Question: A is tried for the murder of B. Is the fact that A purchased the air ticket for a distant country just after the murder of B, relevant? [U.P.A.P.O. 1996] Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [A is tried for the murder of B. Is the fact that A purchased the air… Read More »

Question: A is tried for the murder of B. Is the fact that A purchased the air ticket for a distant country just after the murder of B, relevant? [U.P.A.P.O. 1996] Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [A is tried for the murder of B. Is the fact that A purchased the air ticket for a distant country just after the murder of B, relevant?] Answer Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with when motive, preparation, and previous or subsequent conduct of the parties...

Question: A is tried for the murder of B. Is the fact that A purchased the air ticket for a distant country just after the murder of B, relevant? [U.P.A.P.O. 1996]

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [A is tried for the murder of B. Is the fact that A purchased the air ticket for a distant country just after the murder of B, relevant?]

Answer

Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with when motive, preparation, and previous or subsequent conduct of the parties become relevant. The question is, whether A committed a crime.

The conduct of an accused in absconding when the police get suspicious of his complicity in the offence of murder is relevant under this section and might well be indicative to some extent of a guilty mind. But this is not the only conclusion to which it must lead the court. Such is the instinct of self-preservation in an average human being that even innocent persons may when suspected of grave crimes, be tempted to evade arrest.

Explaining the meaning of the term “absconder”, the Supreme Court in the case of Kartarey v. UP, AIR 1976 SC 76 said: To be an absconder, in the eye of the law, it is not necessary that a person should have run away from his home, it is sufficient if he hides himself to evade the process of law even if the hiding place be in his own home.

“To abscond” means, go away secretly or illegally and hurriedly to escape from custody or avoid arrest.

In the instant case, the accused had told others that they were going from their place of work to their home in another district, from where they were admittedly taken into custody (from their respective houses only) on the third day of the incident.

The Supreme Court in the case of Durga Burman Roy v. State of Sikkim, (2014) 13 SCC 35 (para 41) has observed that it was difficult to hold that they had been absconding. Even assuming for the argument’s sake that they were not seen at their workplace after the alleged incident, it cannot be held that by itself an adverse inference is to be drawn against them.

Therefore, in the present case though the act of A purchasing the air ticket for a distant country just after the murder of B is relevant but no adverse inference can be drawn against him. It is true that a fact can be proved by the conduct of a party and by surrounding circumstances under section 8 but the prosecution needs to have more circumstantial evidence to make this fact in issue relevant for the case against A.


Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

  1. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-I
  2. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-II
  3. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-III
  4. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-IV
  5. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-V
  6. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VI
  7. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VII
  8. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VIII
  9. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-IX
  10. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-X
Updated On 2021-11-15T08:08:38+05:30
Admin LB

Admin LB

Next Story