Mere 'Absconding' Not Conclusive Proof Of Guilt Against Accused In Cases Of Murder: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court has clarified that merely because an accused person absconded, he cannot be held guilty of the alleged crime and in cases of grave crimes like murder, the solitary conduct of the accused in absconding may not be given undue weightage ignoring other factors.

While reiterating the position of law, the Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra held –

“…it is clear that mere fact of abscondence cannot, ipso facto, result in an irresistible inference that the person absconding necessarily had the guilty intention to commit the crime alleged. Further, when the accusation is for a grave crime, like the one under section 302 of the IPC, i.e. murder, the solitary conduct of the accused in absconding cannot be given much weightage so as to ignore the fact that there is no other clinching evidence available to implicate him in the ghastly crime.”

The Bench was hearing a jail criminal appeal filed by a person accused of committing murder of his wife in the intervening night of May 4/5, 2005. The trial Court was convinced that the death of the deceased was a homicidal one.

Further, it took into consideration the fact that the appellant absconded subsequent to the crime. Thus, after considering such conduct of the appellant along with oral testimony of the witnesses, it came to the conclusion that the appellant committed the murder of the deceased.

Court's Observations

At the outset, the Court perused the post-mortem report in respect of death of the deceased which indicated a number of ante-mortem injuries. Upon going through the report, the Court came to a definite conclusion that the deceased met with a homicidal death and the trial Court's decision to that effect is correct.

The Court summed up three major factors taken up by the prosecution to establish the guilt against the appellant. It was submitted relying upon the evidence of the witnesses that there was a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased regarding sale of a piece of land.

Apart from the above, the prosecution alleged that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the appellant. Moreover, after commission of the crime, the appellant fled away from the spot and absconded.

The quarrel between the appellant and the deceased in respect to the sale of a piece of land was portrayed as the 'motive' behind commission of the crime. However, the Court was of the opinion that as there was no landed property either in the name of the appellant or the deceased, it is very improbable that there was a dissention between them because of such reason.

So far as the 'last seen theory' is concerned, the Court observed that though some of the witnesses deposed to have seen the appellant staying in the company of the deceased 15 days prior to the occurrence, but there was no clinching evidence available that the appellant was seen in the company of the deceased on that specific night when the deceased died.

Besides that, the Court pointed out that the son of the appellant and the deceased stated that the appellant had not come to the hut of the deceased in the relevant night and also, he was never staying with the deceased. Therefore, taking into account such circumstances, the Court discarded the relevance of last seen theory in the present case.

The Court then proceeded on to examine as to whether merely because the appellant absconded subsequent to the death of the deceased, he can be held guilty of the alleged crime. To answer this question, the Court relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Sekaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, where it was observed as follows:

“…abscondence by a person against whom an FIR has been lodged and who is under expectation of being apprehended is not very unnatural. Mere absconding by the appellant after alleged commission of crime and remaining untraceable for such a long time itself cannot establish his guilt or his guilty conscience. Abscondence, in certain cases, could constitute a relevant piece of evidence, but its evidentiary value depends upon the surrounding circumstances. This sole circumstance, therefore, does not enure to the benefit of the prosecution.”

The Court also relied upon the following observation made by the Apex Court in Matru v. State of U.P.:

“Now, mere absconding by itself does not necessarily lead to a firm conclusion of guilty mind. Even an innocent man may feel panicky and try to evade arrest when wrongly suspected of a grave crime such is the instinct of self preservation. The act of absconding is no doubt relevant piece of evidence to be considered along with other evidence but its value would always depend on the circumstances of each case.”

Having regard for the aforementioned precedents, the Court was of the considered view that mere abscondence is not a determining factor for establishing the guilt of the accused, especially when there is no other evidence implicating him in the commission of the crime.

“…in the case in hand, when all the alleged incriminating circumstances could not be proved against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, it would be perilous for the interest of justice to hold him guilty as possibility of his innocence cannot be ruled out.”

Accordingly, the Court acquitted the appellant giving him the benefit of doubt.

Case Title: Jaga @ Jagabandhu Mohalik v. State of Orissa

Case No: JCRLA No. 58 of 2008

Date of Judgment: January 04, 2024

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Dillip Ray, Advocate

Counsel for the State: Mr. Rajesh Tripathy, Additional Standing Counsel

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ori) 4

Click Here To Read/Download Order