When Substantial Evidence Is Lacking To Connect Accused With Crime, Other Corroborative Evidence Loses...
“When substantial evidence is lacking to connect the accused with the crime, other corroborative evidence loses its significance”
🔹 Principle Explained
In criminal law, conviction must be based on clear, cogent and convincing evidence directly linking the accused with the offence.
Substantial Evidence = The primary, independent evidence that directly connects the accused to the crime (like eyewitness testimony, DNA, credible confessional statement, etc.).
Corroborative Evidence = Additional supporting evidence that strengthens the primary evidence (like recovery of weapon, presence at the scene, call records, etc.).
👉 If substantial evidence itself is missing or weak, corroborative evidence cannot stand alone to convict. Corroboration is supplementary; it cannot replace the need for strong primary proof.
This ensures the principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt under Article 21 of the Constitution is protected.
🔹 Important Case Laws
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116
Laid down the five golden principles of circumstantial evidence.
Held that circumstances must form a complete chain pointing only to the guilt of the accused.
If the main link is missing, corroborative facts have no value.
Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1973) 2 SCC 808
SC held that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof.
If primary evidence is absent, conviction cannot rest on supportive or doubtful corroboration.
Subramaniam v. State of Tamil Nadu (2009) 14 SCC 415
The Court ruled that recovery of material objects (like weapon) without connecting evidence is meaningless.
Unless substantial evidence links the accused, such corroboration does not prove guilt.
Gujarat High Court – Acquittal Appeal (2022)
The Court reiterated: “When substantial evidence to connect the accused with the crime is lacking, other corroborative evidence loses its significance.”
Conviction cannot be based only on weak corroboration without direct linking proof.
Vijay Shankar v. State of Haryana (2015) 12 SCC 644
Held that in absence of trustworthy substantive evidence, corroborative evidence cannot sustain conviction.
🔹 Key Takeaways
Corroboration is supportive, not independent. It needs a base of substantial evidence.
Suspicion ≠ Proof. Courts cannot convict on mere recovery, presence, or suspicion.
Benefit of Doubt Principle: If the main evidence is shaky, the accused gets the benefit of doubt.
Rule of Law: Protects against wrongful conviction in a democratic system.
✅ In short: Courts have consistently held that without strong, substantive evidence directly linking the accused to the crime, other corroborative evidence is legally worthless. Conviction must rest on solid foundation, not on suspicion supported by weak corroboration.
RELATED Blog
0 comments