Mere absconding of an accused to escape the clutches of law by itself does not necessarily lead to a firm conclusion of admission of guilt, the Supreme Court has held.
“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,” said a Bench comprising Justices P. Sathasivam and B.S. Chauhan.
The Bench, citing an earlier judgment, said the act of absconding was no doubt a 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 absconding, treating it as a very small item in the evidence for sustaining conviction”, the Bench said.
Justice Chauhan, writing the judgment, said: “Abscondence by a person against whom FIR has been lodged, having an apprehension of being apprehended by the police, cannot be said to be unnatural.”
In the instant case, appellant Bipin Kumar Mondal was convicted to life imprisonment in a murder case. The conviction and life sentence awarded by a trial court in West Bengal was confirmed by the Calcutta High Court. He filed the present appeal. The prosecution submitted that the fact that the appellant was absconding for a long time after the FIR having been registered was itself sufficient to prove his guilt and the punishment recorded by the courts below should not be interfered.
Single witness
The appellant contended that conviction could not be sustained on the basis of sole testimony of a single witness as it was not trustworthy.
The Bench did not accept the prosecution's submission. At the same time, it rejected the appellant's contention saying “the time-honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise. It is the quality and not the quantity of evidence which is necessary for proving or disproving a fact. It is open to the court to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness and record conviction.”
The Bench dismissed the appeal.
