Corroboration its nature and extent. Corroboration evidence must proceed from a source independent of and extraneous to the person whose evidence is to be corroborated. Corroboration may consist of direct or circumstantial evidence and it need not amount to the confirmation of the whole story of the witness to be corroborated so long it corroborates such evidence in some respects material to issue or charge under consideration. Extent and degree of corroboration rests on judicial discretion of the Court and varies with facts and circumstances of each case. PLJ 1977 SC 278 Shahzado. PLD 1977 SC 413.
When corroboration is required and when not required. If the witnesses related to the deceased are injured, or the complainant present at the spot was in a position to identify the offenders and there was no possibility of substitution, their statements could be accepted without corroboration. If there was exaggeration in the statement of such witnesses and their veracity is doubtful independent corroboration should be insisted upon. 1992 SCMR 96. Yar Muhammad etc. PLD 1960 SC (Pak.) 387 and PLD 1962 SC 269 ref.
Corroborative evidence is of no value when direct evidence fails. (DB) 1970 P.Cr.LJ 1292 Rehmat Bakhsh.
Corroborative evidence is meant to test the veracity of ocular evidence. Both corroborative and ocular evidence is to be read together and not in isolation of each other. (SC) PLD 1971 SC 541 Asadullah v. Muhammad Ali etc.
"Nothing" cannot be corroborated. Eye-witness evidence disbelieved. Recovery of incriminating articles (crime weapon) does not itself prove the prosecution case. "Nothing" cannot be corroborated. (DB) PLD 1963 Lah. 274 Yousaf. ILR 16 Lah. 995 Dhunda v. Emperor.
Blood-stained weapons, recovery alone not enough. Even if recovery is believed, it is only corroborative. When there is no eye-witness to be relied upon. There is nothing which can be corroborated by the recovery. 1985 SCMR 410. Saif Ullah. PLJ 1985 SC 154.
Recovery evidence can be used for corroboration of main evidence at the most, but by itself cannot be made a basis of conviction, bail allowed. PLJ 1998 SC 510, Ijaz Ahmed and another.
Mere presence of fire-arm injuries on two dead bodies do not provide required corroboration against individual accused. PLJ 1987 SC 624. Sarwar etc.
Medical evidence cannot be considered as corroborative evidence when the statement is made after the result of the medical report is available to the witness. (DB) PLD 1975 Lah. 103 Muhammad Sabir etc.
Mere number of injuries would not by itself throw light on the number of the accused, such fact alone cannot be regarded as corroboration against non-injured accused. Benefit of doubt given to such accused. 1988 SCMR 579.
Medical evidence injuries; Medical evidence alone cannot be corroborative evidence as the injuries cannot speak of their authorship. The witnesses knew about the injuries before the FIR was made and substitution was possible in the case. (DB) Cr.A. 69 of 1972 Muhammad Yousaf v. State decided in 1975 by Lahore High Court not reported.
Corroboration of interested evidence by motive, medical evidence, and recovery of weapons of offence held, enough to maintain the conviction (SC) PLD 1977 SC 462. Misri Khan v. Kala Khan etc.
Medical evidence cannot corroborate interested evidence, as to the identity of the accused when the case itself is doubtful;. 1998 SCMR 279, Muhammad Ashraf etc.
Medical evidence. Medical report cannot furnish a reliable corroboration of extra-judicial confession when the report was available before the extra-judicial confession was made. (DB) PLJ 1975 Cr.C. (Lah.) 55 Dosa.
Motive, medical evidence and abscondance held to be supporting evidence of eye-witness related to the deceased. Acquittal set aside. (SC) PLD 1975 SC 160 Mushtaq Ahmed v. Siddiqullah. PLJ 1975 SC 61.
Corroboration; motive and medical evidence, do not furnish requisite corroboration, in all circumstances to warrant conviction. (SC) NLR 1981 Cr. 2 Pir Bakhsh.
Corroboration by motive has no value when the evidence needing corroboration comes from the mouth of witnesses of motive. (DB) NLR 1991 Cr. 199 Mazhar Mir.
Corroboration solely by motive is not safe in a capital case when the testimony is of interested witnesses. 1998 SCMR 279, Muhammad Ashraf. etc.
Admission by defence witnesses in their evidence cannot be relied on by prosecution comes from the mouth of witnesses of motive. (DB) PLJ 1974 Cr. C. (Lah.) 192 Kazam Khan.
One tainted evidence cannot be corroborated by another tainted evidence. Dying declaration disbelieved. The evidence of another witness not relied upon, he being a friend of the deceased and inimical to the accused. These pieces of evidence do not corroborate each other. (SC) 1972 SCMR 40 (43) Ali Akbar Hussain. (DB) PLD 1972 Kar. 292 Noor Nabi.
Tainted piece of evidence cannot corroborate another tainted piece of evidence (DB) NLR 1989 Cr. 34. Waris Chandio.
One piece of tainted evidence cannot corroborate another piece of tainted evidence. 1993 SCMR 1602, Muhammad Ilyas.
Corroborative recovery evidence held doubtful. Conviction set aside. PLJ 1985 SC 28. Muhammad Tasneem.
Recovery witnesses cannot corroborate eye-witnesses when they themselves require corroboration. (DB) PLJ 1989 Cr.C. (Lah.) 124. Younas Masih.
Recovery evidence when tainted in nature cannot corroborate oral evidence of unreliable and Wajtakkar witnesses. (DB) PLJ 1975 Cr. C. (BJ) 41 Waryam etc.
Vaginal swabs of married woman have no corroborative value. PLJ 1982 FSC 74 Muhammad Ramzan.
Corroboration inter se. Different sets of evidence none of which was acceptable without corroboration; such sets of evidence cannot corroborate each other. There must be independent corroboration. (DB) PLD 1954 Sindh 136 Shah Ali v. Crown.
Independent corroboration. Different items of evidence required corroboration, cannot corroborate each other. Independent corroboration is necessary. (DB) PLD 1960 Kar. 674 Wazir etc. (DB) PLJ 1978 Cr.C. (Kar.) 588. Pir Bakhsh.
Weak piece of evidence requiring corroboration cannot be corroborated by another such weak piece of evidence. 1976 P.Cr.LJ 258. Ghulam Muhammad.
Ocular evidence and recovery evidence both requiring corroboration, held one weak piece of evidence cannot corroborate another weak piece of evidence. PLJ 1984 Cr.C. (Kar.) 510 Abdul Wahab.
Accomplice. Evidence of an accomplice cannot be corroborated by the evidence, of another accomplice. (SC) PLD 1964 PC 90 Bhuboni Shau v. King (PC) PLD 1949 PC 128 Mama v. King.
Retracted confession itself being tainted cannot corroborate other tainted evidence such as extra-judicial confession. (DB) 1968 P.Cr.LJ 1287 Barkat.
Injuries do not corroborate the statement of a witness qua the identity of the accused. When dying declaration disbelieved nothing remained to be corroborated. 1981 SCMR 959. Fazal Muhammad v. Muzafar Hussain etc.
Can medical evidence corroborate tainted ocular evidence.? Medical evidence by itself and without more cannot throw any light on the identity of the assailants, but in the case of inimical evidence, it is the aspect of the ocular evidence which requires corroboration, because in relying on the ocular evidence in such cases is that the witnesses may falsely implicate their enemies. At the best therefore when the medical evidence is consistent with the ocular evidence it may furnish some limited corroboration of the ocular evidence if it can lead to the inference that the eye-witnesses have spoken the truth. This however would be in special circumstances. (SC) PLD 1976 695. Machia etc.
Corroboration by empties. Fact of two empty cartridges matching with one gun and third with another does not fix the identity of the person who fired the fatal shots. Injuries to the deceased and witnesses likely to have been easily caused by two-accused, one absconding and the other dead. Prosecution roping in 5 persons from the other party. Petition for leave dismissed. 1980 SCMR 96. Mutwakal Shah v. Muhammad Din etc.
Recovery of crime empty does not corroborate the prosecution version when it is not wedded to the weapon recovered from the accused. (DB) NLR 1984 Cr. 595. Manzoor etc.
Independent corroboration is necessary when a witness without particularising involves large number of persons as accused, otherwise such statement is unreliable. (DB) PLD 1963 Kar. 529 Mubarik etc.
Independent corroboration is required when evidence is found to be credit worthy but not of such a degree as to result in conviction of the accused. Rejected evidence cannot be sued as corroborative evidence. 1992 SCMR 2047, State v. Muhammad Hanif etc.
Blood feud existing between the parties requires very strong corroboration of the eye-witnesses. 1986 SCMR 823. Taj Muhammad v. Rehman Khan etc.
Interested witnesses. When the witnesses are interested only then the rule of independent corroboration is attracted, when the evidence is appreciated (SC) PLD 1976 SC 300 Piran Ditta etc.
Witnesses resiling. When a witness resiles from his previous statement and completely exonerates, the accused at the trial his statement under section 288, Cr.P.C. is substantive evidence in the case but the Court should not act upon it unless corroborated by same other independent evidence. (DB) 47 Cr.LJ 323 Partia AIR 1964 Lah. 48 221 IC 638.
Three innocent persons implicated by witnesses. Remaining two cannot be convicted on such evidence without corroboration. (DB) 1976 P.Cr.LJ 249 Allah Din etc.
Corroboration to be insisted upon. Eye-witnesses very closely related (brothers and mother) to the deceased. Corroboration of such testimony to be insisted upon out of abundant caution. (SC) 1971 SCMR 326 Haji Ahmad etc. (SC) 1971 SCMR 412 Hakim Ali. 1971 SCMR 500 Muhammad Nawaz v. Abdul Khaliq.
Corroboration needed when exaggeration pointed out by other circumstances of the case. Corroboration of testimony of interested witnesses is indispensable. 1986 SCMR 730 Ali Gohar etc.
Corroboration not always necessary. Corroboration of an interested witness is not always necessary. (SC) 1969 P.Cr.LJ 1168 Abdul Majid.
Coronation from evidence of a case in which accused acquitted. Separate charge framed for murder and robbery. Accused acquitted for robbery. Evidence for robbery can be taken as corroborative evidence for murder by trial Court as well a s High Court. ILR (1946) 27 Lah. 1 (PC) Malik Khan v. King Emperor.
Minor discrepancies and corroboration: Corroboration of a witness by recovery of a crime weapon. Minor discrepancies in such witness's evidence are not sufficient to label him as an untruthful witness. (SC) 1971 SCMR 326 Haji Ahmad.
Corroboration by circumstances. Account given by interested witnesses need not be corroborated by recovery of incriminating article from accused. Evidence of interest and partisan witnesses may be sufficiently corroborated by circumstances of the case which may satisfy the mind of the Court that the witnesses have spoken the truth. (DB) PLJ 1974 Cr.C. (Lah.) 149 PLD 1974 Lah. 306 Gharib Alam.
Corroboration not always to be insisted upon in each and every detail. Due importance to be attached to conclusion drawn by trial Court as it had the opportunity to watch the demeanour of witnesses and to form first hand impression about their deposition. (SC) PLD 1977 SC 413. Shahzado.
Corroboration not needed. Broad daylight occurrence, all accused specifically mentioned in promptly lodged FIR receiving full support from medical evidence. Even excluding evidence of recoveries or motive rest of the evidence is good enough to bring guilt home to the accused. Held, not necessary to look for corroboration. (SC) PLD 1976 SC 452 Muhammad Sharif v. Muhammad Javaid.
Corroboration is not needed when evidence does not suffer from any major or significant contradictions. NLR 1989 Cr. 424. Muhammad Ashraf etc.
Prosecution witness being closely related to the accused in a murder case, but itself cannot be a substitute for corroborative evidence required for accepting the evidence of such a witness. 1992 SCMR 489, Muhammad Usman etc.
When enmity between the parties is proved, some independent corroboration is needed to prove the guilt of the accused. PLJ 1992 S.C. 295. Ghulam Farid.
Co-accused acquitted as falsely involved, held accused appellant could not be convicted unless independent corroboration is available against him. Appeal allowed. 1984 SCMR 190. Muhammad Nawaz.
Corroboration is needed where interested and inimical evidence is disbelieved against some accused without independent corroboration. 1984 SCMR 485. Misal Khan.
Evidence disbelieved against majority of accused material corroboration is required to accept the testimony of such witnesses against the accused. 1999 SCMR 4697 Sheral.
Evidence unreliable qua co-accused, the same evidence against other accused needs corroboration from independent source. (DB) 1976 P.Cr.LJ 1462 Abdul Ghani etc.
Case at par with acquitted co-accused, no corroborative evidence against the appellant. Appeal accepted. (DB) NLR 1982 Cr. 672 (2) Muhammad Tufail. NLR 1982 Cr. 686 Talib Hussain.
Case of appellant not distinguishable from acquitted accused. No corroboratory evidence available against the convict to distinguish his case from other accused. Appellant acquitted. (SC) NLR 1982 Cr. 291. Abdul Ghafoor.
Case of the accused not distinguishable from the acquitted co-accused, so far as the role and the evidence was concerned. Therefore, the accused cannot be convicted unless the evidence qua him is corroborated by some other evidence. PLJ 1982 SC 592 Amin Ullah.
Corroboration can be had from defence suggestions to prosecutrix and her admission to that suggestion. Her answer: "it is correct that the accused soon after entering my room caught my breasts, kissed me, caught me in his arms and manhandled", and further. "It is correct that on my refusal to take wine at the instance of the accused he slapped me heavily on my face", were held to be corroborative suggestions. NLR 1984 Cr. 733. Sher Ali Khan.