Supreme Court: Delhi. While hearing a murder case, the Division Bench of the Supreme Court has said that just absconding after committing the crime does not prove the blame. The court also said that this evidence is a relevant fact under Section 8 of the Act. Such an act shows the conduct of the accused. And this indicates his guilty mentality. Hearing the petition challenging the decision of the lower court, it said and upheld the decision of the lower court.
Tribal community had to comment heavy: FIR lodged against South Superstar Vijay Devarakonda, even after apologizing
What is the whole matter?
The Division Bench has kept the convicts unchanged for the murder of the petitioner. The petitioner was last seen with the deceased shortly before he escaped from the scene. He could not prove the reason why he escaped from the site of the incident. Giving an example of a Supreme Court’s decision, the Division Bench wrote that only absconding does not reflect the guilty mindset. An innocent person may also panic after the incident and he can run away from there in nervousness. The act of absconding is definitely a relevant evidence considered with other evidence.
The court said that there is a conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which indicates his guilty mindset. The needle of doubt is even stronger than his absconding. The petitioner accused was last seen with the deceased on the night of the murder and he escaped almost a fortnight. He has been lying about where he lived during the absconding. The court said that along with the recovery of the arms used for the murder and the forensic evidence connecting it to the crime, this conduct created a series of circumstances pointing to the crime.
‘Trump is making you an owl, why did they not stand with us?’, Sanjay Raut taunted PM Modi about the US President
The decision of the lower court retained
The Division Bench of the Supreme Court has written in its judgment that being absconding alone is inadequate to prove a crime. But this becomes a relevant evidence when the accused does not give any appropriate explanation for his absconding from the scene of the incident. The petitioner could not give a clear reason for escaping from the scene of the incident. Also to be seen with the deceased before the incident, the weapon vessel, the purpose of murder. These are cases that strengthen the claims of the prosecution. With this comment, the Division Bench of the Supreme Court has upheld the petitioner’s convicts, justifying the lower court’s decision.
