INTRODUCTION
If someone runs after a crime, does that mean they’re guilty? The Supreme Court doesn’t think so, at least not always. The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling, has clarified the evidentiary value of absconding in criminal proceedings, particularly under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The bench, while upholding the conviction of the appellant for murder, noted that absconding isn’t a definitive marker of guilt but a relevant circumstance which, when weighed with other evidence, can suggest a guilty state of mind. The court reaffirmed that, under the Indian Evidence Act, an individual’s conduct after the commission of a crime is admissible if no reasonable explanation is offered for such conduct to the court’s satisfaction.[1]
As a law student, I found this topic fascinating, not only because of the legal principles involved, but because it highlights how easily society, or sometimes lower courts, can misinterpret human behavior as criminal intent. This blog explores how the Supreme Court balances human behavior with evidentiary standards. Ultimately, it argues that while absconding may raise suspicion, it cannot replace proof in a criminal trial.
UNDERSTANDING ABSCONDING: LEGAL MEANING & GENERAL PERCEPTION
In simple terms, absconding might refer to someone running away hurriedly and secretly, typically to escape from custody or avoid arrest.
The Supreme Court bench of Justices P.N. Bhagwati and R.S. Sarkaria, in the case of Kartarey v. State of U.P[2], held that “to be an ‘absconder’ in the eye of law, it is not necessary that a person should have run away from his home, and that it is sufficient if he hides himself to evade the process of law, even if the hiding place be his own home.”
Likewise, in the case of Jayendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, by quoting from dictionaries, the Supreme Court held as under:
“The term ‘absconding’ has been defined in several dictionaries. We may refer to some of them:
Black’s Law Dictionary: To depart secretly or suddenly, especially to avoid arrest, prosecution, or service of process.
Ramanatha Aiyar: The primary meaning of the word is “to hide”.
Oxford English Dictionary: “To bide or sow away”.
Words and Phrases: ‘clandestine manner/intent to avoid legal process. ’”[3]
In this case, the Supreme Court also approvingly referred to the judgment in the aforesaid Kartarey case.[4].
So, an absconder is a person who is hiding himself to evade the process of law, even if the hiding place is his own home.
The general perception regarding absconding is emotional. If you are innocent, then why would you run away after a crime? But it ignores many realities- panic, fear of implication, police harassment, or even past trauma.
That’s why courts must carefully examine why someone absconded, instead of treating flight as guilt.
SECTION 8 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT: WHAT IS ‘RELEVANT CONDUCT’?
Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act explicitly states that any act which shows or constitutes a motive, preparation, or previous or subsequent conduct of the person or party involved in the case is relevant if it influences or is influenced by facts in issue or relevant facts.[5] This section emphasizes that conduct must have a close nexus with the facts in issue and not merely be an incidental or unrelated act. Absconding falls under the previous and subsequent conduct. It is crucial to understand that while absconding may indicate a guilty mind, it is not proof of guilt by itself. Its ‘relevance’ means the court can consider it, but its weight is determined by context, and it must be seen alongside other evidence. This is the crucial distinction that relevance does not equate to conclusive proof.
THE CASE ANALYSIS: CHETAN v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
The appellant, Chetan, was convicted by the Trial Court and the High Court for offences including murder under Section 302, dishonest misappropriation of property under Section 404 of the Indian Penal Code, and offences under the Arms Act. The prosecution’s case was primarily based on circumstantial evidence, including the “last seen” theory, recovery of the weapon of the crime, forensic evidence, and the appellant’s act of absconding.
The Supreme Court, while discussing the appellant’s conduct, emphasized the importance of Section 8 of the Evidence Act. The Court noted that while absconding alone may not be sufficient to prove guilt, it is a relevant factor when considered in conjunction with other evidence. The Court cited the case of Matru alias Girish Chandra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh.[6], to highlight that while mere abscondence might not prove guilt, it is a relevant piece of evidence when considered with other circumstances that point to a guilty mind.
The Court observed that an innocent person might panic and try to evade the police when wrongly suspected, as an act of self-preservation. Still, the act of absconding, especially when coupled with attempts to mislead relatives and friends about one’s whereabouts and failure to offer a plausible explanation for fleeing, strengthens the suspicion of guilt and benefits the prosecution’s case.
The Court’s reasoning highlighted several key points:
- No Sole Basis for Conviction: The Supreme Court reiterated that merely absconding does not automatically make an accused guilty.
- Corroboration is Key: The judgment underscores that absconding can be considered as relevant conduct that may indicate a guilty mind, especially when viewed in conjunction with other evidence. The Court meticulously analyzed the “last seen” theory, the recovery of the weapon, and ballistic reports to establish a complete chain of circumstances.
- Contextual Scrutiny: The Court observed that while an innocent person might panic and try to evade the police when wrongly suspected, the act of absconding, especially when coupled with attempts to mislead relatives and friends about one’s whereabouts, strengthens the suspicion of guilt.
- Burden of Proof: The onus remains on the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. However, when incriminating evidence is presented, and the accused fails to provide a satisfactory explanation (e.g., under Section 313 CrPC), it can strengthen the prosecution’s case and form an additional link in the chain of evidence.
This ruling is significant because it establishes a strong, contemporary precedent that clarifies this principle, providing clear guidance to lower courts and reinforcing fundamental rights. It is a reminder of a long-standing principle, not a new one, reaffirming the legal position with modern clarity.
CONCLUSION
The ruling in Chetan v. State of Karnataka [7]Provides valuable clarity on the evidentiary role of absconding under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that absconding is not irrelevant, but neither is it conclusive proof of guilt. It is a circumstance that acquires significance only when considered alongside other evidence forming a complete chain of circumstances.
This judgment underlines four essential principles:
- Absconding alone cannot ground a conviction,
- Its evidentiary value depends on corroboration with other facts,
- The surrounding context of such behaviour must be carefully examined, and
- The prosecution continues to bear the burden of establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The broader significance of this ruling lies in its balanced approach. While it recognises that flight may indicate a guilty state of mind, it also acknowledges the realities of human conduct, fear, panic, or distrust of law enforcement may equally explain such actions. By doing so, the Court safeguards against equating suspicion with proof, reinforcing the fundamental principle that justice rests not on assumptions, but on evidence.
Author(s) Name: Avadhi Jain (Prestige Institute of Management and Research, Department of Law, Indore)
References:
[1] Chetan v. State of Karnataka, (2025) INSC 793
[2] Kartarey v. State of U.P., (1976) 1 SCC 172
[3] Jayendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 7 SCC 104
[4] Kartarey v. State of U.P., (1976) 1 SCC 172
[5] The Indian Evidence Act, s 8
[6] Matru alias Girish Chandra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1971) 2 SCC 75
[7] Chetan v. State of Karnataka, (2025) INSC 793
