Absconsion

When a person is named as a murderer in a case, whether rightly or wrongly, he usually becomes scared and tries to conceal himself in order to avoid possible police torture and detention, therefore, mere abscondence of an accused by itself is not sufficient to maintain his conviction and sentence in absence of other reliable evidence.

Mere abscondence of an accused by itself is not sufficient to maintain his conviction and sentence in absence of other reliable evidence.

Abscondence per se is not a proof of the guilt of an accused person but it can be taken as corroborative piece of evidence

In absence of trustworthy and confidence inspiring substantive incriminating evidence, conviction cannot be solely based upon abscondence of an accused.

Accused was convicted by Trial Court for qatl-i-amd and was sentenced to death but High Court converted death sentence into imprisonment for life

Validity

Mere absconsion cannot by itself form sole basis of conviction

Absconsion may be treated as a corroborative piece of evidence, but it cannot be read in isolation, nor can it compensate for inherent defects and shortcomings in prosecution's case

Post-mortem report merely confirms cause of death, nature of injuries, and kind of weapon used but does not, in any matter, establish identity of assailant

Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused, as the prosecution had failed to establish charge against him beyond reasonable doubt

Accused was acquitted of the charge

Appeal was allowed.

Abscondence alone is not sufficient to record conviction on a capital charge and it can only be used as a corroboratory and confirmatory in support of ocular account

Abscondence of the accused may be relevant qua the guilt or innocence of accused, which is to be decided keeping in view overall facts of the case.

Absconsion creates a mere suspicion in the mind, but the same is not conclusive proof of guilt.

Mere absconsion of the accused is no ground to convict him if the prosecution fails to prove its case against the accused.

Factum of abscondence can only be used as corroborative evidence and is not substantive.

Factum of remaining a fugitive from law for a considerable period, even if established, can only be used as corroborative evidence and is not substantive

Mere absconsion is not proof of guilt of an accused.

Neither injury statement of alleged injured was prepared nor there was any medical report about his alleged firearm injury

No recovery of firearm was effected from petitioner/accused during investigation

Investigation was complete, challan had been submitted and trial had commenced

Charge was read over to accused persons by Trial Court but so far statements of prosecution witnesses had not been recorded at trial

Co-accused had already been granted post-arrest bail by the Supreme Court

On tentative assessment of material available on record case against petitioner/accused fell within the ambit of further inquiry

On the basis of rule of consistency petitioner accused was also entitled for grant of post-arrest bail

Mere absconsion of petitioner accused for almost seven months could not be made a basis to refuse him post-arrest bail

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and bail was allowed.

Absconsion of an accused, being a relevant fact, can be used as a corroborative piece of evidence but cannot be read in isolation and has to be read along with the substantive pieces of evidence

Abscondence can never remedy the defects in the prosecution case as it is not necessarily indicative of guilt

Moreover, abscondence is never sufficient by itself to prove the guilt.

Abscondance is not a substantive piece of evidence, rather it is a circumstance which can only be taken into consideration, provided the prosecution nearly succeeds in bringing home guilt against the accused charged.

Absconsion by itself cannot be held sufficient for recording conviction on a capital charge, but when other reliable evidence is available with the prosecution, then a prolonged unexplained absconsion may safely be taken into account as a corroboratory piece of evidence against the accused.

Mere absconsion is not sufficient by itself to remedy the defects in evidence led to show absconding accused's participation in the crime.

No doubt absconson is not a conclusive proof of guilt of an accused but at the same time it can not be overlooked when the evidence available on record suggests that the accused has deliberately and intentionally avoided to face the trial due to his guilty conscience.

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 pieces of evidence.

Mere absconsion is no proof of guilt.

Probative value of the abscondence depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, having regard to the fact that it could be consistent with either guilt or innocence of the accused, as some times persons despite being absolutely innocent remain in hiding which could not be the proof of their guilt

Abscondence is of course a corroborative circumstance and gave some kind of support to the other evidence strong enough to sustain the charge

Thus, the abscondence by itself is not sufficient to bring home guilt of the accused

Moreover, if ocular evidence is disbelieved then abscondence alone does not play any role in conviction of an accused person because it is held to be weakest type of corroboratory evidence.

Absconsion cannot be viewed as a proof for the offence and the same alone cannot be made a ground to discard the relief sought for.

Whatever the merits are, his case can only be considered after his surrender to lawful authority.

Absconsion by itself is not sufficient to declare a person offender but such evidence may be used for the purpose of corroborating other evidence of the prosecution.

30 empties of 7.62 bore were retrieved from the spot which as per the report of Forensic Laboratory had been fired from different weapons

Given the fact that the accused along with his co-accused had been directly nominated by the complainant for firing at his deceased brother with their respective firearms with which he sustained multiple firearm injuries and died on the spot, coupled with the report of Forensic Laboratory pointing towards the involvement of more than one accused in the commission of offence, the accused was prima facie connected with the commission of offence attracting prohibitory limb of S. 497, Cr.P.C.

Argument that co-accused with a similar role of firing at the deceased had been acquitted by the Trial Court carried little weight

While co-accused had faced trial, the accused had preferred to abscond and had surrendered barely a month after the acquittal of his co-accused

Moreover, the other co-accused was still fugitive from law

Bail application was dismissed, in circumstances.

Absconsion alone is not sufficient to record conviction on a capital charge and it can be used only as a corroboratory and confirmatory in support of ocular account

Absconsion of the accused may be relevant qua the guilt or innocence of accused, which is to be decided keeping in view overall facts of the case.

Deficiencies arising from the contents of arrest warrant and proclamation as well as failure of prosecution to prove their execution left

Such documents nothing but simple stray piece of papers having no legal consequences.

Mere absconsion of accused was not a conclusive proof of his guilt and it is only a suspicious circumstance against the accused that he was found guilty of the offence

Suspicions after all were suspicions and the same could not be given the place of proof

Value of absconsion always depended on the facts of each case

Absconsion of the accused might be consistent with his guilt or innocence, which was to be decided keeping in view overall facts of the case.

Qatl-i-amd, mischief committed after preparation made for causing death or hurt, abetment, rioting, armed with deadly weapon, common object

Bail, grant of

Old age of accused

Absconsion

Plea of alibi

Scope

Allegation against accused was that he along with co-accused while armed with firearms committed the murder of the brother of complainant

Accused was an old man of 79 years of age

Investigation revealed that the accused was not in Pakistan on the day of occurrence

Nothing was recovered at the instance of accused during his physical custody with the investigation agency

Absconsion of accused was not sufficient to disentitle him to the grant of post-arrest bail

Accused was admitted to post-arrest bail, in circumstances.

Fugitive from law loses some of the normal rights granted by the procedural and substantive law and noticeable abscondence disentitles the absconder from the concession of bail notwithstanding merits of the case

If a person absconds from law and remains a fugitive then a negative inference can be made against him, unless his abscondence is explained.

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting, armed with deadly weapon, abetment, dishonest misappropriation of property possessed by deceased person at the time of his death, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, act of terrorism

Bail, refusal of

Absconsion

Desperate and hardened criminal

Scope

Prosecution case was that the accused along with others attacked upon the complainant party when they were on a routine election expedition to visit other party workers at different polling stations

Accused was named with a specific role

Eleven persons had lost their lives on the spot while one succumbed to injuries during treatment

Some policemen were available with the complainant party to provide protection but the attackers had come to the scene of the incident with such planning that even they could not retaliate and also lost their lives

Accused had remained fugitive from law and had not voluntarily surrendered

When the allegation levelled against the accused was viewed in the backdrop of his fugitiveness, it became evident that he was a desperate criminal, who had taken part in the alleged incident without any personal motive

Firing upon the opponent on the day of election with an intention to kill the rivals and to prevent the general public to use their right of franchise was an act of terrorism

Accused was not entitled for bail, as such, his bail plea was declined, in circumstances.

Offences falling under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, were non-bailable, law did not allow bail to accused as of right

Reasonable grounds were available on record for believing that the accused had committed the alleged offence

No mala fide on the part of the complainant and Investigating Officer was brought on record

Bail applications were dismissed.

Bail can be granted if an accused has a good case for bail on merits and mere absconsion would not come in the way while granting bail.

Fugitive to law and trial dis-entitles himself from some of the concessions, which otherwise are available to him.

Absconsion cannot be viewed as a proof for the offence, and cannot be made basis for conviction, rather it is the prosecution which has to prove its case independently without any reasonable shadow of doubt.

If the prosecution failed to bring home guilt of an accused through confidence inspiring, trustworthy and reliable evidence, it could not take benefit of absconsion.

However, suspicions after all were suspicions, the same could not take the place of proof, the value of absoncion, therefore, depended on the facts of each case.

Abscondence alone could not sustain conviction.

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

If the ocular account is disbelieved then absconsion is of a very little value for Court for consideration.

Absconsion was only a suspicious circumstance against the accused that he was under the guilty conscious.

Mere abscondance of accused, in absence of any other evidence against him, could not be considered enough to sustain his conviction.

Accused sought release on bail in an FIR registered under S. 489-F, P.P.C. claiming that he had no concern with the complainant party

Record reflected that after lodging of FIR, the complainant had remained absconder for about 8 years

Had the accused been innocent he should have joined the trial but he had chosen to become fugitive from law, hence, he was not entitled for any relief

Claim of the complainant was found supported by the statements of prosecution witnesses recorded under S. 161, Cr.P.C. as well as the subject bounced cheque, which was in possession of the Investigating Officer

Accused had failed to establish his case within the purview of subsection (2) of S. 497, Cr.P.C. and appeared to be prima facie involved in the commission of offence

Application was dismissed, in circumstances.

Nothing exists in the Constitution or the Rules to compel the Court to decide on merits an appeal filed by an accused person who has chosen to be fugitive from justice and while remaining so decides to disobey or frustrate the orders, directions and process of the Court from which he seeks justice.

Where the petitioner, as a fugitive from justice, presented himself before an attorney and signs a power of attorney in his favour for the presentation to the Court a petition for special leave to appeal and the same is duly filed, in such an eventuality, the court would not act in aid of a person who is a fugitive from justice and the petition was to be dismissed.

Unexplained notice-able absconsion disentitles a person to concession of bail notwithstanding merits of case.

When the case calls for further inquiry into the guilt of the accused person, bail is to be allowed to him as of right and not by way of grace, and in such a case mere absconsion of the relevant accused person may not be sufficient to refuse bail to him.

After arrest of all the three accused the complainant of the FIR himself came to the Investigating Officer with a submission that he had mistakenly mentioned the names of co-accused persons in the FIR and the Investigating Officer on the basis of the said statement had released the co-accused persons under S. 169, Cr.P.C.

Rule of consistency applied to the case as the co-accused with the role at par with the accused had been released by the police

Alleged recovery of weapon of offence from accused had become doubtful because the marginal witnesses of recovery memo. had submitted their affidavits which were part of the bail petition wherein both the witnesses had deposed that they had no knowledge about the alleged recovery from the accused

Petition for grant of bail was accepted, in circumstances.

Rule that fugitive from law shall under no circumstances be enlarged on bail is not absolute if the case of an accused is otherwise found fit for bail on merits.

Accused was not nominated in the FIR rather he was arrested on the basis of supplementary statement of complainant recorded after nine days of lodging of FIR, thus, the possibility of deliberations and consultations could not be ruled out

Only piece of evidence against the accused was his disclosure, which prima facie was not corroborated by any other piece of evidence

Court, while considering the bail plea of accused, could not ignore the acquittal of co-accused vis-à-vis the merits of his case

Accused person's absconsion of ten years could not be treated as a bar to his release on bail

Case of accused was one of further inquiry

Petition for grant of bail was allowed, in circumstances.

Where direct evidence failed, corroborative piece of evidence was of no avail.

Said wilful absconsion was to be considered as corroborative piece of evidence as the accused had failed to produce any cogent evidence to show that the same was not wilful or deliberate

Analysis of prosecution evidence showed that the prosecution had proved the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Mere assertion that medical evidence was in conflict with oral evidence was not enough rather it was bounded duty of defence to explain as to how and on what ground the medical evidence conflicted with the oral evidence

Unnatural death of the deceased was not disputed by the defence

Analysis of prosecution evidence showed that the prosecution had proved the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt

Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances accordingly.