E Evidence constitutes a fundamental aspect of criminal procedural law, as it serves as the basis for judges in forming their conviction when rendering a decision. in the criminal justice system, evidence that corroborates one another plays a significant role in uncovering the material truth of a criminal case. however, in decision number 176/pid.sus/2024/pn.smp, the evidence consisting of witness testimony, narcotics as physical evidence, and money obtained from the transaction was interconnected, yet was not fully taken into consideration by the panel of judges in reaching its verdict. this study examines two issues: the evidentiary strength of witness testimony that is corroborated by other forms of evidence, and the legal reasoning of the panel of judges regarding corroborative evidence in decision number 176/pid.sus/2024/pn.smp. this research employs a normative legal research method with a descriptive approach. the study uses secondary data consisting of primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials, which are analyzed qualitatively, and conclusions are drawn through deductive reasoning. to support the analysis, the author also utilizes data obtained from interviews. the findings indicate that witness testimony corroborated by other evidence possesses strong evidentiary value because it is supported by narcotics as physical evidence and money derived from the narcotics transaction, all of which are mutually consistent. furthermore, the legal reasoning of the panel of judges in decision number 176/pid.sus/2024/pn.smp has not fully applied the principle of corroboration of evidence as recognized under the indonesian criminal procedure code (kuhap). therefore, judges should conduct a more comprehensive assessment of all evidence that is interconnected and mutually corroborative in order to ensure legal certainty and achieve the material truth in criminal judgments.