Accused cannot be held guilty only for Absconding for long time: Supreme Court

In Sekaran vs. The State of Tamil Nadu (2023) 2023 INSC 1062, Supreme Court's 3-Judge Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Dipankar Datta, and Justice Aravind Kumar delivered a17-page long judgement dated December 12, 2023, wherein, it held that mere abscondence by a person after the alleged commission of crime and remaining untraceable for a long time cannot establish his/her guilt or guilty conscience. The judgement was authored by Justice Datta. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and acquitted the appellant.

The Court concluded “We are of the firm opinion, having regard to the aforesaid discussion, that the prosecution cannot be held to have established even the accusation of culpable homicide not amounting to murder against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and to extend the benefit of doubt to him is what the justice of the case demands; hence, he is entitled to be acquitted. Ordered accordingly”, concluded the Court.  

The Court observed that, in certain cases, abscondence could constitute a relevant piece of evidence, but its evidentiary value depends upon the surrounding circumstances. 

In this criminal appeal filed against the judgment dated November 12, 2009 of the Madras High Court by which it convicted a man under Section 304-Part II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Supreme Court observed, “.., 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.” 

According to the prosecution, the victim and his wife after returning from their respective jobs went to a tea stall and he demanded Rs. 50/- being his wages from the appellant i.e., the convict. The victim was a “coconut cutting coolie” working under the convict and hearing such a demand, the convict abused him in filthy language which was followed by physical abuses by and between them. The convict picked up one rubber stick and hit the victim on the front and back sides of his head. 

The post mortem report of the victim revealed that the ‘head injury’ was the cause of his death. Thereafter, the Trial Court convicted the appellant for committing murder and sentenced him to life in prison along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- while the High Court partly allowed the appeal of the convict and sentenced him to five years’ rigorous imprisonment. 

The convict approached the Supreme Court. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court noted, “There seems to be no legal bar in convicting an accused resting on part of the evidence, which is primarily found to be credible and acceptable; however, where the evidence is so inseparable that any attempt to separate them would destroy the substratum on which the prosecution version is founded, then this Court would be within its legal limits to discard the evidence in its entirety. Bearing this settled principle in mind, we proceed to assess the evidence on record.” 

The Court underlined that it is not the quantity but the quality of evidence that would matter. It also said that the circumstances surrounding the unfortunate death of the victim do not clearly and unequivocally point to the involvement of the appellant and his false implication cannot be wholly ruled out. 

Notably, earlier Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices V.S Sirpurkar and T.S. Thakur had passed an order dated December 3, 2010, which reads: "Leave granted. The appellant is directed to be released on bail on the same terms on which he was on bail before the trial court, however, with fresh bonds."

hree-Judge Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Dipankar Datta, and Justice Aravind Kumar

https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/supreme-court/sekaran-v-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-2023-insc-1062-culpable-homicide-absconding-accused-1509216