reason of a self-inflicted wound with a screwdriver.

During investigation, it was found that the death was due to firearm injury caused by a bullet fired from close range.

While dismissing the appeal, the bench said it would not interfere with the conviction and sentence of the appellant. PTI ABA ABA AMK AMK