Corroboration

  1. Corroboration does not necessarily mean the evidence of any independent witness but anything in the circumstances which tends to satisfy the Court that such interested witnesses have spoken the truth. The idea behind seeking extraneous support is that no innocent person is implicated. Muhammad Ramzan v. The State 1996 SCR 336 (B)
  2. Need for corroboration of a dying declaration arises where it is not free from infirmities. Misri  v. State 1998 SCR 337 (C)
  3. Corroboration is insisted upon only to satisfy the mind of the Court that the witnesses in the circumstances of the case are speaking truth — What facts and circumstances are sufficient to satisfy the mind of the Court about the truthful nature or otherwise of the testimony of an ocular interested witness, is a question which varies from case to case, no hard and fast rule can be formulated on the point. Zahir Hussain Shah v. Shah Nawaz Khan & others 2000 SCR 123 (H)
  4. Corroboration of statement of interested witnesses does not mean that the statement of witnesses is false or untrue — What it really means is that to accept it as wholly true, it is desirable that it should have a confirmatory support — In fact when it is said that the statement of a witness needs corroboration to support it, this finding proceeds on the basis that version of P.W.is prima facie, correct but by way of precaution it needs corroboration to attain clarity. Zahir Hussain Shah v. Shah Nawaz Khan & 3 others 2000 SCR 123 (G)
  5. The Shariat Court placed reliance on the fact that the clothes of deceased were having holes and cut marks on them so it corroborated the prosecution story — The aforesaid piece of incriminating evidence was not put to the convict-appellant under section 342 Cr. P.C., therefore, this piece of evidence cannot be used as a corroboration to the prosecution version. M. Mushtaq v. State 2001 SCR 286 (E)
  6. Clothes of the deceased which were stained with blood, no report of Serologist was obtained to ascertain that the blood was that of a human being or that the grouping of blood found on the clay and the clothes of deceased matched with each other — Therefore, in the circumstances the recoveries do not have corroborative force lending any support to the prosecution’s version. Muhammad Mushtaq v. State 2001 SCR 286 (F)
  7. The only independent witness has denied the occurrence — There being no independent corroboration of the alleged occurrence, the Courts below cannot be said to have committed any illegality or acted contrary to law in acquitting the accused. Muhammad Ashfaq v. Muhammad Ashiq & 5 others 2005 SCR 341 (B)
  8. In a case where direct evidence fails the corroborative evidence is of no value — Corroborative evidence is meant to test the velocity of ocular evidence — Both the ocular and corroborative evidence is to be read together and not in isolation of each other — Held: The evidence given by the eye witnesses cannot be believed. Masood Hussain v. Ghazanfar Ali 2005 SCR 272 (C)
  9. Where ocular testimony is reliable and satisfactory the conviction can be recorded merely on such evidence alone without any further corroboration. Liaqat H. v. Ulfat Khan 2007 SCR 39 (A)
  10. It does not mean that the corroboration should be from an independent witness — Anything in the circumstances which tends to satisfy the Court that the witness has spoken truth — The corroboration need not necessarily be of the same probative force. Liaqat Hussain & another v. Ulfat Khan & another 2007 SCR 39 (E)
  11. As far the corroboration is concerned, it does not mean that the corroboration shall be from an independent witness, but any thing in the circumstances satisfying the Court that each interested witness has spoken truth is sufficient for corroboration — It is not necessary that the corroborative evidence should also be of same probative force. Muhammad Tahir Aziz v. The State & another 2009 SCR 71 (C) 2007 SCR 39 rel.
error: Content is protected !!