Absconding Of Accused May Reflect Guilty Mind But It Is Not Substantive Evidence Sans Other Incriminating Material Linked To Crime: Guahati HC
The Gauhati High Court has held that an absconding accused reflects guilty state of mind, however, the same cannot be a substantive evidence of his guilt in the absence of other incriminating material linked to the crime.A division bench of Justice N. Kotiswar Singh and Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund further reiterated that confessional statement made by a co-accused cannot be the sole basis...
The Gauhati High Court has held that an absconding accused reflects guilty state of mind, however, the same cannot be a substantive evidence of his guilt in the absence of other incriminating material linked to the crime.
A division bench of Justice N. Kotiswar Singh and Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund further reiterated that confessional statement made by a co-accused cannot be the sole basis for conviction of an accused. It observed,
“We are of the view that though the confessional statement of a co-accused can be used for conviction, it cannot be the sole basis for conviction, not being a substantive evidence as far as the co-accused is concerned. Though the learned Trial Court had held that the fact of abscondance by the appellant Bidya Sagar Rabi Das is an additional circumstance, unfortunately, we are not able to agree with the same, as though the act of abscondance may be a circumstance to indicate guilty mind, it cannot be said to be strong substantive evidence without any other incriminating material linking him with the crime.”
The main accused had made a confessional statement stating that the appellant was very much part of the conspiracy to commit dacoity and murder of an old lady and looting her valuable properties. The appellant was absconding for a year at the time of filing of charge sheet.
However, the court noted that no evidence was put on record to link the appellant or to indicate his role in the context of recovery of the looted property.
It was the case of the appellant that he was convicted on the ground that he was known to the primary accused and the confessional statement implicates him for commission of the crime.
The amicus curiae, Ms. M. Buzarbaruah stated that apart from the confessional statement, there is no other material on record to implicate the appellant and mere acquaintance with another accused is not sufficient to implicate in a crime.
The amicus curiae relied upon Surinder Kumar Khanna v. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (2018) 8 SCC 271 in which the Supreme Court held that it is not proper to convict a person primarily based on confessional statement inasmuch as confessional statement can be acted merely to corroborate other evidences.
Allowing the appeal the court ruled that the evidences on record are too tenuous to link appellant with the crime committed resulting in death.
The court put emphasis on Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar AIR 1964 SC 1184 where the Apex Court stated that the confession by a co-accused cannot be treated as a substantive evidence and can be pressed into service by the Court only when there are other acceptable evidences.
In conclusion the court acquitted the appellant and set him at liberty forthwith.
Case Title: Bidya Sagar Rabi Das @ Badam v. The State of Assam & Anr.
Coram: Justice N. Kotiswar Singh and Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund
Case No.: Crl.A.(J) No. 30/2015
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Gau) 7