Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
Corroboration - Indian Laws - GeneralExtract Meaning of word Corroboration In Halsbury s Laws of England-IV Edn.-Vol. II-page 268- this proposition is stated thus: The word corroboration is not a technical term of art; it means by itself no more than evidence tending to confirm, support or strengthen, other evidence .. ... .The corroboration need not consist of direct evidence that the defendant committed the offence nor need it amount to confirmation of the whole account given by the witness, provided that it corroborates the evidence in some respects material to the charge under consideration. It is sufficient if it is circumstantial evidence of the defendant s connection with the offence, but it must be independent evidence, and must not be vague However there were some observations in Director of Public Prosecutions v. Killbourne (1973) Appeal A.C. 729 which tended towards a departure from the rule in Rex v. Bhaskerville. In Killbourne case Lord Hailsham said-and this is also the statement of the law in Halsbury -IV Edition Evidence which is admissible, relevant to the evidence requiring corroboration and (if believed) conformatory of that evidence in a material particular, is capable of being corroborative and, when believed, is corroboration . The above passage was not wholly in consonance with what Lord Reading had earlier said: .... For example confirmation does not mean that there should be independent evidence of that which the accomplice relates, or his testimony would be unnecessary Reg v. Mullins ( 1) per Maule J .... But, in R. v. Beck., [ 1982] 1 All ER 807 (CA), it was reiterated by way of clarification that corroborating evidence need not relate to the particular evidence spoken to by a suspect-witness, and that it was merely independent testimony which confirmed in some material particular not only the evidence that a crime had been committed but also that the accused-person had committed it. Referring to the statement of Lord Hailsham in Killbourne case , All England law reports 1982(1) page 815(g) it was observed: The learned editors of Archbold para 1416, after, in our judgment correctly, stating that the corroborative evidence need not relate to the particular incident or incidents spoken to by the suspect witness , express the view that Lord Hailsham s dictum that the corroborative evidence must be relevant to the evidence requiring corroboration may be misleading . We agree. We do not think that Lord Hailsham LC was expressing any support for the proposition of counsel for the appellant. [BALWANT KAUR VERSUS UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH- 1987 (11) TMI 376 - SUPREME COURT]
|