Question: A makes a statement to her husband immediately after she was raped by B. Is this statement admissible as corroborative evidence? [U.P.A.P.O Exam. 1997] Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [A makes a statement to her husband immediately after she was raped by B. Is this statement admissible as corroborative evidence?] Answer… Read More »

Question: A makes a statement to her husband immediately after she was raped by B. Is this statement admissible as corroborative evidence? [U.P.A.P.O Exam. 1997] Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [A makes a statement to her husband immediately after she was raped by B. Is this statement admissible as corroborative evidence?] Answer Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act lays down the provision for Former statements of witness may be proved to corroborate...

Question: A makes a statement to her husband immediately after she was raped by B. Is this statement admissible as corroborative evidence? [U.P.A.P.O Exam. 1997]

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [A makes a statement to her husband immediately after she was raped by B. Is this statement admissible as corroborative evidence?]

Answer

Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act lays down the provision for Former statements of witness may be proved to corroborate latter testimony as to the same fact.

It states that in order to corroborate the testimony of a witness, any former statement made by such witness relating to the same fact, at or about the time when the fact took place, or before any authority legally competent to investigate the fact, may be proved

Conditions for admitting statements

The previous statements made under either of the two following conditions may be admitted for corroboration under this section:

  1. the statement must have been made at or about the time when the fact took place; or
  2. it must have been made before any authority legally competent to investigate the fact.

Thus this section allows a witness to be corroborated by proof that he said the same thing on the previous occasion, the only condition being that his previous statement shall have been made either about the time of the occurrence or before a competent authority.

The force of any corroboration by means of previous consistent statement evidently depends upon the truth of the proposition that he who is consistent deserves to be believed.

Since in the present facts of the case, A makes a statement to her husband immediately after she was raped by B, despite the fact that statement was not made before a legally competent authority, it was made immediately after the occurrence. The word used is ‘OR’ between the two conditions.

The first condition being fulfilled, such a statement can be made admissible as corroborative evidence.

The first condition is described in detail as below:

At or about the time-

This section provides an exception to the general rule of excluding hearsay evidence and so in order to bring a statement within the exception, the duty is cast on the prosecution to establish by clear evidence to the proximity of time between the taking place of the fact and the making of the statement as clarified in Mangal Rai v. Emperor, AIR 1928 Lah. 647.

The Hon’ble SC lays down in Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1952 SC 54 that there can be no hard and fast rule. The main test is whether the statement was made as early as can reasonably be expected in the circumstances of the case and before there was an opportunity for tutoring or concoction.

The words “at about the time” must mean that the statement must be made at once or at last shortly after when a reasonable opportunity for making it presents itself. The object of the section seems to be to admit statements made at a time when the mind of the witness is still so connected with the events as to make it probable that his description of them would be correct.

What is a reasonable time is a question of fact. Where in a murder case in Fakir Jumma Khan v. Emperor, AIR 1939 Peshawar 4, witnesses said that they heard the shot, went to the scene of occurrence, found the deceased dead and told by ‘A’ and ‘B’ that ‘F’ had committed the murder, it was held that the statement of the witness was admissible to corroborate ‘A’ and ‘B’ that they had said that ‘F’ had committed the murder.

In Mahabir Singh v. State of Haryana [AIR 2001 SC 2503], the Supreme Court held that statement was made soon after occurrence by a solitary eye-witness to his father about the occurrence. Father narrated the details heard by him from his son in FIR lodged by him.

The interval between occurrence and time of reporting by an eye-witness to his father did not cross the boundaries envisaged by the words “at or about the time” when the (occurrence) took place. In Section 157 testimony of the father can be used for corroboration of the evidence of eye witness, his son.


Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

  1. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-I
  2. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-II
  3. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-III
  4. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-IV
  5. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-V
  6. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VI
  7. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VII
  8. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VIII
  9. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-IX
  10. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-X
Updated On 2021-11-12T11:00:58+05:30
Admin LB

Admin LB

Next Story