New Delhi | June 16, 2025
The Supreme Court of India has clarified that merely absconding after a crime does not prove guilt, but such behavior can be treated as relevant conduct under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This came in a recent verdict upholding a conviction in a murder case.
The bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh observed that while absconding alone cannot form the basis of conviction, it does have evidentiary value when considered along with other incriminating facts.
Court’s Observation
In its detailed ruling, the apex court stated:
“Absconding may not conclusively prove guilt, but it is admissible under Section 8 as relevant conduct that reflects a person’s mental state post-offence.”
The court emphasized that such conduct gains probative value when it is part of a larger chain of circumstances pointing toward the guilt of the accused.
Case Background
• The case involved the accused, Madhavan, who was convicted of murder by the trial court.
• He fled from the scene shortly after the incident and remained untraceable for a prolonged period.
• The High Court acquitted him, but the Supreme Court reversed the acquittal, restoring the conviction on grounds of compelling circumstantial evidence including the act of absconding.
The judgment reiterates an important legal principle:
• Absconding is not proof of guilt by itself, but it can strengthen the prosecution’s case when supported by additional evidence.
• This aligns with previous decisions such as Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Matru v. State of U.P., where the courts held that flight can reflect a guilty conscience, but is not conclusive proof.
