Criminal trial - Corroborative evidence being a voluntary extra judicial confession  considering the nature of relationship between the witness and the appellant - Normally the evidence of the wife, husband, son or daughter of the deceased, is given great weightage on the principle that there is no reason for them not to speak the truth and shield the real culprit -  We see no reason why the same principle cannot be applied when such a witness deposes against a closely related accused - According to normal human behavior and conduct, a witness would tend to shield and protect a closely related accused - It would require great courage of conviction and moral strength for a daughter to depose against her own mother who is an accused - There is no reason why the same reverse weightage shall not be given to the credibility of such a witness.  Held,  PW4 is the daughter of the appellant. She has deposed that two days prior to the occurrence the appellant had threatened the witness to leave PW1 else she would get his family members killed. Soon after the occurrence having reached the house of her inlaws she stepped out on the verandah. The appellant who was standing on her own verandah told the witness that she had got the deceased killed because the witness did not listen to her and that her husband would be killed next. In cross-examination she reiterated the same. The statement, in our opinion, can be considered as a corroborative evidence being a voluntary extra judicial confession, considering the nature of relationship between the witness and the appellant.  (2018)2 SCeJ 1453

Criminal trial -- Corroboration is not required for every fact sought to be proved by the prosecution -  If a fact is proved by some credible evidence, to insist upon further corroborating material would only make the enforcement of criminal law an absurdity. 


(2018)2 SCeJ 1112 - criminal trial - nav
Adobe Acrobat Document 263.0 KB

Criminal Trial - Complainant shall be treated as an accomplice and therefore, his evidence shall be corroborated in material particulars before placing reliance thereupon - A person who had become nervous would not have ventured to receive bribe in the presence of a stranger - Chatting through mobile between accused and the complainant has been properly explained by the accused - Where recovery of bribe amount would not establish the charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act - The demand of bribe and acceptance of the same by the accused will have to be established by the prosecution. (181) PLR

Register SCeJ  Free Updates*

Supreme Court e@journal

Subscribe or take a 4 week FREE trial 

Note: Please fill out the fields marked with an asterisk.