Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh held that while mere absconding is not conclusive proof of guilt, it is a relevant fact under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 (IEA)  . When the accused is last seen with the deceased and fails to explain his subsequent absconding, such conduct, corroborated by other evidence, justifies drawing an adverse inference and supports the conviction for murder. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Chetan v. the State of Karnataka (2025). 

What was the Background of Chetan v. the State of Karnataka (2025) Case ? 

• This murder case dates back to July 2006 and involves the death of a young man named Vikram Shinde. The accused and Vikram were friends who had known each other for some time before the tragic incident occurred. 
• The accused had borrowed Rs. 4,000 from one Ravindra Chavan with the intention of lending this money to Vikram Shinde.  
  • However, despite repeated requests over a period of 7-8 months, Vikram failed to return the borrowed amount to the accused. 
  • This created tension between the two friends, and during arguments about the money, Vikram had apparently insulted the accused, which led to the accused harboring a grudge against him. 
• On the evening of 10 th July, 2006, at around 8:30 PM, the accused took his grandfather's 12-bore double-barrel gun under the pretext of going hunting. He then asked Vikram to accompany him on his Hero Honda motorcycle to a sugarcane grove located in Shahapur village, which belonged to one Arun Kumar Minache. 
• The accused shot Vikram dead with the gun in the sugarcane field. After committing the murder, the accused took Vikram's Nokia mobile phone and gold chain, essentially stealing these items from the deceased. 
• When Vikram did not return home that night after leaving around 7:45 PM, his father became worried and contacted the accused's family by telephone. The accused's family informed him that the accused was not at home. 
  • The next morning, on 11th July, 2006, Vikram's father visited the accused's house personally to inquire about his son's whereabouts.  
  • The accused gave false information, claiming that he had separated from Vikram at around 8:00 PM the previous evening. 
• The dead body was discovered three days later on 13th July, 2006, in the sugarcane field.  
  • Due to decomposition, the body could not be immediately identified.  
  • The discovery was reported in newspapers, and Vikram's father identified the body on 14th July 2006, through photographs and personal items found on the deceased, including his sweater, a handkerchief, and a motorcycle key found in his pocket. 
• During the investigation, several witnesses came forward stating they had seen the accused and Vikram together on the evening of 10th July, 2006, near Mahishyal bus stand and later riding a motorcycle towards Shahapur.  
  • The accused was arrested on 22nd July, 2006, in Miraj after police searched for him in multiple locations. 
• The accused was charged with multiple offences under Indian law: 
  • Murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 
  • Misappropriation of property (mobile phone and gold chain) under Section 404 of the IPC 
  • Illegal possession and use of firearms under Sections 3, 5, 25, and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• Trial Court Observations: 
  • The Trial Court noted that the accused was last seen with the deceased shortly before the commission of the offence. 
  • It further observed that the accused had absconded immediately after the incident and failed to give any reasonable explanation for the same. 
  • The court inferred that this conduct, along with corroborative circumstantial evidence, established his complicity in the offence of murder under Section 302 IPC. 
• High Court Observations:  
  • The High Court upheld the findings of the Trial Court and reaffirmed the conviction. 
  • It observed that abscondence of the accused, near the time of death and his being last seen with the deceased, was a relevant circumstance supporting the prosecution case. 
  • The court also stated that although absconding alone may not prove guilt, when weighed with the overall chain of circumstances, it lent credibility to the prosecution version. 
• Supreme Court Observations:  
  • The Supreme Court clarified that mere absconding does not conclusively establish guilt, as an innocent person may also abscond out of fear or panic. 
  • However, it emphasized that such conduct is a relevant fact under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, reflecting the mental state of the accused, and can be relied upon if corroborated by other evidence. 
  • The Court observed that the failure of the accused to explain his sudden disappearance, especially after being last seen with the deceased, strengthens the prosecution's case. 
  • It relied on the precedent laid down in Matru @ Girish Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1971) wherein it was held that abscondence is a material circumstance when evaluated with other incriminating facts. 
  • The Bench upheld the conviction for murder, holding that the cumulative effect of the absconding conduct, last seen theory, and lack of credible defence justified the finding of guilt. 
  • The Court concluded that the act of absconding, when viewed in the totality of circumstances, is “a conduct indicating a guilty mind” and forms a relevant piece of circumstantial evidence. 

What is Section 6 of  Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA)? 

• Section 6 of BSA deals with Motive, Preparation, and Conduct. 
• Previously, it was covered under Section 8 of the IEA.