Corroborative evidence

When substantive evidence fails to connect an accused person with commission of an offence or is disbelieved, corroborative evidence is of no help to prosecution, as corroborative evidence cannot by itself prove the prosecution's case.

When substantive evidence fails to connect the accused person with the commission of offence or is disbelieved, corroborative evidence is of no help to the prosecution as the corroborative evidence cannot by itself prove the prosecution's case.

Factum of remaining a fugitive from law for a considerable period, even if established, can only be used as corroborative evidence and is not substantive

Mere absconsion is not proof of guilt of an accused.

When substantive evidence fails to connect the accused person with the commission of the offence or is disbelieved, corroborative evidence is of no help to the prosecution as the corroborative evidence cannot by itself prove the prosecution case.

However, corroboratory evidence does not convert an unreliable witness, or evidence, into a reliable one.

Recovery is only corroborative piece of evidence and it enhances the gravity of substantive evidence but when case is not proved through substantive evidence then corroborative piece of evidence loses its efficacy.

Recovery was only a corroborative piece of evidence and if the ocular account was found to be unreliable then the recovery had no evidentiary value.

Such kind of evidence by itself is not sufficient to bring home the charges against the accused more particularly when the other material put-forward by the prosecution in respect of guilt of the accused had been disbelieved.

Recovery of weapon of offence was only a corroborative piece of evidence; and in absence of substantive evidence, it was not considered sufficient to hold the accused person guilty of the offence charged

When substantive evidence failed to connect the accused person with the commission of offence or was disbelieved, corroborative evidence was of no help to the prosecution as the corroborative evidence could not by itself prove the prosecution case.

Where direct evidence fails, the corroborative piece of evidence is of no avail.

Prosecution witnesses had corroborated each other on all material points, including date, time and place of occurrence, the quantity of recovered narcotics and the manner in which recovery was effected

First Information Report was got lodged within a short span of ten minutes and the complainant had not only named the accused but had also mentioned each and every minor as well as material facts of the incident therein, which excluded the possibility of deliberation or consultation regarding false implication of the accused in the case

Nothing was available on record which could establish that the witnesses had deposed against the accused and implicated him in the case due to previous enmity, grudge, malice or to fulfil some ulterior motive

Prosecution had successfully proved the safe custody and deposit of the case property from the place of occurrence to the police station and from the police station to the office of Forensic Science Laboratory

Once the prosecution was able to bring on record evidence to discharge the initial onus of proof then the burden shifted upon the accused to prove otherwise, which he failed to do in the present case

Prosecution had successfully proved its case against the accused beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt

Appeal against conviction was dismissed.

Retracted confession either judicial or extra-judicial if found to be truthful and confidence inspiring and also qualifies the test of voluntariness, can be used for conviction without looking for any other sort of corroboration

Though it is not prudent to base conviction in a criminal case only on the strength of retracted confession without independent corroboration and necessary particulars and the court is under obligation to inquire into all the material points and surrounding circumstances to satisfy itself regarding the voluntariness of confession but it is not an inflexible rule that the retracted confession cannot be made the basis of conviction without independent corroboration rather the rule of corroboration is rule of abundant caution which is insisted only to exclude any possibility of doubt qua the guilt of a person

Retracted confession can be legally taken into consideration against the maker if the confession is found to be true and voluntary and can also be used as a sole evidence for conviction without any corroboration, if the court is satisfied about its voluntary character and truthfulness.

Absconsion alone cannot be a substitute for real evidence because people do abscond though falsely charged in order to save themselves from agony of protracted trial and also to avoid duress and torture at the hands of police

Absconsion is a corroborative piece of evidence and in case where direct evidence fails, corroborative piece of evidence is of no avail.

Recovery of empties is a corroborative piece of evidence and where direct evidence fails, corroborative piece of evidence is of no avail.

Recovery of weapon is a corroborative piece of evidence and in case where direct evidence fails, corroborative piece of evidence is of no avail.

Medical evidence does not identify the assailants, rather it is a corroborative piece of evidence.

Recovery is a corroborative piece of evidence and in cases where direct evidence fails, corroborative piece of evidence is of no avail.

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, abetment, common intention

Act of terrorism

Appreciation of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Medical evidence

Contradiction in medical and ocular evidence

Corroborative evidence

Scope

Two police constables were on patrol when they signaled a motorbike to stop but its riders sped away and the constables chased them

Motorbike was chased into a street whereupon four persons came in the way of constables and an exchange of hot words followed whereupon four persons fired at the constables, one of them died

Medical evidence was only supportive of the fact that the deceased was hit by 3 different bullets which was contrary to the ocular account of main eye-witness that the deceased received 10 to 13 bullet injuries all over his body

Medical evidence was of little, if any, assistance to the prosecution which in any event was only supportive in nature and gave further support to the fact that the eye-witness fled the scene before the firing on the deceased

Impugned judgment was set aside, in circumstances and by extending benefit of doubt, accused was acquitted of the charge.

All prosecution witnesses supported case of prosecution on all aspects and accused could not point out any discrepancy or infirmity to dent the case of prosecution

Accused also failed to prove that there was any enmity because of which prosecution witnesses deposed falsely against him

All prosecution witnesses corroborated each other in all material respect with no major contradictions

DNA report was found to be similar to the blood obtained from accused when compared with the sample of hair found in the cap which was recovered from place of incident

Such evidence provided the strongest corroborative evidence to the testimony of eye witness

Opinion of Forensic Science Laboratory report under microscopic examination was positive and revealed that empty of 9mm which was recovered from place of incident and compared to the pistol secured from accused had similar marks of striker pin; breech face; ejector; and chamber

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Recovery is only a corroborative piece of evidence and by itself alone cannot hold conviction.

Where ocular evidence firmly stands the test of cross-examination and is not shattered during cross-examination, the conviction can be awarded, even without looking for corroboratory evidence

When the ocular account fails, conviction cannot be based on any corroboratory/ confirmatory evidence, however strong it may be.

Such kind of evidence by itself was not sufficient to bring home the charges against the accused especially when the other material put-forward by the prosecution in respect of guilt of the accused had already been disbelieved.

Confession of accused facing joint trial was only a corroborative piece of evidence against the co-accused, which required strong corroboration.

When the ocular testimony fails to establish the case of prosecution against the accused then recovery of crime weapon, being corroborative piece of evidence, also losses its evidentiary value.

Abscondence is only a corroborative piece of evidence and never considered in isolation.

Identification parade is not a substantive piece of evidence and it only corroborates the ocular version.

Recovery is always considered a corroborative piece of evidence and by itself can not provide basis for conviction.

Recovery of crime weapon could only be a piece of supporting evidence, whereas the prosecution had to prove its case independently

Mere recovery of crime weapon was no ground to hold the accused guilty of the commission of crime.

Confession made by accused could not be used as a substantive piece of evidence to make the same basis of conviction of co-accused

Confessional statement could be used as a corroborative piece of evidence, if corroborated by independent evidence.

Kalashnikov was recovered on 18.2.2014, both were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, and were received there on 28.2.2014

No explanation was available as to where the said articles remained during the interregnum

Forensic Science Laboratory's Report, in circumstances, could not be relied upon

Nothing was available on record that the recovered Kalashnikov was owned or was in possession of the accused-appellant

Admittedly, in the house from where alleged Kalashnikov was recovered, other inmates were also resided

Prosecution had failed to connect the alleged recovered Kalashnikov with the accused-appellant beyond any reasonable doubt.

Abscondence could neither cure the inherent defect of the ocular account nor by itself was sufficient to sustain conviction.

Abscondence could neither cure the inherent defect of the ocular account nor by itself was sufficient to sustain conviction.

Abscondence, would not be a substitute for substantive evidence and could be used only as a corroborative piece of evidence.

Abscondence could not be made basis for conviction.

When, ocular account was disbelieved, then any circumstantial evidence in the shape of recoveries or abscondence of accused would loose their efficacy for recording conviction of the accused.

Such a long absconsion would certainly go a long way to corroborate and strengthen the truth of prosecution version and also indicated the guilt of accused.

Accused-appellant was caught red handed soon after the occurrence and Police snatched the crime weapon (pistol) from him

Two empties were recovered from the place of occurrence

Defence witnesses also confirmed the recovery of crime weapon from the possession of accused

Recovery of crime weapon would strengthen the case of prosecution.

Such a long unexplained abscondance of the accused was a corroboratory factor, which could not be ignored as the same had indicated the guilt of accused

Appeal against the conviction was dismissed.

Neither abscondence alone was sufficient to record conviction of accused nor could be considered as substitute for ocular evidence

Accused persons were acquitted in circumstances by setting aside conviction and sentences recorded by Trial Court.

Conduct of accused and his unexplained absence for considerable period was vital and was relevant fact which could be used as corroborative piece of evidence against the accused.

Recovery of dead body of the deceased from the house of the accused was a strong piece of corroboratory evidence which could not be lightly ignored

No suggestion had been put to any prosecution witness even to the Investigating Officer to extract anything in favour of accused

Appeal against conviction was dismissed.

No conviction can legally sustain only on corroborative pieces of evidence such as recovery, medical and circumstantial.