Absconding Alone Doesn’t Prove Guilt: Supreme Court Affirms It’s Relevant Conduct Under Section 8 of the Evidence Act

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a landmark decision elucidating the evidentiary significance of absconding by an accused following the commission of an offence. In Chetan v. State of Karnataka (2025 LiveLaw (SC) 657), the Court held that while fleeing from law enforcement is not definitive proof of guilt, it does amount to relevant conduct under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act and can contribute meaningfully to establishing mens rea, or guilty intent. This article presents a comprehensive, original synthesis of the Court’s reasoning, factual matrix, legal principles, and broader implications.

Case Background

On the night of July 10, 2006, Chetan was last observed with the victim. The following day, he disappeared and remained missing until his arrest on July 22, 2006. During his absence, Chetan provided misleading information to the victim’s family and acquaintances regarding his whereabouts—deliberately misleading those who inquired and instructing witnesses to misstate facts.

In the course of the investigation, the police recovered a 12-bore DBBL gun—the murder weapon—from Chetan’s grandfather’s residence, based on a disclosure by Chetan himself. Forensic examination confirmed the gun’s use in committing the crime. Alongside this, circumstantial elements such as the “last seen” theory, motive, and post-mortem and other forensic evidence were presented by the prosecution. 

The Legal Question

The pivotal legal query before the Supreme Court was whether Chetan’s act of absconding could be interpreted as an independent proof of his guilt, or rather as corroborative evidence signifying concealment of guilt under Section 8 of the Evidence Act.

Section 8 of the Evidence Act: “Relevant Conduct”

Section 8 stipulates that the past conduct of any person—before or at the time of an incident—can be considered relevant when it helps establish a fact in question. The Supreme Court emphasized that absconding cannot be viewed in isolation as conclusive proof of a crime; nevertheless, it does qualify as relevant conduct warranting judicial scrutiny. 

Reliance on Precedents

The Court reiterated the established principle from Matru @ Girish Chandra v. State of U.P. (1971 SCC 75), which held that absconding may bolster suspicion but cannot, in itself, constitute proof of guilt. Instead, if an accused absconds and fails to offer a credible explanation, their conduct becomes a cogent element in the mosaic of circumstantial evidence pointing to guilt.

The Court’s Reasoning

1. Absconding ≠ Automatic Guilt

The Court recognized that even the innocent may abscond out of panic or fear of wrongful suspicion. Therefore, flight alone is insufficient to demonstrate criminal intent. 

2. The Conduct is “Relevant”

Nevertheless, the act of fleeing is material under Section 8 and can reveal consciousness of guilt, especially when evaluated in the context of accompanying evidence. The Court held: “The needle of suspicion gets strengthened by the act.” 

3. Importance of Explanation

If an accused chooses to abscond, they must provide a plausible and coherent explanation. Failure to do so transforms absconding from neutral conduct to an admission of culpability. In Chetan’s case, no credible explanation was offered.

4. Reinforcement by Other Circumstantial Evidence

Chetan’s flight was not a standalone occurrence—it tied directly to other incriminating facts:

• He was last seen with the victim before the crime

• He misled family and friends over his location 

• He led police to the recovery of the murder weapon, which was forensic‑wise linked to the homicide When considered collectively, these facts form a coherent chain of circumstances.

Judgment and Outcome

The two-judge bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh, upheld Chetan’s murder conviction under Section 302 IPC. They concluded that the combination of flight, lack of explanation, and consistent circumstantial evidence produced a compelling, legally sound basis for conviction.

The appeal was dismissed, affirming that although absconding does not carry evidentiary weight by itself, it becomes relevant and probative when accompanied by other incriminating circumstances.

Broader Implications

This ruling furthers India’s jurisprudence concerning:

• Mens rea inference from flight: Reasserting that flight can signify consciousness of guilt, but only when paired with corroborative evidence and absence of innocent justification.

• Evaluation of circumstantial evidence: Reinforcing the principle that a single act, like absconding, should not be viewed atomistically but within the larger evidentiary framework.

• Judicial guidance: The Court has provided clarity to investigators and courts alike on how to treat absconding—neither inflating it into self-evident guilt, nor marginalizing its significance in criminal reconstruction.

• Considerations for defense strategy: The judgment underscores the strategic importance for defense counsel to provide clear, credible reasons for any period of disappearance, lest it reinforce the prosecution’s case.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Chetan v. State of Karnataka maintains a balanced approach to dealing with absconding. It logically separates the act from the state of mind and situates it within the evidentiary terrain outlined by Section 8 of the Evidence Act. The decision clarifies that absconding, in the absence of a reasonable explanation and complemented by corroborative evidence, can fortify a circumstantial case for guilt. At the same time, it ensures that flight cannot be weaponized as automatic evidence of criminal intent—there must be a foundation of contextual facts and legal reasoning to substantiate such claims.