In some cases the prosecution seeks to establish that the accused when arrested manifested a great agitation and alarm or that when the accused came to know that the police machinery is set in motion in relation to the occurrence, he immediately took to flight or that every since the incident the accused has been absconding.
Wills in his Book on Circumstantial Evidence says:-
“Men are differently constituted as respects both animals and moral courage and fear may spring from causes very different from that of conscious guilt; and every man is therefore entitled to a candid construction of his words and actions, particularly if placed in circumstances of great and unexpected difficulty”.
Mr. Justice Abbot in a trial for murder where evidence was given of flight, observed in his charge to the Jury, that:
“A person, however, conscious of innocence, might not have courage to stand a trial; but might, although innocent, think it necessary to consult his safety by flight”.
“It may be a conscious anticipation of punishment for guilt, as the guilty will always anticipate the consequences; but at the same time it may possibly be, according to the frame of mind, merely an inclination to consult his safety by fight rather than stand his trial on charge so heinous and scandalous as this is”.
These passages show that the evidence of such a conduct unless it is traceable to the conscious guilt of the accused is not of much consequence. Of course, when there is no sufficient explanation and the other evidence pointing to the guilt is overwhelming, this- conduct adds to the proof of guilt.