Supreme Court Affirms Life Sentence Despite Absence of Motive

The Supreme Court upheld the life sentence of a man convicted of killing his son in 2012, rejecting the argument that the absence of motive should lead to acquittal. The bench emphasized that motive, often concealed, is not always necessary for conviction if circumstantial evidence is strong and compelling.

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the life imprisonment of a man convicted of killing his son, stressing that the absence of motive isn't enough for acquittal.

The court rejected the argument that a father couldn't kill his only son, declaring this perspective as 'puerile.' The bench noted that while motive remains a significant factor, its absence doesn't automatically lead to an acquittal if the circumstantial evidence is powerful and undisputed.

This decision came after the man's appeal against the Delhi High Court's 2022 ruling, which confirmed his life sentence. Although circumstantial cases often consider a lack of motive, the court warned against adopting it as a universal rule to ignore compelling evidence.

(With inputs from agencies.)