Supreme Court Clarifies Section 299 CrPC Absconding Accused Requirements

• The Supreme Court has clarified that courts must formally record satisfaction on two jurisdictional facts before relying on evidence recorded under Section 299 CrPC (now Section 335 BNSS).
• The invocation of Section 299 CrPC (or Section 335 BNSS) requires a careful balancing act between ensuring justice is served and protecting the rights of the accused.
• Courts must carefully assess whether each accused meets the criteria for invoking Section 299 CrPC (or Section 335 BNSS), particularly in cases involving multiple accused.

The court must first establish that the accused has absconded and that there is no immediate prospect of his arrest before recording evidence under Section 299 CrPC (now Section 335 BNSS).

The Supreme Court has clarified that when dealing with absconding accused, courts must now formally record satisfaction on two crucial jurisdictional facts before relying on evidence recorded under Section 299 CrPC (now Section 335 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023). This means that the court's primary focus should be on establishing whether the accused is indeed absconding and if there is no immediate prospect of their arrest. The invocation of Section 299 CrPC (or Section 335 BNSS) requires a careful balancing act between ensuring justice is served and protecting the rights of the accused. In essence, this ruling aims to prevent the misuse of Section 299 CrPC (or Section 335 BNSS) by ensuring that evidence recorded in the absence of the accused can only be used under specific circumstances.

The Supreme Court's emphasis on satisfying two jurisdictional facts before recording evidence under Section 299 CrPC (now Section 335 BNSS) is a significant development in Indian law. This ruling has far-reaching implications for lawyers, particularly those handling cases involving multiple accused. In such scenarios, the court must carefully assess whether each accused meets the criteria for invoking Section 299 CrPC (or Section 335 BNSS). The consequences of misusing this provision can be severe, as seen in recent judgments where evidence recorded under Section 299 CrPC (or Section 335 BNSS) was deemed inadmissible due to a lack of formal findings on the required jurisdictional facts.

The Supreme Court's clarification on the invocation of Section 299 CrPC (now Section 335 BNSS) is a crucial safeguard against its potential misuse. By requiring courts to formally record satisfaction on two jurisdictional facts, this ruling ensures that evidence recorded in the absence of the accused can only be used under specific circumstances. This safeguard is particularly important in cases involving multiple accused, where the court must carefully assess whether each accused meets the criteria for invoking Section 299 CrPC (or Section 335 BNSS). Ultimately, this ruling aims to strike a delicate balance between ensuring justice is served and protecting the rights of the accused.

Lawyers should be aware that courts must now formally record satisfaction on two jurisdictional facts before relying on evidence recorded under Section 299 CrPC: the accused's absence and lack of immediate prospect of arrest. This may impact their clients' cases, particularly where multiple accused are involved.

Source: Original reporting via Supreme Court Judgments