On 30th May 2025, a bench of the Supreme Court of India comprising Justices Shri Surya Kant and Shri N. Kotiswar Singh delivered a landmark judgment in the case of Chetan vs State of Karnataka. The Hon’ble Apex Court upheld the conviction of the appellant on circumstantial evidence which included his disappearance after the alleged crime of murder. The Hon’ble Court noted that the accused was last seen in the company of the victim on 10 July 2006 but disappeared the next day and did was not seen by anyone until he was arrested on 22 July 2006. During this time, he misled the victim’s family, gave false account of his whereabouts, and even convinced a friend to furnish false evidence on his behalf.
The bench clarified that, although flight from the scene does not necessarily serve as proof of guilt, because an innocent person may be acting out of panic, it is nevertheless admissible as relevant conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. The section provides for admissibility of past behaviour that reflects the accused’s state of mind. The Court ruled that when absconding is unexplained, it strengthens suspicion and may indicate a guilty mindset.
The judgment emphasized that the act of absconding must be evaluated in conjunction with other evidence, such as, the “last seen” theory, motive, weapon recovery, and forensic links, to build a chain of circumstances. In this case, a 12 bore double-barrel gun found from the house of the relative of the accused individual, which matched the recovered bullet from the victim, and the absence of any reasonable motive for the act of escape, all contributed to the conviction.
Reaffirming both statutory law and previous case law, including Matru @ Girish Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1971), the Court ruled that although flight per se may not create guilt, however, it is a cogent corroborative circumstance under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, especially when there is no satisfactory explanation. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court rejected the appeal, and the sentence for murder was upheld. This judgement underscored a significant step forward in interpreting post offence conduct within India’s criminal jurisprudence.
https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2013/5083/5083_2013_2_1503_62158_Judgement_30-May-2025.pdf