In a groundbreaking decision on December 12, 2023, the Supreme Court acquitted an individual previously convicted by the Madras High Court, challenging the conventional notion that mere absconding indicates guilt. The accused, facing charges under Section 304 of the IPC for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, secured acquittal as the Supreme Court found the prosecution’s case lacking substantial evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution had argued that the accused’s three-year disappearance, ending with his apprehension in Kerala, strongly implied his culpability. However, the Supreme Court, led by a bench comprising Justice BR Gavai, Justice Dipankar Datta, and Justice Aravind Kumar, asserted that mere abscondence does not automatically infer guilt. The court emphasized that the evidentiary value of absconding depends on the surrounding circumstances.
The case revolved around a dispute between the accused and the victim over wage demands, resulting in the victim’s death from a head injury inflicted by the accused. The Sessions judge initially convicted the accused of murder, but the High Court reduced the charge to Section 304-Part II of the IPC, sentencing him to five years’ rigorous imprisonment.
Upon careful examination of the evidence, the Supreme Court concluded that the victim likely suffered a fatal head injury from falling off a tree under the influence of alcohol. The court questioned the reliability of the prosecution’s version, highlighting the absence of material witnesses, Ponnaian and Velukutti, who were present at the scene but were not examined.
The Supreme Court criticized the prosecution for failing to explain the omission to present crucial witnesses and invoked Section 114 of the Evidence Act, stating that the unavailability of material witnesses weakened the prosecution’s case. The court also scrutinized the delay in filing the FIR, emphasizing the need for a realistic and pragmatic assessment of each case.
In a significant departure from the lower court’s decision, the Supreme Court stressed that convictions cannot rest solely on unreliable evidence. The court underscored its duty as the final arbiter to sift through the evidence, separating truth from falsehood, and ultimately overturned the appellant’s conviction.
The case, identified as SEKARAN V. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2294 OF 2010, sets a precedent by challenging assumptions regarding the evidentiary weight of absconding and emphasizing the importance of credible and comprehensive evidence in criminal proceedings.
