Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
(LLS4243)
CORROBORATION
(ASSIGNMENT)
principal evidence is true1. According to the case of DPP v Hester 2, the best synonym
for the word corroboration is support. Therefore, we can conclude that corroboration
is evidence which is admissible according to law to support evidence in any cases.
According to section 134 of Evidence Act 3, it does not require the evidence of
witnesses to be corroborated to prove the fact. It was explain in the case Dato
Mokhtar bin Hashim v PP 4 where the judge stated that to support the defence of
alibi, court will look on the weighing the credibility of the respective witnesses, not by
the mere numerical preponderance on one side or the other.
case was adopted by the case of Dowse v Attorney General, Federations of Malaya 7
which stated that corroborative evidence must be truly probative on the relevant
issue which it must positively implicate the accused committed the offence. In Attan
bin Abdul Gani v PP8, the principle in this case is that corroborative must be
independent evidence which connects the accused with the same crime. In
Thavanathan a/l Balasubramaniam v PP 9, the corroborating evidence must show not
only that the offence was committed, but that it was committed by the accused. In
Muniandy & Anor v PP10, stated that circumstantial evidence as corroborative is
valueless unless it is independent evidence which in a material particular implicates
the accused.
There are 3 situations that amount to corroboration evidence which are firstly,
distressed condition of the victim where it was stated in the case of Liew Kim Yong v
PP11. in this case, the distressed condition of a victim may support to the victims
story although it must be regarded with caution. Second situation is the conduct of
the accused. The principle in the case Dato Seri Anuar bin Ibrahim v PP 12 stated that
the conduct of the accused before and after committing the alleged offence may be
used to corroborate the evidence of the complainant. In another case, Dowse v
Attorney General, Federation of Malaya 13, the appellants conduct in arranging and
paying for a medical examination to find out whether the girl with whom he allegedly
committed adultery was pregnant, was held to amount to corroboration of that
allegation. Besides, false statements made by an accused person also have been
held to be corroborative evidence of his guilt. Third situation which amount to
corroboration is medical evidence. According to the case of PP v Rusydi Okp
Harun14, the principal in this case was that the detected semen which matches the
DNA profiling of the accused found at the crime scene is among medical evidence
which can corroborate the evidence of a complainant in a sexual case.
King20 where the judges in that case said that it is a sound rule of practice not to act
on the uncorroborated evidence of a child, whether sworn or unsworn, but this is a
rule of prudence and of law.
Another situation where corroboration is not required as matter of law is in
sexual complainants. In the case of Din v PP 21, the desirability for the corroboration
of the evidence of the prosecution in a rape case springs not from the nature of the
witness but from the nature of the offence. According to section 133 of Evidence Act
1950, it was stated that an accomplice shall be a competent witness against an
accused person and a conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the
uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. In section 114, illustration (b) provides
that the court may presume that an accomplice is unworthy of credits unless he is
corroborated in material particulars. In the case of Tan See Boon v PP 22, the judges
stated that various considerations and reasons have been stated as the basis of the
relating to accomplice evidence. In the case PP v Nomezam Apandy bin Abu
Hassan23, the judged said that an accomplice is a person who has participated in the
commission of an offence, he is a particeps criminis. An accessory after the fact is
not a particeps criminis and is not in law and accomplice.
have made a statement previously on the same fact at or about the time when the
fact took place or before any authority legally competent to investigate the fact. 28 For
example in the case of Paneerselvan29, the words at or about the time in section
157 mean that the statement must be made at once or at least shortly after when a
reasonable opportunity for making it presents itself. The object of the section is to
admit statements made at a time when the mind of the witness is so connected with
the events as to make it probable that his description of them would be accurate.
Conclusion
Therefore, corroboration evidence is more admissible evidence that given by the
witness rather than relevancy or other type of evidence. Based on section 133A of
Evidence Act 1950, all requirements under this section must be fulfilled and therefore
corroboration is a must in order to convict a person and to make the conviction is
legal. However, there is also a case where corroboration is not required such as
sexual complainant. This is because the judge held that woman in involved in sexual
offences tends to fabricate some stories or telling lies. However, from my opinion, I
feel that corroboration for sexual offences are needed in a form of documentary or
oral evidence is suffice even there is no clear provision for this matter. It is
28 Rafiah Salim: Evidence in Malaysia and Singapore: Cases, Materials and
Commentary 3rd Edition. Published by LexisNexis. Page 708
29 PP v Paneerselvan [1991] 1 MLJ 106
undeniable that society always hate rapist but do not forget that an accused is
always presumed innocent until proven he is guilty. With corroboration, only justice
could be served.