The Supreme Court held that a deceased witness's deposition recorded during an earlier trial is admissible in a subsequent trial against an accused who had absconded. Section 299 CrPC (S.344 BNSS) permits use of such depositions when the accused was absent during prior proceedings due to absconding. The ruling reinforces that an accused cannot defeat justice by fleeing, then challenging evidence recorded in their absence. The court clarified the conditions precedent for invoking this provision.

Section 299 CrPC (now Section 344 BNSS) creates a narrow but critical exception to the general rule that evidence must be recorded in the presence of the accused. Normally, the right of cross-examination is a cornerstone of fair trial under Article 21. However, when an accused voluntarily absconds, they forfeit the right to insist that witnesses depose again in their presence.

The provision allows a court to use depositions recorded in a previous trial or inquiry if: (1) the witness is dead, (2) the witness is incapable of giving evidence, (3) the witness cannot be found, or (4) the witness is kept out of the way by the adverse party. Critically, the accused must have had the opportunity to cross-examine the witness during the earlier proceeding — which is precisely what absconding denies them, but courts interpret voluntary absence as a waiver of that right.

The Supreme Court's ruling settles that absconding during an earlier trial, followed by a fresh trial after arrest, does not give the accused a fresh right to cross-examine a now-deceased witness. This prevents abuse of the process of law.

For CLAT PG, the examiner is likely to test: the exact conditions under Section 299, the distinction between 'cannot be found' versus 'dead', and whether the accused's absence was voluntary or compelled. The constitutional overlay — fair trial under Article 21 versus the public interest in not allowing absconding as a litigation tactic — is a classic passage-MCQ angle.