Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 57 (0.27 seconds)Section 30 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 106 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Paramjeet Singh @ Pamma vs State Of Uttarakhand on 27 September, 2010
"41. As we are discussing the conduct of the prosecution
witnesses, it is important for the Court to notice the conduct
of the accused also. The accused persons were absconding
immediately after the date of the occurrence and could not
be arrested despite various raids by the police authorities.
The Investigating Officer had to go to different places, i.e.,
Sodhpur and Delhi to arrest the accused persons. It is true
that merely being away from his residence having an
apprehension of being apprehended by the police is not a
very unnatural conduct of an accused, so as to be looked
upon as absconding per se where the court would draw an
adverse inference. Paramjeet Singh v. State of
Uttarakhand: (2010) 10 SCC 439 is the judgment relied
upon by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
But we cannot overlook the fact that the present case is not
a case where the accused were innocent and had a
reasonable excuse for being away from their normal place
of residence. In fact, they had left the village and were not
available for days together. Absconding in such a manner
and for such a long period is a relevant consideration. Even
if we assume that absconding by itself may not be a positive
circumstance consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of
the accused because it is not unknown that even innocent
persons may run away for fear of being falsely involved in
criminal cases, but in the present case, in view of the
circumstances which we have discussed in this judgment
and which have been established by the prosecution, it is
clear that absconding of the accused not only goes with the
hypothesis of guilt of the accused but also points a definite
finger towards them.
Kashmira Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 March, 1952
The same view has been expressed by this Court
in Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh where
the decision of the Privy Council in Bhuboni Sahu case
has been cited with approval."
Matru Alias Girish Chandra vs State Of Utttar Pradesh on 3 March, 1971
That apart,
it has been observed in Matru @ Girish Chandra vs. The
State of U.P. reported in AIR 1971 SC 1050 that the
abscondence 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. Normally, the courts are
disinclined to attach much importance to the act of
Page 18 of 50
absconding, treating it as a very small item in the evidence for
sustaining conviction. It can scarcely be held as a determining
link and completing the chain of circumstantial evidence which
must admit of no other reasonable hypothesis than that of the
guilt of the accused.