Settled law that mere abscondence of accused, cannot be a substitute of real evidence

14. As regards abscondence of the appellant, it is settled law that mere abscondence of accused, cannot be a substitute of real evidence. Abscondence by itself would be of no avail to the prosecution in absence of any other evidence against the absconding accused. Mere abscondence of accused would not be enough to sustain convict. Guidance in this regard can be derived from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled, “Muhammad Vs Pasham Khan” (1986 SCMR 823).  

Part of judgment of 

IN THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT, PESHAWAR,

Cr.A No. 130-B of 2014 Abdul Basit Vs State