#corroborative evidence

CESTAT Ahmedabad sets aside penalties under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules 2002, ruling that statements alone are insufficient for imposing penalties without corroborative evidence and explicit invocation of the penal clause. The decision underscores the need for strict adherence to procedural safeguards in excise penalty proceedings, impacting manufacturers and corporate officers facing similar allegations.

Jharkhand High Court sets aside a rape conviction, ruling that uncorroborated victim testimony must be entirely consistent and free from contradictions to sustain a conviction under Section 376 IPC. The judgment emphasizes the risks of exaggeration and the need for unimpeachable evidence in sexual offence cases, impacting prosecutorial standards in criminal trials.

Allahabad HC grants bail in a POCSO case where the medical report showed no injuries and no corroborative evidence linked the accused to the offence. The court emphasized that absent risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation, prolonged pre-trial detention is unjustified, reinforcing bail as a right where prosecution evidence is weak.

The Allahabad High Court granted bail to an accused not named in the FIR and lacking any forensic or eyewitness linkage to the crime, reinforcing that absence of prima facie evidence and investigative gaps override the gravity of the charge. This sets a critical precedent for pre-trial liberty where prosecution fails to establish even a minimal nexus between the accused and the offence.

Madras High Court rules that admissions made under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act during search proceedings cannot independently justify additions to undisclosed income. The court emphasized the need for corroborative evidence, setting aside additions related to deemed dividends and long-term capital gains due to lack of proof, reinforcing safeguards against self-incrimination in tax assessments.

Chhattisgarh High Court rules that self-prepared account schedules, without original books of accounts or independent corroboration, cannot establish liability under Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act. The judgment underscores the necessity of corroborative evidence in commercial disputes to meet the burden of proof, impacting recovery suits and contractual claims.

The CETAT holds that allegations of clandestine removal under the Central Excise Act cannot be sustained on third-party records alone; corroborative evidence is mandatory.

Chhattisgarh High Court rules that a statement made under expectation of death loses admissibility under Section 32 Evidence Act if the maker survives, but may be used under Sections 155/157 for corroboration or contradiction.