Absconding of accused

Trial Court acquitted 7 persons of the charge while 8 were convicted out of which 6 were sentenced to death and two ladies were sentenced to imprisonment for life

Validity

Alleged absconding of accused persons after occurrence was not conclusive proof of their guilt

Trial Court convicted accused persons on the same evidence on which it had acquitted 7 co-accused persons

Neither the State nor the complainant challenged acquittal order before High Court

High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused persons as there existed no independent corroborating evidence

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

­Abscondence at the most could be taken as corroboration of the charge and not the evidence of the charge and in absence of any other corroborative evidence, that evidence, even if found convincing, would not be sufficient by itself to warrant conviction of accused.

Abscondence of accused person was not a proof of their guilt, it could, however, create suspicion against accused, but suspicions; after all, were suspicions

Disappearance of a person named as a murderer after occurrence, was but natural, whether named rightly or wrongly.

S. 8(1)(2)(3)-Subsections (2) & (3) of S. 8-Come into operation only when Government cancels lease on its own-Government not exercising its option to determine lease before its expiry-Initial liability of petitioner to pay entire contracted amount in accordance with arrangement by way of instalments, held, cannot be denied by petitioners on any basis whatsoever-Petitioners starting making default in payment of instalment, an ascertained amount due from them, petitioners liable to pay same according to agreement and could not refuse payment merely on pretext of having to claim compensation for certain days when respondents took over control of toll posts and disabled petitioner from collecting toll tax-Amount payable by petitioners, held further, an ascertained amount and recoverable from petitioners.

Absconding of accused-Gives some kind of support to another evidence strong enough to sustain conviction-Not however, effective by itself to remedy defects in evidence led to show absconding accused's participation in crime.

(b) Absconding of accused-Fact that accused absconded after murder and was arrested from a distant place-Important circumstance against accused.

Fact that accused absconded after murder and was arrested from a distant place-Important circumstance against accused.