Abscondence

Abscondence alone is not a proof of guilt of an accused person.

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.

Conviction on abscondence alone cannot be sustained.

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

Unexplained noticeable abscondence of an accused deprived him some of the normal rights granted to him by procedural as well as substantive law.

Abscondence alone could not be a substitute for the direct evidence.

Abscondence of accused was a relevant factor, but alone it could not be considered a conclusive proof of a crime as the prosecution had to independently prove the charge on the basis of strong and cogent evidence to hold that the accused had committed the crime.

Abscondence by itself was not sufficient to prove guilty an accused rather it was a circumstance which could aid to favour the prosecution if the prosecution succeeded in proving through cogent and confidence inspiring evidence.

Abscondence by itself is not sufficient to prove an accused guilty rather it is a circumstance which can favour the prosecution, provided the prosecution succeeds in proving its case through confidence inspiring evidence.

Qatl-i-amd, common intention, robbery, causing disappearance of evidence, dishonestly receiving stolen property, knowingly same to be stolen, common intention, act of terrorism

Bail, refusal of

Abscondence

Effect

"Heinous crime"

Scope

Petitioner appeared before the Court when the trial of some co-accused of triple murder (including a child) had concluded

Petitioner contended that as soon as he came to know about the pendency of the case, he voluntarily surrendered himself before the Court

Validity

Petitioner remained absconder for a considerable period of time

After the incident, on the pointation of the co-accused, a raid was conducted at the house of petitioner from where valuable articles stolen from the house of the deceased persons were recovered

Crime weapon was also recovered from his house; it could not be believed that inspite of conducting a raid and search of the house, the petitioner remained oblivion of the pendency of the present case

Even proceedings under Ss.87 & 88, Cr.P.C., were initiated during which the statements of his neighbours were recorded, who had disclosed that after the incident the petitioner escaped/ shifted from his place of permanent abode

Petitioner was as if watching the proceedings and after conviction and sentencing of the co-accused, he decided to appear before the Trial Court

Story of voluntarily surrendering before the Court was not believable in circumstances

Petitioner was involved in a serious offence, which surely fell under the definition of "terrorism", as such , he was not entitled to any relief

Bail was refused to the petitioner, in circumstances.

Abscondence of accused is a relevant fact and can be used as corroborative piece of evidence but such fact cannot be read in isolation, as the same had to be read along with substantive piece of evidence.

Mere abscondence is no ground to curtail the liberty of a person.

Abscondence alone is not sufficient for awarding conviction, rather it can a circumstance that can be taken into consideration, provided the prosecution succeeds in building its case against the accused.

Abscondence alone could not be a substitute for the direct evidence.

Abscondence alone could not be a substitute of the direct evidence.

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

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

Value of abscondence depended upon the facts of each case and abscondence alone could not take the place of guilt unless and until the case was otherwise proved on the basis of cogent and reliable evidence.

Abscondence alone could not be a substitute for the direct evidence.

Abscondence of accused, although by itself was insufficient for conviction, was a strong source of corroboration for other direct and circumstantial evidence in the case.

If there was no direct evidence against an accused or the evidence produced was not reliable or trustworthy to convict a person for a capital charge, then abscondence, even if for a prolonged period, would be of no legal avail to the prosecution's case as the people did abscond whether they were charged falsely or otherwise.

Abscondence alone can not be a substitute, for the direct evidence.

Abscondence alone could not be a substitute for real evidence because people do abscond avoid duress and torture at the hands of police.

Where direct evidence fails, corroborative piece of evidence is of no avail.

Abscondence alone could not be a substitute of the direct evidence.

Absconsion alone was not sufficient to bring conviction on capital charge.

Abscondence could never be considered in isolation and was only a corroborative piece of evidence.

Name of prosecution witness had been mentioned in his statement under S. 164, Cr.P.C, after more than one month after due deliberation and consultation

No specific role of firing had been assigned to accused in causing death of the deceased

Co-accused had already been admitted to bail by Trial Court

Rule of consistency was applicable to the case

Parties were known to each other, due to previous hostility, despite that complainant had not mentioned the name of accused neither in the FIR nor in statements of prosecution witnesses recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C.

Mere abscondence of the accused could not be made ground to reject his bail application

Guilt of accused could only be proved after further enquiry

Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

Contents of letters were the most grievously blasphemous, however, whether accused authored and dispatched letters and complainant received them in the manner as alleged in crime report and whether extrajudicial confession supported by expert's report constituted sufficient evidence to hand down penalty of death, were issues altogether different

Penalty of death was irreversible and warranted caution in the highest degree, before a convict was dispatched to gallows

One weak piece of evidence could not corroborate another weak piece of evidence

Absconsion could not be viewed as a proof for the crime

People stay away from law for a verity of reasons not necessarily compatible with hypothesis of guilt, to avoid impending wrath of opponents in hostile environments, more often than not compel even the innocent into recusal of safety

Declaration of faith by accused was to be preferred over divergent imputations

Citizen regardless of religion were equal before law and were entitled to equal protection thereof and it was so guaranteed under the Constitution

Criminal charge was to be essentially settled on positive proof alone and not on perceptional or optical paradigms and the same was out of the sight

Supreme Court by extending benefit of doubt, set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused, as it was grievously unsafe to maintain the same without potential risk of error and accused was acquitted of the charge

Appeal was allowed.

Abscondence could not be a substitute for real evidence, because people do abscond though falsely charged in order to save themselves from agony of protracted trial or to be killed in retaliation.

Abscondence alone could not be a substitute for real evidence because people abscond though falsely charged in order to save themselves from agony of protracted trial and also to avoid duress and torture at the hands of police.

Record revealed that petitioner was one of the nominated accused persons who had specifically been charged for committing murder of brother of the complainant

Complainant herself sustained bullet injury on her thigh

Medico-Legal Report showed that the deceased had sustained multiple injuries on his body

Parties were known to each other, therefore, there was no chance of mis-identification

Motive as alleged in the FIR was previous blood-feud enmity between the parties

Role attributed to the co-accused, who had been granted bail, was distinguishable as he had been attributed role of abetment while role of firing at the complainant party had been attributed to the petitioner

Plea of alibi was not taken by the petitioner at the earliest

No doubt plea of alibi, like other defence plea taken at bail stage, was essentially required to be examined by the Court within a degree of care and caution but belated plea of alibi, prima facie, created an impression that the same was an afterthought, and its evidentiary value would be decided by the Trial Court after recording pro and contra evidence

In view of specific charge supported by the eye-witnesses, medical evidence and un-explained noticeable abscondence sufficiently provided reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner was guilty of an offence charged with, which fell within prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.

After completion of investigation challan had been submitted and trial was likely to commence soon

When trial was likely to commence or had begun, bail application was not to be decided on merits and the matter be left to the Trial Court so as not to prejudice case of either side

Bail was refused to the petitioner, in circumstances.

Allegation against the petitioner was that he along with his co-accused had fired at the complainant with which he was injured and later succumbed to the injuries

Petitioner contended that co-accused had been acquitted

Complainant (deceased) in his dying declaration had assigned same role of firing to both the accused i.e the petitioner and acquitted co-accused

Seven empties of .30 bore pistol were recovered from the spot which as per report of the Forensic Science Laboratory were fired from one and the same weapon

Acquitted co-accused was convicted and sentenced to death by the Additional Sessions Judge but he was acquitted of the charge in appeal by High Court

Acquittal of co-accused charged with similar and identical role in the FIR as that of the petitioner, on the same set of evidence

Case of accused/petitioner, in circumstances, was one of further inquiry, notwithstanding the fact that petitioner remained absconder for a sufficient long time

Abscondence alone would not come in the way of grant of bail

Petitioner was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

Allegation against the petitioners (two in number) was that they made firing at complainant and the deceased (brother of the complainant)

Petitioners contended that charring marks on the body of the deceased were present despite the fact that distance between accused and deceased was shown as four paces

Petitioners were arrested after more than seven years of the occurrence, as they remained absconders and were declared as proclaimed offenders

Fugitive from law lost some of the normal rights granted by the procedural and substantive law and noticeable abscondence disentitled the absconder to the concession of bail, notwithstanding the merits of the case

Contention of the petitioners regarding presence of charring marks on the body of the deceased despite the distance between accused and deceased was shown as four paces essentially touched the merits of the case

Deeper appreciation or evaluation of material at bail stage was not permissible for the grant or refusal of bail and only tentative assessment was to be made

Challan had been submitted and the trial had commenced

In such situation, when the trial was likely to commence or had begun, bail application should not be decided on merits and the matter be left to the Trial Court, so the same could not prejudice case of either side

In view of specific charge supported by the eye-witnesses, medical evidence and unexplained noticeable abscondence sufficiently provided reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners were guilty of an offence charged with, which fell within the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.

Bail was refused to the petitioners, in circumstances.

People abscond out of fear to be killed in retaliation or to avoid police torture and duress.

Qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-mudihah, house trespass in order to commit offence punishable with death, rioting, armed with deadly weapon and common intention

Ad-interim pre-arrest bail, confirmation of

Abscondence

Rule of consistency

Applicability

Delay in lodging FIR

Scope

Prosecution case against petitioner was that complainant was present in his house when he heard knocks on his door, he opened the door and the petitioner along with co-accused persons forcibly entered his house

Co-accused persons, on the lalkara raised by petitioner, made fire shots on son of complainant, who succumbed to the injuries

Plea of prosecution was that petitioner had remained absconder for a period of three years

Petitioner explained that her husband was taken into custody, therefore, she in order to save the life of her four young children including two elder daughters shifted to a safe place

Validity

Petitioner was duly named in the complaint with specific role, however, admittedly the prosecution version consisted of two versions, one contained in the crime report and the other mentioned in the complaint, as to which of the versions was true was to be decided by Trial Court after recording the prosecution evidence

Crime report was lodged with a delay of two days while complaint was lodged with a further delay of eight months

Role of raising lalkara was ascribed to petitioner and no overt act qua inflicting any injury was alleged against her

Explanation of petitioner regarding abscondence carried credence, especially after a heinous occurrence, complainant party attack the accused side in order to take revenge

Factum of absconsion, in the present case, could not be given pivotal importance

Co-accused, who was assigned direct role of inflicting injury on the person of deceased had been admitted to post arrest bail, therefore, petitioner was entitled for the concession of bail on the plea of consistency

Ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to petitioner was confirmed.

Qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-mudihah, house trespass in order to commit offence punishable with death, rioting, armed with deadly weapon and common intention

Ad-interim pre-arrest bail, confirmation of

Abscondence

Applicability

Rule of consistency

Scope

Petitioner had absconded while co-accused had secured bail after arrest

Co-accused was assigned direct role of inflicting injury on the person of deceased

Held, even if pre-arrest bail of accused was dismissed on a technical ground that it did not fulfil the obligatory requirements being extraordinary relief, then soon after the pronouncement of order by High Court, the accused would be entitled to the relief of post-arrest bail

Ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to petitioner was confirmed.

Where case for grant of bail was made out, mere absconsion would not come in the way of granting bail to accused.

Abscondence was treated as a piece of evidence against the accused, who deliberately and intentionally avoided and failed to surrender.

Abscondence could at the most be a suspicious circumstance against the accused and nothing more.

Abscondence of the accused could not rescue the prosecution when there was no other corroboratory evidence to connect the accused with the crime.

Petitioner contended that he was entitled for the concession of bail as his co-accused had already been admitted to bail

Validity

Admittedly, petitioner was directly charged in the FIR with a specific role of causing injuries to the deceased

After commission of offence, the petitioner went underground and was arrested after a period of six years

Record revealed that the petitioner had committed another offence and yet another FIR under Ss. 324 & 34, P.P.C. was registered against him

Grant of bail to the co-accused did not entitle the petitioner for concession of bail as "two wrongs do not make one right"

Prima facie case existed against the petitioner and he was not entitled to the concession of bail

Bail was refused to the petitioner, in circumstances.

Record revealed that the petitioner had not been charged in the FIR rather he had been nominated by co-accused in his statement under S.161, Cr.P.C. and by the complainant in his statement under S.164, Cr.P.C.

Complainant had , admittedly , shown four persons present in the courtyard of his house but while recording his statement under S.164, Cr.P.C., he charged six persons for the commission of offense, similarly, another co-accused had not disclosed the name of petitioner in his confessional statement regarding participation in the commission of offense

Mere abscondence was no ground to decline the bail if the accused was otherwise entitled for concession of bail

Accused had made out case for the grant of bail, in the circumstances.

Mere abs-condence in absence of unimpeachable evidence was of no value.

Mere abscondence or commencement of trial was no ground to refuse bail to the accused.

Abscondence, would not be a substitute for substantive evidence and could be used only as a corroborative piece of evidence.

Mere abscondence of accused would not be sufficient to refuse bail to him.

Allegations against accused were that of illegal gratification and pecuniary advantages, cheating and misappropriation with members of public at large

Suspension of sentence

Abscondence

Plea bargain, application for

Accused was convicted and sentenced by Trial Court for imprisonment for five years

Validity

Accused firstly entered into plea bargain agreement with NAB authorities but absconded later on

After filing of Reference, accused did not appear before Trial Court and was declared proclaimed offender

Accused was arrested and sent to judicial lock-up and then Supplementary Reference was filed

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

Accused was not entitled to be enlarged on bail merely because his co-accused was acquitted by Trial Court

Conduct of accused did not deserve him to be treated with leniency

Entering petitioner into plea bargain agreement himself with NAB authorities tantamount to admission of commission of allegations levelled against him

Accused failed to establish any malice or ill-will on the part of complainant for false implication of accused

Prima facie, there was sufficient incriminating material available on record to connect accused with commission of alleged offences

Accused had failed to make out any ground for suspension of sentence

Constitutional Petition was dismissed in circumstances.