Abscondance of accused

Qatl-i-amd, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly, abetment

Bail, refusal of

Rule of consistency

Abscondance of accused

Inhuman nature of the accused

Petitioner was nominated through supplementary statement; and specific role of firing upon the deceased was attributed to him

Contention of the petitioner/accused was that other accused persons had already been granted bail

Validity

Record showed that the mother of the deceased had also charged the petitioner in her statement recorded under S. 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898

Record also revealed that previously the petitioner had been charged in cases of similar nature and in one such (murder) case the very deceased was the complainant in which attempt on his (deceased's) life was also alleged

Record (recovery of two empties from the spot, FSL report with regard to blood stained earth, post-mortem report etc.) in the present case, for being linked in a chain, prima facie, connected the petitioner with the commission of the offence

Role of firing having been attributed to the petitioner was quite different from those accused who had been enlarged on bail, thus rule of consistency was not attracted to the petitioner

Besides, the petitioner had absconded in the present case and proceedings under Ss. 87 & 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, had been completed against him

Punishment provided for the offence fell within the prohibitory clause of S. 497 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898

Prosecution, while furnishing number of FIRs against the petitioner, had submitted/stated about him to be a hardened, desperate and dangerous criminal

On account of inhuman and blood thirsty nature of the petitioner, the victims of his atrocities were scared and rarely charged him for cases like the present one

All probabilities with particular involvement of the petitioner in the present case disentitled him for grant of bail

Bail was declined to the petitioner, in circumstances.

Whenever absconding accused appeared before Trial Court and had offered some explanation and gave assurance to face trial, Trial Court was not to be languid in restoring his financial resources especially his salary and Bank accounts

Every possible effort was to be made by Trial Court as well as by police to procure appearance of an absconding accused before Trial Court

Anxiety of petitioner was that accused persons nominated in his FIR were at large and neither they were arrested by police nor did they surrender themselves before Trial Court

Police was trying diligently for arrest of accused nominated in FIR lodged by petitioner

High Court directed Station House Officer concerned to pace up his efforts while Trial Court was required to do needful in such respect

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Absconsion was not a substantive piece of evidence, but a corroborative one.

Complainant had alleged that accused, armed with deadly weapon, came at the place of occurrence and started firing resultantly complainant received injury on left hand

Motive was domestic dispute with brother of complainant

Discharge summary of Medical Expert revealed that there was fracture of left thumb which alleged to be a firearm injury

Occurrence was without intervention of third person, meaning thereby that complainant was at the mercy of accused

When alleged occurrence viewed in such a context and background the question whether accused intended to kill complainant required further inquiry

No expert opinion regarding nature of injury i.e. simple or grievous was available on record

Basic punishment in view of medical report for alleged offence was either arsh or daman and sentence of imprisonment was only discretionary

Case of accused being that of further inquiry into his guilt, bail would be allowed to accused as of right and such right could not be refused merely on account of alleged abscondance which was a factor only relevant to propriety

Bail was granted accordingly.

When, ocular account was disbelieved, then any circumstantial evidence in the shape of recoveries or abscondence of accused would loose their efficacy for recording conviction of the accused.

Rape, assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty, lurking house trespass or house breaking by night in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment, attempted to commit offence punishable with imprisonment

Appreciation of evidence

Abscondance of accused

Proof

Record showed that accused remained absconder for more than two years but no report of process server about proclamation was available nor the same was tendered in evidence by the prosecution

Allegation of abscondence of the accused remained unsubstantiated in circumstances.

Common perception was that when a person was named as a murderer, whether rightly or wrongly, he usually made himself scarce, thus absconsion was not a conclusive proof of the guilt of accused.

Such a long absconsion would certainly go a long way to corroborate and strengthen the truth of prosecution version and also indicated the guilt of accused.

Abscondance of accused could never remedy the defects of prosecution case neither it was necessarily indicative of guilt, however, long and unjustified abscondance without any explanation could be taken as a corroboratory evidence.

Such a long unexplained abscondance of the accused was a corroboratory factor, which could not be ignored as the same had indicated the guilt of accused

Appeal against the conviction was dismissed.

Prosecution story was that accused party attacked the complainant party, murdered the deceased and injured the prosecution witness

Occurrence took place in the year 2010

Accused was arrested in the case during the year 2014

Defence had failed to furnish any plausible explanation for such long absconsion of accused

Abscondance of accused, soon after the occurrence, for considerable long time was another significant incriminating piece of evidence against him

Appeal against the conviction was dismissed.

Abscondance of accused could be taken as corroborative piece of evidence in presence of ocular account and other evidence

Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.

Abscondance of accused by itself was no ground for refusal of bail, if otherwise, case of accused was of further inquiry.

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed.

Mere absconscion of accused would not be a substitute for real, concrete and worth reliable evidence, which the prosecution must produce in order to bring home guilt to accused

Accused persons, in circumstances were acquitted by setting aside conviction and sentences recorded by Trial Court.

Mere abscondance of accused would not be sufficient for refusal of bail, if otherwise on merits case of bail had been made out.

Neither abscondence alone was sufficient to record conviction of accused nor could be considered as substitute for ocular evidence

Accused persons were acquitted in circumstances by setting aside conviction and sentences recorded by Trial Court.

Factum of abscondance, even if established, could only be used as corroborative evidence and was not substantive piece of evidence.

Said abscondance of accused had provided corroboration to the prosecution in the case, which had led the court to an irresistible conclusion

Appeal against conviction was dismissed.

Abscondance, could not be taken as a proof of guilt, if otherwise sufficient connecting evidence against accused, was not available

Abscondance would create a suspicion in mind, but same was not a conclusive proof of guilt.

Abscondance of accused by itself was not sufficient to prove the guilt of the absconder.

Factum of abscondence, even if established, could only be used as corroborative evidence and was not substantive piece of evidence

Mere absconsion was not a proof of guilt of an accused

Accused persons were acquitted in circumstances by setting aside conviction and sentences recorded by Trial Court.

Accused had shown his bona fides by surrendering before High Court and only sought protection so that his right to approach competent Court or access to justice be ensured

Effect

Abscondance of accused was not unexplained and such factor would be considered by competent Court to which access was being sought by accused

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Abscondence, by itself, was not sufficient to sustain conviction and was always considered a factor between guilt and innocence.

Abscondance of accused, was merely a corroborative/supportive piece of evidence; and relevant only when the primary evidence would inspire confidence.

Petitioner surety after service of notice under S. 514, Cr.P.C., put in appearance before Trial Court, engaged counsel and sought time for filing of reply

Time was granted to petitioner but instead of filing reply to notice under S. 514, Cr.P.C., petitioner also deserted away

Petitioner appeared before Trial Court later on and again kept on seeking time to submit reply with the explanation that accused had already been murdered

High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Trial Court

Revision was dismissed under circumstances.

Co-­accused had already been acquitted by Trial Court and allegations levelled against accused were yet to be determined at trial

Tentative assessment was to be made and no deeper appreciation was required at bail stage

No incriminating articles had been recovered from the possession or on pointation of accused

Bail could not be refused only on ground of abscondence

Bail was granted in circumstances.