Compliance with Section 299 CrPC does not require a formal prior order for admissibility of evidence.

In February 2012, an FIR was registered alleging the gang-rape of a victim at gunpoint by five individuals

Three accused were apprehended, while the Respondent (Kader Khan) and one other were declared absconding. A proclamation was issued against the Respondent in April 2012

The trial was split, and during the proceedings against the apprehended accused, the victim’s deposition was recorded and cross-examined between March and July 2013

The victim passed away on March 13, 2015

Following the Respondent's arrest in September 2016, the prosecution moved an application under Section 299 of the CrPC to admit the deceased victim’s earlier testimony as evidence in the Respondent’s trial

The Trial Court allowed the application, but the High Court at Calcutta set it aside, ruling that Section 299 requires a prior specific direction from the court to record evidence against an absconder at the time of the original deposition

The Court interpreted Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which serves as an exception to Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 299(1) permits the use of a deposition against an accused if two conditions are met at the time of recording: (i) the accused has absconded, and (ii) there is no immediate prospect of arresting him

The court relied on Nirmal Singh v. State of Haryana (2000), which mandates strict compliance with these preconditions

CBI v. Abu Salem Ansari (2011), which allows relying on earlier evidence in the absence of an absconding accused if the deponent is dead

The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s restrictive interpretation was erroneous. It clarified that Section 299 CrPC does not mandate a formal "order" by a Magistrate declaring the existence of the preconditions before the witness deposes; rather, the facts of abscondance and lack of immediate arrest must simply be established as existing at that time

Here, the Respondent was a proclaimed offender and the chargesheet listed him as absconding prior to the victim's 2013 deposition

The Court reasoned that requiring a "direction" in the first trial would be impractical, as the prosecution cannot always foresee a witness's future unavailability

Furthermore, a restrictive view would offer a "premium" to accused persons who deliberately abscond, waiting for witnesses to die to escape justice

The Court noted that since the Respondent remained at large for three years after the victim's testimony, the statutory conditions for "no immediate prospect of arrest" were clearly met

It held that the requirements of Section 299(1) were satisfied because the Respondent was proven to be absconding at the time of the victim's deposition, and the victim is now deceased

The statement of the deceased victim rendered in the earlier trial is admissible in the subsequent trial against the Respondent