Home Maxims & Terms Corroboratory evidence meaning in Urdu
Legal Term Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Corroboratory evidence

Corroboratory evidence legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)

2024 SCMR 1427 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent
Corroboratory evidenceScope

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

2024 YLR 1662 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent
Corroboratory evidenceScope

When the prosecution fails to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt then the corroboratory evidence produced in the case can be of no help to the prosecution.

2024 PCrLJ 1370 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent
Ss. 302(b) & 34Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.417 (2-A)Qatl-i-amd, common intentionAppeal against acquittalAppreciation of evidenceRecovery of incriminate materialCorroboratory evidenceScopeAccused were charged for committing murder of the father of complainant by inflicting hatchet blows

No doubt, there was certain recoveries in the form of blood stained earth, blood stained broken stick, blood stained stone, blood stained shirt of the deceased and blood stained five chits recovered from the spot, however, evidentiary value of the same qua the guilt of the accused had rightly been discarded by the Trial Court, especially in absence of direct evidence

Even otherwise, when the prosecution had failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt then the corroboratory evidence produced in the case in hand could be of no help to the prosecution

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed accordingly.

2023 SCMR 308 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent
S. 497BailOcular accountCorroboratory evidence

At bail stage, corroboratory piece of evidence, if missing, cannot discard the ocular account recorded on the day of occurrence.

2023 PCrLJ 1103 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
AbsconsionCorroboratory evidenceScopeWarrant, proclamation and absconsion of an accused are meant only to provide corroboration to the case of prosecution

Deficiencies arising from the contents of arrest warrant and proclamation as well as failure of prosecution to prove their execution left

Such documents nothing but simple stray piece of papers having no legal consequences.

2020 PCrLJ 1333 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
WitnessTestimony of eye-witnessRecovery of crime articlesCorroboratory evidencePrerequisites

Eye-witnesses cannot corroborate themselves but corroboratory evidence was to come from independent source and be supported by independent witnesses other than eye-witnesses.

2019 PCrLJN 139 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
S. 497Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 34Bail, grant ofQatl-i-amd, common intentionUn-witnessed occurrenceRecovery of weapon of offenceCorroboratory evidenceFurther inquiryScopePetitioner along with co-accused persons was charged for committing qatl-i-amd

Petitioner was not nominated in the FIR; there was no eye-witness of the occurrence; only Waj Takkar evidence was mentioned in the FIR

No feature of the unknown accused having been mentioned in the FIR, therefore, identification parade did not constitute reasonable ground to connect petitioner with the commission of alleged offence

Entire case of the complainant rotated around main accused because motive was attributed to him, place of occurrence was his house, he was nominated in the FIR was main accused, but Investigating Officer had let him off and declared him not involved in the occurrence

Recovery of pistol was corroboratory piece of evidence

No direct and substantial evidence was available with the prosecution against petitioner, prima facie, there was nothing to be corroborated

No reasonable grounds were available on record to connect the petitioner with the commission of alleged offence, rather his case fell in the ambit of further inquiry

Petition for grant of bail was allowed, in circumstances.

2018 PCrLJN 201 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
EvidenceCorroboratory evidenceScope

Corroboratory evidence must come from independent source.

2014 YLR 2612 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent
EvidenceCorroboratory evidence

If a case was primarily based upon the ocular evidence, it was not necessary to demand that there must be corroboratory evidence.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Corroboratory evidence", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124948240

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Corroboratory evidence"

PLD 1979
1978-January-23

P L D 1979 Karachi 519

MUHAMMAD PANNAH AND ANOTHER-Appellants Versus THE STATE-Respondent

Court: High Court
MLD 2011
2011-February-9

2011 MLD 886

ABDUL HAYAT — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Court: Peshawar
SCMR 1981
Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 30-R of 1980, decided on 8th March, 1981.

1981 SCMR 613

Mst. AMINA BIBI-Petitioner Versus PEHLWAN SHAH AND OTHERS-Respondents

Court: --- S. 302-Murder-case-Appeal to Supreme Court-Appreciation of evidence - Prosecution witness closely related to deceased - Could not be said to be not inimical witness-Corroboratory witness hostile witness--Explanation given by one prosecution witness for his presence at time of occurrence inconsistent-Description of occurrence in Sessions Court inconsistent with his version of occurrence in lower Court-Witness stating respondents having fired with a 'l2 bore pistol but medical evidence proving deceased having been killed by a bullet -- View taken by High Court reasonable and relating entirely to appreciation of evidence and not liable to interference Corroboratory evidence being that of an unreliable witness, his evidence could not corroborate other piece of tainted evidence Respondents, held, rightly acquitted by High Court---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. ,185(3).-Witness.
SCMR 2024
Criminal Petition No. 1390-L of 2013, decided on 18th April, 2024.

2024 S C M R 1133

MUHAMMAD IQBAL — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
PLD 2004
2003-October-17

P L D 2004 Peshawar 20

ALI RAZA — Appellant Versus FAZAL WAHID — Respondent

Court: High Court
SCMR 1982
Criminal Petition No. 531 of 1980, decided on 8th February, 1982.

1982 S C M R 722

MANSAB KHAN-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent

Court: ---- S. 302-Murder-Appreciation of evidence-Occurrence not an unwitnessed occurrence as contended but witnessed by two prosecution witnesses-Both eye-witnesses though related to deceased yet also related to petitioner-accused-No reason shown as to why prosecution witnesses spared real culprits and implicated their own close relative for firing fatal shot-No independent corroboratory evidence although available yet no inconsistency or infirmity in testimony of eye-witnesses shown--No reason also being assigned as to why eye-witnesses sub stituted false persons for real persons testimony of such witnesses could be relied upon without corroboratory evidence-Even otherwise testimony of eye-witnesses corroborated by medical evidence and evidence of motive--Case against accused-petitioner, held, proved beyond reasonable doubt in circumstances.--Witness.
SCMR 2015
Criminal Appeals Nos.369 and 370 of 2010, decided on 17th April, 2015.

2015 S C M R 1142

Mst. SUGHRA BEGUM and another — Appellants Versus QAISER PERVEZ and others — Respondents

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
PLD 1986
Criminal Petition No. Q‑4 of 1985, heard on 2nd September, 1985.

P L D 1986 Supreme Court 29

MAHMOOD KHAN SHEERANI‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent

Court:
PLD 1992
1992-February-2

P L D 1992 Supreme Court 253

MUHAMMAD HASHIM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Court: High Court
PLD 1985
Criminal Appeal No. 24-K of 1982, decided on 16th January, 1985.

P L D 1985 Supreme Court 361

MUHAMMAD IQBAL-Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD TAHIR AND OTHERS-Respondents

Court: S. 302/34-Recovery-Recovery of crime weapon (knife) from house of accused on his pointing out-Weapon found concealed under a pile of rubbish and accused had exclusive knowledge as to where it was lying-Delay of 16 months in sending recovered knife to Chemical Examiner-Effect-Result of delay in examination of weapon recovered at instance of accused by Chemical Examiner, because of its having reached him late, held, could only be that blood on weapon may be found to have been disintegrated due to passage of time (which was not in present case) but that too by itself was not sufficient ground to reject it as corroboratory evidence.-Recovery,