ACCOMPLICE AS AWITNESS – CRITICAL

ANALYSIS OF THE APPARENT CONTRADICTION

BETWEEN SECTION 113 & 114 (b) OF THE INDIAN
EVIDENCE ACT

Submitted By-
Rishi raj singh
Division- “C”, BBA LLB

Of

Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad

A Constituent of-

Symbiosis International (deemed) University, PUNE

In September, 2019

Under the guidance of

Professor K. Shanthi

(Assistant Professor, Faculty-in-charge, Evidence Law)

1
 Certificate
The Report entitled – ACCOMPLICE AS AWITNESS – CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE
APPARENT CONTRADICTION BETWEEN SECTION 113 & 114 (b) OF THE INDIAN
EVIDENCE ACT submitted to the Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad for Evidence Law as
part of internal assessment is based on my original work carried out under the guidance of
Professor K. Shanthi from June to September.

The research work has not been submitted elsewhere for award of any degree. The material
borrowed from other sources and incorporated in the thesis has been duly acknowledged.

I understand that I myself could be held responsible and accountable for plagiarism, if any,
detected later on.

Signature of Faculty-in-Charge

Signature of the Student

Rishi Raj Singh

Date: 1th May,2021

2
 Acknowledgment
I would like to convey my heartfelt regards to our respected Director, Dr. Sarfaraz Ahmed
without whom such activities would not have been possible.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks to them.

I would like to express my sincere gratitude and indebtedness to Professor K. Shanthi for his
enlightening lectures. I would also like to express my sincere gratitude to our teaching staff
for guiding me the path towards gaining knowledge.

I would like to thank the Library Staff of Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad as well for their
cooperation.

I would also like to thank my batch mates and seniors who inspired, helped and guided me in
making this project.

Signature of Student

Prabhan Patel

Shivangi Rajiva

Viraj Malik

Date:1 May , 2021

3
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Synopsis

1.1. Introduction...........................................................5

1.2. Objective...............................................................5

1.3. Research question..................................................6

1.4. Outcome.................................................................6

1.5. Methodology..........................................................10

2. Literature Review............................................................11

4
INTRODUCTION

An Accomplice Witness relates to someone witnessing a crime, whether primary or an

incident, who has a relationship to the crime through an illegal act or omission by him,
whether or not he has been implicated in the crimes at the moment or since the commission
of the crime. In Indian Evidence Act1872, the term Accomplice was not provided. Simply
put, an accomplice is an individual who participates in the commission of some crime or
allies or associates in some way associated with the crime, or who acknowledges that the
criminal act is committed in any way by an aware mind. Accomplice testimony can be
trustworthy since they are usually involved in the crime, but often proof may be required
because it is nearly difficult to prosecute criminals without such a valuable aid. Therefore, it
may be very valuable and helpful in identifying and enforcing the law, even if it might not be
accurate. The Indian Evidence Act of 1872, Section 133, identifies Witness Accomplice. It
notes that an accomplice can be an important witness against a criminal and that a verdict
isn't unconstitutional just because the evidence of an accomplice is uncorroborated. The most
of the murders are normally committed in locations in which it is not possible to get an
eyewitness and only the criminals themselves are the only ones that are currently seeing the
incident. Therefore, the provision of justice is postponed because it is not practicable for the
authorities to be everywhere to return to the crimes sites quickly so as to either capture the
suspects or to safeguard the witnesses. In some situations the police are not able to provide
evidence on these crimes. Therefore, a complice claimant is a gift for the judges in these
situations when they serve as witnesses of first hand and they were present when the offence
was committed. Although the given details can not be accurate, it may also be an important
source of proof to help bring justice. A qualified witness can be an accomplice if they are not
tried in the same situation. Section 306 of Crpc states that a complicit person becomes a
qualified witness by granting a forgiveness under that section and can be handled under oath
as any other witness.

OBJECTIVES

To have a brief view of the provisions of accomplice witness.

To study and refer various case laws relating to accomplice witness.

To analyse and review the limitation of this section.

RESEARCH QUESTION

1) What is the background and scope accomplice to witness?

2) What are the propositions made by the court?

5
 3) Explain the judicial prospective?

OUTCOME

WHO IS AN ACCOMPLICE?

Complimentary Testimony is an observer of a misdeed. I.e. a witness to a crime and, by any

act which is not lawful or exclusively on his or her behalf, has, either as 'complice, or
accessory, or theory been related to the crime, has been committed either previously, at the
time of or following commission of the offense and has been accessible and shared in the
crime by the person in question. The "accomplice" term was not specified by Indian Evidence
Act 1872. A complice includes a collaborator or a coupable friend who is involved with,
related to or in some manner associated with the crime or who admits that he is consciously
involved in a crime committee

As the complices are generally fascinated and sometimes keenly observers, often extremely
curious, the layman may think that his evidence is deceptive and unconvincing, yet his
evidence is attributeable as it is often inconceiversable without the need for certain facts to
hold the necessary guilty parties. This makes an accomplice doubtful but also a useful and
even important tool in the investigation of crimes, the resolution and enforcement of justice
and, as such, an important piece of the Law of Evidence.

A witness involved does not recognize his interest or involvement in a criminal offence and
may even refuse to comply, but it is also the Court's job to decide whether or not it is an
accomplice to consider and accept the entire evidence. The presumption of proof lies with the
prosecutor and the court may conclude that the group charging a complice with the intention
of invoking the norm with the obligation to present the complice character of the proof to the
court must be unquestionably charged. The key thing is to remain stubbornly involved with
fraud, and this can be achieved in many forms.

COMPETENCY OF ACCOMPLICE AS A WITNESS

An accomplice should be provided as credible witness because in a related situation, he is not

a co-accused. However, the power granted to him under a law process would not exclude him
from the character of a blamed person, and is not a deprivation of him as an accused. ” Under
Article 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the perpetrator should be formally releasing
under the provisions of Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before he may
transform into a reliable witness, and dismiss the case. Irrespective of whether the release of
an accused is omitted, he becomes a competent witness until the prosecution is withdrawn. In
accordance with Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, 1950, no individual is forced to be
a witness against himself. However, the statute under section 306 and 308 of the Criminal
Procedure Code shall not be impaired if the complicity recognizes his free will forgiveness
for true publication under terms and of his own self-interest and does not have to include any
proof. An acquitted accused would also certainly make a final admission, as he will be
originally tried for the crime and his comments under Section 308 will be held against him.

6
WHEN ACCOMPLICE BECOMES A COMPETENT WITNESS

The competence of a witness is discussed in Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act. The
only test of competence is that the witness does not be unable to understand the questions
posed or have the balanced answers expected by age and his emotional and physical state as
an illness. It is a condition of interviewing a person as a witness. Section 133 discusses the
competence of an accomplice at the same time. Also if an accomplice witness occurs, he may
not, in a comparable situation, be co-accused to be inspected under oath. With respect to
witness clauses two separate Sections 114(b) and 133 is passed under Indian Evidence Act,
but one of them is in conflict with the other in all accounts. It was initially proposed that, as
interpreted in the light of Section 118, the inclusion of Section 133 should discuss the
witness's competence and do not justify the implementation of the former Act. An additional
Section 134, which controls the amount of testimonies in a case, invalidates Section 133,
second portion, which shows that the accomplice's unfounded declaration is not illegal. In
either case, consideration of the section achieves a deeply increased standing when there was
an enormous likelihood that the Statute might have been misjudged or twisted without
considering this specific field. In section 114, in example (b), it seems to be important that
analysis of section 141 is essential in order to resolve the sound premise, and to warn that it
cannot be unconstitutional simply because of the reality that the accomplice's statement is
uncorroborated.

PROPOSITIONS MADE BY THE COURT IN THIS REGARD

In the initial stages, courts have held that such competence, addressed to him in a lawsuit,
would not dissolve him from the persona of an accuser, and that aspect remains a participes
criminis, forming the start of a serious matter involving the validity.

Secondly, according to Section 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, when accepting the
absolution, a complicity turns into a competent witness because, since all evidence may be
analyzed on a sermon, the proceedings must be revoked and the accused can, before he
becomes a competent witness, be officially releasing under Section"321 of the Criminal Code
if the record release is excluded.

Thirdly, Article 20(3) of the Constitution states that no accused shall be bound to be a witness
against himself or be forced to be a witness. In either event, if a co-accused recognizes
forgiveness for his or her unrestricted self-interest on terms of full disclosure, not forced to
provide proof, the law of Section 306 and 308 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will not be
influenced, and the accused forgiveness will without doubt be entirely honest and unable to
do this, he or she can try to make a decision In any event It seems that a participes criminis
continues to be the equivalent, and if so then it can also be used for self-incrimination even
though its presence is forgiven by a law, and that "actual and complete disclosure" is not real.

In order to be a complicit individual, he must be interested in commissioning a crime close to

the accused and he may do so in various forms."

7
In India, all the accessories to the truth are that if the person takes an interest in organizing a
crime and is an assistant, their investments are limited to committing the crime, they are not
complicit. However, opinion remains divided about whether or not accessories are complicit
sometime after the event At times it has been held that in India that there is nothing of the
sort as an accessory afterward whereas in some cases accessories have been held accomplices
after the fact. Three conditions must join to render one an accessory after the fact:”

● The crime must be finished

● The accessory must have learning that the felony was committed by the principal
● The principal felon must be harboured or assisted by the accessory.

JUDICIAL PROSPECTIVE

The Court may assume that an accomplice is dishonourable of credit, except if he is verified
in material points of interest. While the Section 133 communicates that an accomplice will be
unable to observe without certification, the representation (b) of Section 114 clarifies that the
Court may assume the proof of assistant is disgraceful except if is authenticated in material
particulars. This an inquiry emerges about the capability of witness to associate in the
particular case. Here we can look at the words used in the particular section. While in Section
133, "will" is used and in the outline (b) for Sec. 114 ‘may’ is used. "Will" is more dominant
than-"may". The word may portrait authorization, which might be done or may not be
finished relying on the conditions given in the particular case as it differ from condition to
condition. The word will show power, which implies the demonstration must be done as per
as the condition. Further the words "dishonourable of credit" are utilized in the
representation. Additionally, implying that the observer of accomplice of shameful must be
supported with the other proof, while witness of accessory of deserving of credit might be
thought about without corroboration with the deserving of credit. The different choices of the
Supreme Court set out that it is available to the Court to leave from the accomplice in outline
(b) of Section 114, in the event that it feels that there are unique conditions for the situation
making it safe to do as such, and a conviction isn't unlawful only in light of the fact that it
depends on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice.”

In Rampal Pithwa Rahidas vs state of Maharashtra 1 ,A complice is dishonored of loan, until

the Court has checked that he or she is in material points of concern. While Section 133 states
that an accomplice shall not be able to comply without registration, Section 114's
Representation b) states that the Court may presume that evidence of an assistant is
disgraceful until it is authenticated in material details. This is an investigation into the
witness' willingness to participate in the specific situation. The terms included in the given
segment can be seen here. In Section 133, 'may' shall be used and in Section 114 'may' shall
be used in Outline (b). 'Will' is more prevalent than 'can.' The word can portrait permission
and may or may not be finished on the terms specified in the provided situation, since it
differs from condition to condition. The word shows strength that the presentation has to be
performed according to the situation. In addition, in the portrayal the terms "credit misfit" are
1 (1994 CrLJ 2320)

8
used. Moreover it implies that the complice of the shameful observer needs to be backed with
the other proof, while the praise deserved accessory can be considered with no corroboration
of the credit earned. The Supreme Court's separate decisions indicate that the court will
abandon the accomplice in paragraph (b) of Article 114, whether it believes that the case can
be done as such without some special provisions and that the prosecution should not become
unconstitutional merely because it rests on a complice's uncorroborated evidence.

The Supreme Court ruled that: Article 133 of the Law on Evidence states expressly that an
accomplice shall be a credible witness against his co-accused and allow an affidavit against
his co-accused.

"The routine of Section 133 of the Evidence Act has long been decided with respect to
statute, and Illustration (b) arrangements to Section 114 have to be read.

"Section 114 of the Evidence Act requires the Court to take into consideration such facts and
illustration (b) expressly states the fact that, except where certificated in material details, a
complicity is dishonourable from credit. Thus, while law allows the conviction of a blameful
person on the basis of a doubtful statement by a partner of the righteousness of Section 133's
arrangements to be considered a witness, it provides a warning that the accomplice has no
reasonability exemplified in Figure 114 of the Act of Proof. The declaration of a judge will
thus be recognised as proof of the guilt to be recorded by a convicted party as a matter of
training and reasonability as long as he seeks support from clear or circumstantial testimony
in material proceedings.

Usually, the courts have come to suspect the approver's claim since he is regarded as a low-
morals, not an entirely trustworthy person, eager to allow his former accomplices for the
purpose of pardon, and therefore courts insist on an impartial corroboration of his evidence
until documenting prosecution. The Court shall remember the question of what approved to
be detained and how he became part within the crimes, what part of the crime was committed
by him and what times he chose to end up becoming an approver, in order to determine how
the validity of the testimonies of the approver and the extent and the volume of the
corroboration was to be produced.

.”

In Suresh Chandra Bahri vs. State of Bihar 2 the Supreme Court laid down that conviction
may be based on uncorroborated testimony of an approver underneath Section 133, but
customarily of prudence, it is dangerous to place reliance on the uncorroborated testimony of
an approver. Illustration (b) of Section 114 includes a rule of warning to which the Courts
must have regards.

2 (AIR 1994 SC 2420)

9
In M.O. Shamsudhin vs. State of Kerala 3 The Supreme Court found that the proceedings
under Sec. 133 and Illustration (b) of Sec. 114 were not unconstitutional on the basis of
uncorroborated proof of the Companion.

However, if the Court cannot validate the facts of the matter, it will conclude that it is unable
to get credit. If complice evidence should be accepted without confirmation does not depend
on details and circumstances of the particular cases. But until it has been determined that a
person appearing as an accomplice in the history of their offences has the problem how good
their testimony should be provided, decades have revealed that the rule of caution has
become the rule of law and that a partner's sentences must be testified by a substantiative
tool. There are now several explanations that it was found to be mandatory to evaluate an
accomplice. He himself was a crook first, and thus his words do not give the usual law for a
man or a woman the same appreciation; secondly, if he misled his associates he will be too
likely to be a believer in the court; thirdly, he is a constant associate to a chameléon who
changes his colouration.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

To answer the above research questions, it is important to understand the importance of”
Section 133 and 114(b) when read together. Further, we need to understand an accomplice”
as a witness and its admissibility as evidence. In order to achieve this, a non-doctrinal
research will need to be carried out. The research for this project has been sourced from non-
empirical data and non-doctrinal data. Books, journals and articles have been reviewed to
arrive at this conclusion.”

LITERATURE REVIEW

● Batuk" Lal – “The Law of Evidence” – 22nd edition Central Law Agency
● C.D. Fields’s – “Commentary on Law of Evidence” – 13th edition volume 3,2013
● Textbook on the Indian Evidence Act Paperback – 1 Dec 2016 by K D Gaur
● THE LAW OF EVIDENCE Paperback – 2016 by AVTAR SINGH (Author)

ANALYSIS

3 (1995) 3 SCC 351)

10
The judicial system in our country have read Section 114(b) and Section 133 together and by
doing so have laid down some guiding principles which explain accomplice evidence and
which lays down the law. The basic principle says that any conviction which has been based
upon the testimony of an accomplice cannot be illegal but the rule of prudence says that to
consider such a testimony to be fair and true and acting upon it may not be so wise after all
unless it is Prima facie and it corroborates with respect to material aspects so as to force the
accused into surrendering. However, this does not always work as the accomplice often either
don’t provide any evidence or if they do, sometimes give false information which may delay
the proceedings. An accomplice can be a key witness and must fulfil the conditions given.
One condition being that he should actually be involved in the crime so that it can act as a
strong evidence.

11