Photo Source: ANI
Absconding alone doesn't prove guilt, but can indicate guilty conduct: Supreme Court
Babushahi Bureau
New Delhi, June 16, 2025 — The Supreme Court has held that although absconding alone does not establish guilt, it remains a significant indicator of an accused's conduct under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, especially when supported by other corroborative evidence.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh made this observation while upholding a murder conviction, highlighting that the accused was last seen with the victim shortly before fleeing the scene. The Court emphasized that his unexplained disappearance added weight to the prosecution’s case.
"It is well-established that merely running away does not conclusively indicate guilt, as even an innocent person may panic and avoid police scrutiny when wrongly suspected. However, absconding can be considered a relevant fact under Section 8 of the Evidence Act when evaluated alongside other incriminating evidence," the bench noted.
Referring to the precedent set in Matru @ Girish Chandra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1971), the Court reiterated that conduct after the commission of a crime — such as disappearing without justification — can signal a guilty conscience.
In the case at hand, the accused failed to provide a plausible explanation for his absence after the incident, which, when combined with the fact that he was last seen with the deceased, supported the trial court and High Court's conclusions. The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings.