Mere Absconding Not Enough to Prove Guilt, But Relevant Under Section 8 of the IEA: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India ruled that while absconding by an accused is not direct proof of guilt, it is admissible as relevant conduct under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act.

The judgment came while upholding a conviction in a murder case, where the accused was last seen with the deceased on the night of the murder and absconded until his arrest.

The Court observed that disappearance, without a plausible explanation, and attempts to mislead investigators, when combined with other evidence like weapon recovery, strengthened the prosecution's case.

The bench clarified that such behavior can indicate consciousness of guilt and be considered alongside other evidence, but it cannot alone establish guilt.