Evidence

INTRODUCTION
The Black Law’s dictionary defines an “accomplice” as a person who has

participated in a guilty act and is liable in a criminal action, by being present at the
place where crime has been committed by aiding or abetting in it even when he is
absent from the place where crime has been committed, the person participated
having advised or encouraged it.
In layman’s terms, accomplice evidence may appear untrustworthy as accomplices

are usually always involved and infamous witnesses, but their evidence is mostly
admitted under necessary circumstances because, in these cases, it is not easy to
convict main accused without having recourse to such evidence. Thus, accomplice
evidence may appear unreliable, but it’s often beneficial and even an invaluable
tool in crime detection, crime-solving, and delivering justice and consequently, an
essential part of the Law of Evidence. Accomplice and admissibility of accomplice
witnesses are mentioned in Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872. It lays
down that an accomplice has to be proved as a competent witness for a conviction,
legal to rely upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice.
Who is an Accomplice?
In legal contexts, particularly under Section 133 of The Evidence Act, 1872, the
term ‘accomplice’ plays an important role. An accomplice is someone who
participates in a crime alongside another person or group.
When law enforcement persuades an individual to engage in criminal activities to

gather evidence against others, that individual is known as a trap witness. If a trap
witness who is also an accomplice receives a pardon, they may be referred to as an
approver. Notably, Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, considers trap
witnesses and approvers as competent witnesses, falling under the definition of
‘accomplice’ as used in the section.
Although the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, does not explicitly define the term
‘accomplice,’ it is generally understood in its ordinary sense. The judiciary has
attempted to define the term through various rulings. For example, in Chandan v
Emperor, the court described an accomplice as someone who is involved with an
offender or offenders in committing a crime or someone who knowingly and
voluntarily aids and abets others in the commission of a crime. Essentially, an
accomplice in Evidence Act can be considered a partner in crime or particeps
criminis.
In R.K Dalmia v. Delhi Administration, the Supreme Court defined an
accomplice as a person who actively participates in the criminal act for which the
accused is being tried, being a particeps criminis. However, there are situations
where a person may be deemed an accomplice even if they are not directly
involved in committing the crime. For instance, someone who receives stolen
property can be considered an accomplice of the thieves who stole the property.
Moreover, in Shanker v State of Tamil Nadu, the court clarified that when an
accomplice becomes an approver, they transition into a prosecution witness. For an
approver’s testimony to be considered valid, it must pass two tests: reliability and
sufficient corroboration.
Section 133, IEA

Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act (IEA) stipulates that an accomplice is
considered a competent witness against an accused person and a conviction is not
deemed illegal solely because it relies on the uncorroborated testimony of an
accomplice.
Types of Accomplices
There are several types of accomplices in Evidence Act based on their level of
involvement in the crime:
 Principal Offender of First Degree: This is a person who directly commits the
crime. If multiple individuals commit a crime together, each one is considered a
principal offender of the first degree.
 Principal Offender of Second Degree: This refers to a person who aids, abets or
assists in the commission of the crime. They are present at the crime scene and
assist the principal offender in some manner.
 Accessories Before the Fact: These individuals do not directly participate in the
commission of the crime but encourage, incite, procure or counsel others to
commit the crime.
 Accessories After the Fact: An individual becomes an accessory after the fact
when they knowingly assist a person who has committed a crime in escaping
punishment or arrest. This assistance can include harbouring the offender,
providing comfort, helping them escape or opposing their arrest.
Accomplice as a Competent Witness

An accomplice in Evidence Act can serve as a competent witness as long as he is
not a co-accused under trial in the same case. However, even if the law confers
competency on him, he still retains his status as an accused. By accepting a pardon
under Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), an accomplice
becomes a competent witness and can be examined on oath like any other witness.
For this to happen, the prosecution must be withdrawn and the accused must be
formally discharged under Section 321 of the CrPC. If there is an omission to
record the discharge, the accused still becomes a competent witness upon the
withdrawal of prosecution.
Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, 1950, states that no accused shall be
compelled to be a witness against himself. However, when an accomplice accepts a
pardon willingly and agrees to make a true disclosure, he is not compelled to give
self-incriminating evidence.
Therefore, the provisions of Sections 306 and 308 of the CrPC are not affected. A
pardoned accused is obligated to make a full disclosure and if he fails to do so, he
may be tried for the originally charged offence and his statement may be used
against him under Section 308.
When an Accomplice Becomes a Competent Witness

Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with the competency of witnesses.
Competency is a prerequisite for examining a person as a witness and the sole
criterion for competency is that the witness should not be prevented by his age,
mental or physical state or disease from understanding the questions posed to him
or from giving rational answers.
Similarly, Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act describes the competency of
accomplice witnesses, stating that they should not be co-accused under trial in the
same case and may be examined on oath.
Evidentiary Value of Accomplice Testimony

When an accomplice in Evidence Act provides testimony, it is not considered
reliable evidence on its own for a conviction. This testimony must be corroborated
with other material evidence to be deemed valid; this requirement is known as
corroboration. The rationale behind this rule is to protect the accomplice, who may
be providing testimony against their co-accused.
However, this does not imply that the court cannot rely on the evidence provided
by an accomplice. An accomplice is deemed a competent witness against the
accused person and a conviction based solely on the testimony of an accomplice is
considered valid, even if it is not corroborated in all material particulars.
Case Laws
 Chandan v. Emperor (1930): The Allahabad High Court defined an accomplice
as someone who is associated with an offender or offenders in the commission of a
crime or someone who knowingly or voluntarily helps and cooperates with others
in the commission of the crime.
 Shanker v State of Tamil Nadu (1994): The Supreme Court held that when an
accomplice becomes an approver, they eventually become a prosecution witness.
 State of Rajasthan v. Bal Veera (2014): The Supreme Court held that an
accomplice’s testimony will be presumed unworthy unless it is corroborated by
some other material evidence.
Conclusion
The role of an accomplice in Evidence Act is significant yet complex. While an
accomplice is considered a competent witness, their testimony alone is not
sufficient for a conviction and must be corroborated with other evidence. This
requirement is important to prevent false or biased testimony and to ensure the
integrity of the legal process. Despite the challenges associated with accomplice
testimony, it remains a valuable tool in criminal investigations and trials.
It underscores the importance of thorough investigation and the need for

corroborating evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Understanding the nuances of accomplice testimony is essential for both legal
practitioners and individuals involved in the criminal justice system.
REFERENCES
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1953529/
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/445276/
Batuk Lal, The Law of Evidence (27thEdition)

Evidence

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evidence

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evidence

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INTRODUCTION

The Black Law’s dictionary defines an “accomplice” as a person who has

In layman’s terms, accomplice evidence may appear untrustworthy as accomplices

When law enforcement persuades an individual to engage in criminal activities to

Section 133, IEA

Accomplice as a Competent Witness

When an Accomplice Becomes a Competent Witness

Evidentiary Value of Accomplice Testimony

It underscores the importance of thorough investigation and the need for

Batuk Lal, The Law of Evidence (27thEdition)

You might also like