Abscondence of accused

Mere abscondence of an accused by itself is no ground to refuse bail to him if otherwise he is entitled to the said relief on merits.

Abscondence of an accused can be used as a corroborative piece of evidence, which cannot be read in isolation but it has to be read along with the substantive pieces of evidence.

Person who is named in a murder case, rightly or wrongly, if he becomes fugitive from law, his conduct is natural.

Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused persons committed murder of the two sons of complainant and also injured him by firing

Record showed that the incident occurred way back in the year 2008, whereas, the accused had been arrested, on 20.07.2018 and that he failed to explain his long absence from the law enforcement agency

However, abscondence alone was not sufficient to convict, rather the prosecution must come with strong evidence in support of its claim and in such eventuality abscondence was a factor which could be taken into consideration

Witnesses failed to convince their presence on the spot and convince the manner in which the incident occurred, so in the attending circumstances of the case the long abscondence on part of the accused was hardly a ground to be pressed into service

Circumstances established that the prosecution failed in bringing home guilt against the accused

Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly.

Abscondence is always considered as corroborative evidence, though not a sole reason to convict the accused.

Though warrants of arrest and proclamations were tendered in the evidence and also put to the accused persons for their response in statement under S.342, Cr.P.C., yet process server did not appear in the dock in support of such evidence

Contrary to above fact, Police Constable appeared and deposed that on 06.02.2001, warrants of arrest against accused persons were handed over to him for execution and similarly the proclamations on 27.02.2001; he submitted his reports in that respect

Thus, prosecution had succeeded to prove the observance of legal process and resultant willful abscondence of the accused persons

Appeal against conviction was accordingly dismissed, in circumstances.

Accused was charged that he and co-accused made firing upon the complainant, who was hit and injured, on the following day injured succumbed to the injuries

Allegedly, soon after commission of the offence accused remained absconder for long unexplained period

High Court observed that, true that long unexplained abscondence weighed against the accused, but it never absolved the prosecution of the liability to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt

If prosecution had proved its case through disinterested and convincing evidence then the abscondence was taken and considered as a corroborative piece of evidence

In the present case, the prosecution could not succeed in proving its case against the accused

Abscondence alone played no role in circumstances

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

If ocular account and other circumstantial evidence on record was disbelieved, accused could not be convicted on the sole ground that he remained absconder.

Mere abscondence of the accused could not be taken into consideration to record conviction.

Abscondence of accused alone could not lead to his conviction unless corroborated by other incriminating evidence against him.

Abscondence could neither cure the inherent defect of the ocular account nor by itself was sufficient to sustain conviction.

Petitioner contended that cross-version of the occurrence had been registered to the effect that beating and fists and kicks were given to him in the occurrence

Complainant had lodged FIR on the same day within two hours meaning thereby that there was no chance of consultation and deliberation

Forensic Science Laboratory report showed that all crime empties, four in number, were fired from one and the same weapon

Occurrence had taken place in the daylight and both parties were known to each other, therefore, misidentification was not possible

Plea of alleged cross-version invariably carried phenomenon of self-defence but record showed as to who had aggressed and who had acted in self-defence

Prosecution evidence, in the present case, prima facie connected the petitioner with commission of crime

Petitioner himself had admitted the occurrence by taking plea of cross-version then mere cross FIR by petitioner would not be considered as licence for grant of bail, particularly in view of prevailing law and order situation in the society

Accused of every cross-case could not claim bail as a matter of right, rather facts of every cross case were to be tentatively assessed

Petitioner remained absconder for one year and six months for which no explanation had been furnished

Record showed that trial had commenced so at bail stage any expression on merits would cause prejudice to either party

Bail was refused to petitioner, in circumstances.

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault or use of criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, obstructing public servant, mischief, terrorism

Bail, grant of

Further inquiry

Abscondence of accused

Effect

Petitioner and one co-accused allegedly made firing upon the police party which was chasing them, one police official sustained fire-arm injuries and police mobile was also damaged in the incident

Co-accused was sentenced while petitioner absconded

Validity

No specific role had been attributed to the petitioner and there were collective allegations in the FIR

Name of the petitioner had been disclosed by the co-accused, who was allegedly apprehended by the police at the place of occurrence

No identification parade of the petitioner was got conducted by the Investigation Officer after his arrest

Petitioner was in custody for the last 17 months

Prosecution had examined only one witness yet and there was no probability for the conclusion of the trial in a near future

No other case was pending against the petitioner

Case of the accused called for further inquiry into his guilt and bail could be allowed to him as a right as his abscondence would not affect his such right

Bail was granted to the accused.

Mere abscondence of the accused would not improve the prosecution case, if from other independent evidence, the prosecution case was not proved.

Abscondence of accused by itself, was not sufficient to convict him, but it was a strong piece of corroborative evidence, if there existed some other direct or circumstantial evidence in the case.

Abscondence could neither cure the inherent defect of the ocular account nor by itself was sufficient for sustaining of conviction

Accused was acquitted by setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court.

Abscondence by itself could not be a substitute of evidence; it was a circumstance which was always taken in a criminal case as corroboration towards the guilt and not as proof of the guilt.

Mere abscondence of accused, would not be enough to sustain his conviction.

Mere absconsion, without cogent proof of the commission of an offence, was not ground at all for conviction of an accused

Abscondence, at the most could be taken as a corroborative of the charge, and not evidence of the charge in case of absence of any other corroborative evidence

Said evidence, even if found convincing, would not be sufficient by itself to warrant conviction of accused on a charge of murder.

Mere abscondence of accused, would not be enough to sustain his conviction.

Absconsion of accused could be consistent with the guilt or innocence of accused, which was to be decided keeping in view over all facts of the case

Mere abscondence of accused, could not be made the basis for his conviction as accused could run away due to fear for suspicious circumstances

Abscondence, though was a relevant fact, but it could be used as corroborative piece of evidence, which could not be read in isolation, but had to be read along with substantive piece of evidence.

Abscondence, could be used only as a corroborative piece of evidence, which could not be read in isolation, but it had to be read along with substantive piece of evidence.

Abscondence, no doubt was mere piece of circumstantial evidence but it could be taken into consideration as an additional circumstance, when otherwise the prosecution had proved its case through cogent and confidence inspiring evidence.

Abscondence of accused alone was not sufficient to record conviction, and it could be used only as a corroboratory and confirmatory in support of ocular account, but when the ocular account and dying declaration were disbelieved, then it was of a very little value for court for consideration.

Prosecution could not seek support from factum of abscondence of accused, when eye-witnesses had not established their presence at the spot, and their testimony had been disbelieved being pregnant with doubts, and suffering from material contradictions

Mere absconsion, was not a conclusive proof of guilt of accused, but was only a suspicious circumstance against accused, that he was found guilty of the offence

Suspicions could not take the place of proof

Value of abscondence, would depend on the facts of each case

Absconsion of accused, could be consistent with the guilt or innocence of accused, which was to be decided keeping in view over all facts of the case

Mere abscondence of accused could not be made the basis for his conviction as accused could run away due to fear or suspicious circumstances

Abscondence, no doubt was a relevant fact, but it could be used as a corroborative piece of evidence, which could not be read in isolation, and it had to be read along with substantive piece of evidence.

Abscondence, alone, could not be a substitute for real evidence and would be of no avail to prosecution, in absence of any other evidence against absconding accused

Mere abscondence of accused, would not be enough to sustain his conviction.

Abscondence by itself would be of no avail to prosecution in absence of any other evidence against the absconded accused

Mere abscondence of accused, would not be enough to sustain his conviction.

Mere absconsion was not a conclusive proof of guilt of accused person; it was only a suspicious circumstance against an accused that he was found guilty of the offence

Abscondence could not take the place of proof

Absconsion of accused, could be consistent with the guilt or innocence of accused, which was to be decided keeping in view over-all facts of the case

Mere absconsion of accused, could not be made the basis for conviction.

Mere abscondence of accused, would not be enough to sustain his conviction.

Absconsion of accused could be consistent with the guilt or innocence of accused, which was to be decided keeping in view over all facts of the case

Abscondence, though was a relevant fact, but it could be used as a corroborative piece of evidence, which could not be read in isolation, but had to be read along with substantive piece of evidence.

Abscondence of accused would not adversely affect the outcome of his bail petition if sufficient reasons existed to believe that his case called for further inquiry into his guilt within the scope of S.497(2), Cr.P.C.

Abscondence of an accused was not conclusive by itself to establish his guilt; and its probative value would depend on the facts and circumstances of each particular case, yet same was universally admitted as evidence of guilt of accused.

Accused and co-accused persons allegedly made indiscriminate firing upon the complainant party which resulted in death of one person

Plea of accused that a cross case had also been registered against the complainant party, and all the accused in the cross case had been released on bail, therefore same relief should also be given to him

Validity

Accused was directly charged in the F.I.R. for firing upon the complainant party

As per investigation report, accused absconded after the incident and remained absconder for a sufficient period of time

Occurrence took place in broad-daylight

Ocular evidence, post-mortem report of deceased and other material available on record supported version of complainant

Mere filing of cross-case against each other could not be considered a good ground for release of accused on bail, unless an element of genuineness was present

Time and place of occurrence in both (F.I.Rs.) were different

Case against accused fell within the prohibitory clause of S. 497(1), Cr.P.C.

Bail petition was dismissed accordingly.

Any person who thwarts investigation and remains fugitive from the law and courts loses, some of the normal rights granted by procedural as well as substantive law.

No doubt, abscondence of accused, itself was not sufficient to prove the guilt of absconder, but it could provide corroboration to the other evidence, and circumstances of the case proving his guilty conscious

Abscondence of an accused, would be taken as a corroborative piece of evidence in presence of convincing and unchallenged prosecution evidence.

Factum of abscondence posed no threat to the plea of accused for bail, if there existed sufficient reasons to believe that his case called for further probe into his guilt.

Abscondence, per se, is not a proof of the guilt of an accused, which however can create a suspicion against him, but suspicion however strong cannot take the place of proof required for punishment of accused

Evidence of abscondence, even if found convincing, would not be sufficient by itself to warrant conviction on a charge of murder.

Abscon-dence, per se was not sufficient to prove the guilt of accused, in absence of any other direct or strong circumstantial evidence against accused.

Allegation of abscondence of accused does not impede the acceptance of his bail application, if his case calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the meaning of S.497(2), Cr.P.C.

Accused could not be refused bail on the ground that he remained fugitive from law, when he otherwise succeeded in establishing that his case fell under S.497(2), Cr.P.C.

Abscondence of accused by itself would not be sufficient to suggest his culpability, but same could be taken into consideration as a corroborative factor, when the prosecution had been able to establish his case by convincing evidence.

Abscondence of accused would not come in the way of grant of bail if he had a good case for grant of bail on merits.

Mere abscondence of accused for a short period was not sufficient to disentitle them from concession of bail, when otherwise they were entitled for bail.

Where accused was entitled to bail on merits, his mere abscondence would not come in his way.

Though abscondence of an accused could not be considered as sufficient to base conviction, but if other sufficient evidence was available against accused, then abscondence would also work as a corroborative piece of evidence.