Supreme Court on Using Co-Accused Trial Evidence Against Absconding Accused

The Supreme Court has clarified the conditions under which testimony recorded during a co-accused's trial can be used against an absconding accused in a subsequent trial. A Division Bench led by Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran held that courts must first pass a formal order finding both jurisdictional facts—that the accused is absconding and there is no immediate prospect of arrest—before such evidence can be relied upon later.

The Court was examining an appeal where conviction was based on deceased witness testimony from a separate co-accused trial. The bench acquitted the accused for lack of the required Section 299 CrPC order. The judgment examined landmark precedent Nirmal Singh v. State of Haryana, which established that Section 299 comprises two parts: circumstances for recording evidence in accused's absence, and circumstances for using such evidence in subsequent trials without cross-examination opportunity.