Section 299 CrPC Order Mandatory for Absconding Accused: Mahendra Singh [2026 INSC 775]

In Mahendra Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh (2026 INSC 775), the Supreme Court held that Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be invoked only when two jurisdictional facts – abscondence and no immediate prospect of arrest – are proved and recorded in an order passed when the accused is absconding, not when he is later apprehended (paras 9–10, 13). A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran found that no such order was passed in 1999, so the earlier testimony of the deceased eyewitness could not be used, and acquitted the appellant of murder (paras 13–14).

Status: Conviction and sentence upheld by the High Court set aside; appellant acquitted; appeal allowed (paras 14–15).

Headnote: Section 299 CrPC and Absconding Accused

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 299 – Record of evidence in absence of accused – Absconding accused – Split-up trial – Jurisdictional facts – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 33 – Right to cross-examine – Testimony of deceased witness at earlier trial – Identification – Murder – Acquittal.

Held: (i) Section 299 CrPC is an exception to Section 33 of the Evidence Act and to the accused's indefeasible right to cross-examine witnesses (para 3).

(ii) Section 299 has two jurisdictional facts – that the accused has absconded and that there is no immediate prospect of arresting him – which must be proved and read conjunctively (paras 5–7, 9).

(iii) The provision has two consequences: evidence recorded in the accused's absence in praesenti, and its use in futuro at a later trial only if the witness is dead, incapable, cannot be found or cannot be procured without unreasonable delay, expense or inconvenience (para 9).

(iv) The order finding both jurisdictional facts must be passed at the first stage, at committal or trial, when the accused is absconding, and not when he is later apprehended (para 10).

(v) Without such an order, the testimony of a witness recorded at the co-accused's trial cannot be relied on against the later-arrested accused (paras 13–14).

(vi) With the key witness dead, other eyewitnesses hostile and identification doubtful, the prosecution failed (paras 12–14).

(paras 3–14)

Case Details: Mahendra Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh (2026 INSC 775)

Final Outcome: Appeal allowed; conviction for murder set aside; appellant acquitted and to be released if in custody.

Case: Mahendra Singh v. The State of Chhattisgarh

Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 775

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 3566 of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6741 of 2026)

Court: Supreme Court of India (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) – Reportable

Date of Decision: 31 July 2026

Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran (author)

Relevant Acts & Sections: Sections 82, 83 and 299, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 33, Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Impugned Order: Judgment of the High Court affirming the trial court's conviction of the appellant for murder (para 13); the judgment does not state the date of the impugned order

Source: Supreme Court of India (official website)

Key Holdings of the Supreme Court

• Section 299 CrPC is an exception to the right of cross-examination under Section 33 of the Evidence Act (para 3).
• Both jurisdictional facts – abscondence and no immediate prospect of arrest – must be proved conjunctively (paras 7, 9).
• The order under Section 299 must be passed when the accused is absconding, at the committal or trial stage, not after his arrest (para 10).
• Where co-accused are tried while one absconds, the earlier testimony may be used at the later trial only if a Section 299 order was passed and the witness cannot be procured (para 10).
• The provision rests on the principle that no man can benefit from his own wrong by absconding (para 9).
• In the absence of a Section 299 order in 1999, the testimony of the deceased witness PW1 at the co-accused's trial could not be used (paras 13–14).

Brief Facts of the Case

Two accused were charged with the murder of a person on 01.04.1999. According to the prosecution, witnesses returning from a fair saw the appellant sitting on the victim's chest and strangling him, while the other accused exhorted him and threatened passers-by (para 11).

The appellant absconded. The other accused was tried and acquitted. The appellant was arrested on 11.09.2017 and tried for murder (para 11).

At the later trial, the crucial witness PW1 had died. Other eyewitnesses turned hostile. PW2 spoke of the assault but did not identify the appellant, who was not produced from custody, and cross-examination revealed two persons named Mahendra Singh in the village (para 12).

The trial court and the High Court relied on PW1's testimony from the earlier trial of the co-accused to convict the appellant (para 13).

Issues Before the Supreme Court

1. Whether evidence recorded at the trial of a co-accused, when the case against the absconding accused was split up, can be used against him when he is later arrested and tried (para 2).
2. Whether the conviction could be sustained in the absence of an order under Section 299 CrPC (paras 13–14).

Court's Findings and Reasoning

Settled interpretation of Section 299: The Court reviewed its decision reported in (2000) 4 SCC 41, which held that Section 299 has two parts and is an exception to Section 33 of the Evidence Act; Jayendra Vishnu Thakur, which required jurisdictional facts to be proved by evidence and read conjunctively; and Sukhpal Singh, which applied the same test (paras 3–8).

Two jurisdictional facts, two consequences: Section 299 requires proof that the accused has absconded and that there is no immediate prospect of arresting him. The consequence in praesenti is recording evidence in his absence; the consequence in futuro is its use at a later trial only if the witness cannot be procured for the stated reasons (para 9).

Rationale: The provision prevents an accused from frustrating the prosecution by flight; such an accused cannot claim the right to cross-examine every witness, on the principle that no man can benefit from his own wrong (para 9).

Timing of the order: The order must be passed at the first stage – committal or trial – when the accused is found absconding. Where one of several accused absconds, the court must first find both jurisdictional facts and then proceed with the trial of the others; only then can the testimony be used at the fresh trial after arrest (para 10).

Application to the case: No Section 299 order was passed in 1999, either at committal or at the start of trial. Hence PW1's earlier testimony could not be relied on. With the other eyewitnesses hostile and PW2 not identifying the appellant amid two persons of the same name in the village, the prosecution failed (paras 12–14).

Final Outcome and Directions

• The appellant is acquitted of the charges (para 14).
• He is to be released if in custody; if on bail, his bail bonds stand cancelled (para 14).
• The appeal is allowed and pending applications disposed of (paras 15–16).

Legal Principle Laid Down

Testimony recorded in the absence of an absconding accused can be used against him at a later trial under Section 299 CrPC only if the court, at the time he was absconding, passed an order finding proof of both jurisdictional facts – abscondence and no immediate prospect of arrest – and only if the witness cannot later be procured. Without such an order, evidence recorded at a co-accused's trial cannot be used against the later-arrested accused.

Precedents Relied Upon

• Decision reported in (2000) 4 SCC 41 – Relied upon – Section 299 has two parts and is an exception to Section 33 of the Evidence Act. Discussed at paras 3–4. (The case name is not legible in the extracted text.)
• Jayendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 7 SCC 104 – Relied upon – jurisdictional facts must be proved and read conjunctively. Discussed at paras 5–7.
• Sukhpal Singh v. NCT of Delhi, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 800 – Relied upon – two-part structure of Section 299(1). Discussed at para 8.

Important Paragraphs of the Judgment

Verbatim extracts from the judgment. For the full text, refer to the judgment PDF below.

Para 9: "The very intention of the provision is to ensure that, by deliberately taking flight, the accused does not frustrate the prosecution and thus puts in jeopardy the very criminal justice delivery system."

Para 9: "It is founded on the principle that no man can claim the benefit of a wrong committed by himself."

Para 10: "The order under Section 299 has to conclusively find proof of both the jurisdictional facts for invocation of Section 299, which has to be passed at the first stage; at the committal stage or at the trial stage, when the accused is found absconding and not when he is subsequently apprehended."

Para 12: "The identification or the absence of it hence becomes critical and the eyewitness’s testimony cannot inculpate the accused."

Para 13: "Only an order passed, finding proof of both the jurisdictional facts would enable testimony of the witness recorded at that stage to be relied on at a later stage; when the presence of that witness cannot be procured."

Para 14: "The prosecution, hence, as against the first accused, the appellant herein, fails."

Practical Impact of the Ruling

• For trial courts: When an accused absconds, pass a reasoned Section 299 order recording both jurisdictional facts before recording evidence in his absence (para 10).
• For prosecutors: Seek and prove both abscondence and no immediate prospect of arrest at the time; without the order, earlier testimony cannot be used later (paras 10, 13).
• For defence counsel: Check whether a Section 299 order exists before earlier testimony is read against a later-arrested client (paras 13–14).
• For split-up trials: Evidence in the co-accused's trial does not automatically bind the absconding accused (paras 2, 10).
• On identification: Where identity is doubtful, such as two persons of the same name in a village, eyewitness testimony without identification cannot convict (para 12).

FAQs on Section 299 CrPC

1. What did the Supreme Court hold in Mahendra Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh?

It held that testimony recorded at a co-accused's trial cannot be used against a later-arrested absconding accused unless a Section 299 order was passed at that time, and acquitted the appellant (paras 10, 13–14).

2. What are the jurisdictional facts under Section 299 CrPC?

That the accused has absconded and that there is no immediate prospect of arresting him; both must be proved conjunctively (paras 7, 9).

3. When must the Section 299 order be passed?

At the first stage – committal or trial – when the accused is absconding, not after he is apprehended (para 10).

4. When can the earlier testimony be used at the later trial?

Only if the witness is dead, incapable of giving evidence, cannot be found, or cannot be procured without unreasonable delay, expense or inconvenience (para 9).

5. Why was the appellant acquitted?

No Section 299 order was passed in 1999, the main witness had died, other eyewitnesses turned hostile, and the remaining eyewitness did not identify the appellant (paras 12–14).

Keywords: 2026 INSC 775, Mahendra Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, Section 299 CrPC, absconding accused evidence, split-up trial, Section 33 Evidence Act, jurisdictional facts abscondence, testimony of deceased witness, murder acquittal, Jayendra Vishnu Thakur, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Supreme Court judgment, criminal law

Related on LegalTaxGuru

• More Supreme Court Reportable judgments
• Civil/Criminal articles

Download Judgment PDF – Mahendra Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Judgment PDF: 2026 INSC 775 – Mahendra Singh v. The State of Chhattisgarh (Criminal Appeal No. 3566 of 2026) – Download Judgment PDF

Source: Supreme Court of India (official website).