The word "Corroboration" is derived from the Latin Word "robust" meaning "strength". It means strengthening or confirming something. Corroboration may be considered essential to establish a sexual offence in the backdrop of social ecology of western world but the said concept may not be imported in the soil of this Sub-continent as identities of two Worlds are different. Rule of corroboration which was much strict in a trial for offence of rape than other offences was largely removed from law with the passage of time and, also, through Judicial verdicts of Superior Courts of Sub-Continent.

It would be impossible, indeed, it would be dangerous to formulate the kind of evidence which should, or would be regarded as corroboration. Its nature and extent must necessarily vary with the circumstances of each case and, also, according to particular circumstances of each case, and, also, according to the particular circumstances of the offence charged. But to this extent Rules are clear which are catalogued hereunder:

a. It is not necessary that there should be independent confirmation of every material circumstances in the sense that independent evidence in the case, apart from the testimony of victim of sexual assault, should in itself be sufficient to sustain conviction. All that is required is that there must be some additional evidence rendering it probable that the story of victim of crime is true and that it is reasonably safe to act upon it.

b. Independent evidence must not only make it safe to believe that crime was committed but must in some way reasonably connect or tend to connect the accused with it by confirming in some material particular the testimony of victim of sexual assault that the accused committed the crime.

c. Corroboration must come from independent sources.

d. Corroboration need not be direct evidence that the accused committed the crime. It is sufficient if there is strong circumstantial evidence of accused's connection with the crime. 

(Safazuddin and another Vs. State, 2007, 36 CLC (HCD) [8407])

Corroborative evidence is not an imperative component of judicial credence in every case of rape. Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the restimong of a victim of sex crime is not a requirement of law but merely a guidance of prudence under a given circumstances. 

(Al Amin Vs. The State, 19 BLD (HCD) 307 = 51 DLR HCD 154)  

In the context of realities the concept of ‘independent corroboration’ must be given a liberal construction and it should not be rigidly sought for when some evidence worthy of credence is on record. 

(Nurul Islam Chowdhury and another Vs. State, 1998, 27 CLC (HCD) [4492])  

The act of corroborating or strengthening or confirming; addition of strength; confirmation; Evidence that confirms the accuracy of other evidence in a material particular. Corroboration is nothing other than evidence which ‘confirms’ or ‘supports’ or ‘strengthens’ other evidence. It is, in short, evidence which renders other evidence more probable. 

(Director of Public Prosecutions Vs. Killbourne, (1973) 1 All ER 440, 460 (HL))

See, Abdus Sobhan Biswas Vs. State, 2002, 31 CLC (HCD) [4338].