The Supreme Court has clarified that absconding alone does not prove guilt but it is a material evidence under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This was stated in Chetan v State of Karnataka, where the Court upheld the modus operandi of the conviction of the appellant for murder based on circumstantial evidence available including his absconding after the crime.

Read also: Supreme Court Refuses to Entertain Plea Seeking NEET UG 2025 Final Answer Key Before Results

A division bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh said that absconding by itself does not prove guilt as even an innocent person may flee due to fear. However, when it is combined with other evidence, it becomes a relevant factor.

The Court said:

"It is a common ground that mere absconding does not amount to guilty mindset… But the act of absconding is certainly a relevant piece of evidence to be considered along with other evidence and is a conduct within the meaning of Section 8 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which points to his guilty mindset."

The Court cited Matru @ Girish Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(1971) 2 SCC 75] to reiterate that absconding alone may not prove the offence but when supported by other evidence it strengthens the suspicion.

Read also: Supreme Court AoR Exam 2025 Scheduled for June 16–21: Check Venue, Entry Gates, and Sitting Plan

In this case, the appellant was last seen with the deceased on the night of July 10, 2006 and absconded the next day. He was not traced till his arrest on July 22, 2006. The Court noted that he had given false information about the whereabouts of the deceased and misled the family and friends of the deceased.

Importantly, the murder weapon (12 bore DBBL gun) was recovered from the appellant’s grandfather’s house based on his disclosure, and forensic evidence linked the weapon to the crime. The Court also considered other circumstantial evidence – such as the theory of last seen, motive, recovery of stolen items (mobile phone and gold chain), and forensic and post-mortem reports – to establish the chain of circumstances.

The Supreme Court emphasised that the combination of absconding and the absence of any reasonable explanation significantly strengthened the prosecution’s case.

Read also: Supreme Court: Res judicata applies to impleadment of legal heir under CPC

The Court observed:

“The needle of suspicion is strengthened by the act.”

Accordingly, finding the circumstantial evidence conclusive and considering the conduct of the appellant after the incident, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction for murder under Section 302 of the IPC and other related charges.

Case Title: CHETAN VERSUS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA