Judicial Precedents On Corroboration In Criminal Trials
1. Tukaram S. Dighole vs. State of Maharashtra (2010) — Corroboration of Testimony of a Victim
Facts:
The accused challenged his conviction for sexual assault, arguing that the victim’s testimony was not corroborated by any other evidence.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that the testimony of a victim of sexual assault need not be corroborated to be relied upon, provided it is credible, consistent, and inspires confidence. The Court observed that requiring corroboration might discourage victims from reporting crimes.
Key Takeaway:
Corroboration is not a rigid rule; the court can rely solely on trustworthy testimony, especially in sensitive cases like sexual offenses.
2. Lalita Kumari vs. Government of UP (2013) — Role of Corroboration in FIR and Investigation
Facts:
The petitioners argued for mandatory registration of FIRs and investigation standards to ensure justice.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court emphasized that police must register FIRs without undue delay and investigate thoroughly. While investigating, corroboration of the victim’s statement is desirable but not mandatory at the initial stage.
Key Takeaway:
Corroboration becomes relevant during trial but should not hinder the registration of FIR or investigation at the initial stage.
3. State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh (1996) — Corroboration of Testimony in Dowry Death Cases
Facts:
Conviction for dowry death was challenged on grounds of insufficient corroborative evidence.
Judgment:
The Court held that in cases of dowry death (Section 304B IPC), corroboration is not a mandatory prerequisite if the prosecution’s evidence, including the dying declaration and other circumstantial evidence, is consistent and reliable.
Key Takeaway:
The Court recognized the difficulty of corroboration in dowry death cases and stressed reliance on the totality of evidence.
4. Koppula Venkat Rao vs. State of A.P. (1996) — Corroboration and Its Absence
Facts:
The accused was convicted based solely on the testimony of eyewitnesses without additional corroborative evidence.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that if the eyewitnesses’ testimony is reliable, cogent, and inspires confidence, corroboration is not a must. The Court cautioned against the mechanical requirement of corroboration.
Key Takeaway:
Credibility of witnesses is paramount; corroboration is a tool, not a necessity.
5. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) — Test for Corroboration
Facts:
This case involved the evaluation of circumstantial evidence and the need for corroboration.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court laid down principles that corroboration must be consistent with the main evidence and support it, but cannot be a fresh piece of evidence by itself. The Court clarified that corroboration strengthens the main evidence and should be looked at in the context of the entire case.
Key Takeaway:
Corroboration must confirm the main evidence; it cannot replace it or contradict it.
Summary of Judicial Principles on Corroboration:
Corroboration is desirable but not mandatory, especially if the main evidence is credible.
Victim testimony, particularly in sexual assault and dowry death cases, can stand alone if trustworthy.
Corroboration must support and strengthen the main evidence, not contradict or replace it.
Courts focus on the overall reliability and consistency of evidence.
Corroboration plays a bigger role in the trial phase, less in the initial investigation.
RELATED Blog
0 comments