Criminal Procedure for Absconding Accused

The practice of delaying trial against an accused present in court until an absconding accused is apprehended or the trial is split.

Recording evidence against an absconding accused even when they are not present in court.

A legal process where the trial is divided into separate parts, one for the accused present and another for the absconding accused.

A situation where evidence recorded against an absconding accused is rendered useless if the witnesses cannot be found later.

A situation where an absconding accused might be acquitted if the witnesses are unavailable later, even if the present accused was convicted.

The potential for numerous split trials based on the number of absconders, leading to inefficient and prolonged legal processes.

Splitting up trials is a temporary solution for dealing with absconding accused; it doesn't resolve the underlying issue.

Splitting the trial can lead to complications in legal proceedings and potentially unfair outcomes for both the present and absconding accused.

The process of officially declaring an accused person as absconding, which occurs when the accused cannot be located despite extensive efforts by the Investigating Officer (IO). This procedure involves issuing notices, attempting to locate the accused, and ultimately applying to the court for permission to issue a warrant for their arrest.

An official document, issued by the court, requiring an individual to appear before the court on a specified date and time.

An official written order from a court requiring an individual to appear before the court.

A court-issued document that requires an individual to appear before the court and presents information about their absence despite efforts to locate them.

A legal document that authorizes the seizure of a person's property in order to settle a debt or legal obligation.

The stage in a criminal investigation where the Investigating Officer compiles all relevant evidence and submits it to the court for further legal proceedings.

A process in which evidence is recorded in the absence of an accused person who has been declared absconding.

A procedural step where the court formally issues a ruling or order, indicating the next steps in the legal process.

A legal procedure for handling cases where some accused are present, and some are absconding, involves completing necessary legal procedures against the absconding accused while simultaneously proceeding with the investigation against present accused and filing a charge sheet.

When an accused is absent, and despite efforts, their presence cannot be secured, the investigating officer (I.O.) should gather evidence proving their absconding status.

The I.O. should seek permission from the court to issue a proclamation under Section 82 and take further steps under Section 83 against the absent accused.

To officially declare an accused as absconded, the investigating officer must gather sufficient material indicating their absence and submit it to the court.

When the absconding accused is declared absconded, the court can proceed with recording evidence against the present accused and also order evidence to be recorded against the absconded accused under Section 299 of the CrPC.

Separating the trial for the present and absconding accused helps expedite the proceedings for the present accused. This strategy saves time and prevents unnecessary delays.

Even in cases of absconding accused, it's vital to preserve any incriminating evidence for future use. This ensures that the proceedings are conducted efficiently and fairly.

Warrant of arrest can be issued by the court during the investigation stage, and the court's permission is required for issuing a proclamation regarding the accused's absence.

Evidence recorded against an absconding accused cannot be used in their trial later if it was not recorded according to specific legal procedures.

A section of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) that details procedures for recording evidence when the accused is absent.

The prosecution must ask for permission to record evidence against the absent accused, and the court must order it.

The case of Urmila Sahu vs State of Orissa highlights the importance of legally recorded evidence against an absconding accused.

The case of Nirmal Singh Vs State of Hariyana discusses the admissibility of evidence recorded against an absconding accused in a criminal trial.

The court's decision in Nirmal Singh vs State of Haryana emphasizes the role of Section 33 of the Evidence Act in determining if evidence can be used for conviction.

A legal principle where evidence recorded against an absconding accused (someone who avoids court) without proper procedure, like failing to issue notices or a warrant, is considered invalid and unusable.

The legal process of officially declaring an accused person as "absconding" involves multiple steps, including attempting service, issuing warrants, and seeking court permission.

If the accused is declared absconding, the court must record witness statements before the trial, especially if those witnesses might not be available later.

When an accused person is declared absconding, the Magistrate must take specific procedural steps to ensure fairness and legal compliance.

If the court fails to follow proper procedures before recording evidence against an absconding accused, that evidence may be declared invalid.

Trials involving absconding accused can be delayed or split to ensure a fair process. However, such delays can create legal complications and potentially unfair outcomes for both the present and absent accused.

While some cases are split to deal with absconding accused, this is a temporary solution that doesn't address the root cause of the absconding.

If evidence is recorded against an absconding accused without proper procedures and the witnesses become unavailable later, the trial may be compromised, potentially leading to an acquittal for the absconding accused.

A legal document issued by a court to formally declare an accused person as absconding, meaning they are intentionally avoiding the legal process.

A procedure outlined in Section 83 of the Cr.P.C that allows the court to proceed with a trial even if an accused is missing or absconding.

The court formally declares the accused as absconding, marking the start of separate proceedings for them.

Evidence collected against an accused person who is not present in court.

Collecting evidence even if the accused is absent, allowing the case to proceed against the present accused without delay.

This ensures the trial against the present accused can proceed without delay. Meanwhile, the case against the absconding accused is put on hold until they are found or evidence can be used against them.

The court can deliver judgment on the present accused even if the absconding accused is not present, as the evidence is already collected and preserved.

The court can issue an order to preserve relevant evidence and put the case on hold until the absconding accused is found.