https://www.lawaudience.

com/the-concept-of-accomplice-witness-under-
the-indian-evidence-act-1872/

Table of Contents
 Introduction
 Who is an Accomplice?
 Whether a Witness is an Accomplice or Not?
o

 Competency of Accomplice Witness

 Categories of Accomplices
o

 Principals in the first and second degrees

 Accessories before the fact
 Accessories after the fact
 Accomplice and Co-accused
 Accomplice and Approver
 Accomplice and Sexual Crimes
 Who is not an accomplice?
 Evidentiary value of an Accomplice
o Necessity of Corroboration
 Nature and Extent of Corroboration
 Appreciation of Accomplice Evidence- The Corroboration
Issue
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, legally to rely upon the
uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice.
Who is an Accomplice?/ Ways to make the testimony of accomplice
credible
 To attract Section 133 of The Evidence Act, 1872, a person must be an
accomplice. Hence, it’s essential to understand the meaning and
significance of the term ‘accomplice.’ Anyone who has taken part in the
commission of the crime, along with another or others, is called an
accomplice. When the police induce a person to take part in crime for
finding evidence against others, he is called a trap-witness. When an
accomplice who is a trap-witness is given a pardon, he can be referred to
as an approver. Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 includes
trap witnesses and approvers as a competent witness under the term
accomplice used in the section.
 In the Indian Evidence Act 1872, the word accomplice has not been
defined; it can, therefore, be presumed as used in the ordinary sense by
the legislature. The judiciary has tried to define who is an accomplice in
various judgments. In Chandan v Emperor the Court defined accomplice
as one who is associated with an offender or offenders in the commission
of a crime or one who knowingly or voluntarily helps and cooperates with
others in the commission of the crime. The term ‘accomplice’ may
include all particeps criminis i.e., a partner in crime. A person who is a
guilty associate in a crime or who has a relation to the criminal act that
can be jointly indicated with the principal criminal is an accomplice.
 The Supreme Court in R.K Dalmia v. Delhi Administration said that an
accomplice is a person who takes part in the commission of a criminal act
for which the accused is facing trial. He has to be a particeps criminis.
However, there are two scenarios where a person can be held to be an
accomplice, even when he is not. In cases where a person has received
 stolen property should be taken as an accomplice of the thieves who stole
the property.
 In Shanker v State of Tamil Nadu, the Court held that when an
accomplice becomes an approver, he eventually becomes a prosecution
witness. An approver’s evidence has to satisfy two tests. Firstly his
evidence must be reliable, and secondly, his testimony should be
sufficiently corroborated.
Whether a Witness is an Accomplice or Not?
In the case of Jaganath v. Emperor, it was said that an accomplice is a person
who is a guilty associate or a partner in crime, or who in some way or the other
is connected with the offence in question or some material fact supports that he
was part of the crime.
In C.M.Sharma v State of A.P, where a contractor who was forced to give bribe
to a public servant on the promise of doing or forbearing to do an official act is
held to be a partner in crime and guilty associate. To seek corroboration in all
circumstances of the evidence of a witness forced to give a bribe may lead to
absurd results as the bribe is not taken in public view, and therefore, there may
not be any person who could see the giving and taking of a bribe. In this case,
the evidence of the contractor was corroborated by his shadow witness who had
accompanied the contractor. The submission of the appellant that the contractor
should be treated as an accomplice was rejected. He was not an accomplice
since money was extracted from him. In the same case, the Court stated that the
corroboration of the evidence of a witness is required when his evidence is not
trustworthy as of a witness admissible as an accomplice, even if he is not
prosecuted and not granted a pardon.
Competency of Accomplice Witness
When an accomplice is not a co-accused under trial in the same case,” an
accomplice is a competent witness.” But this competency that has been given to
him by the process of law does not relieve him of the character of an accused.
No accused should be forced to be a witness against himself. But in case an
accomplice is given a pardon, on the condition that he is speaking the truth, and
is not acting under any pressure, and he is not forced to give self-incrimination
as is the rule given in Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, 1950.
The law of evidence, as laid down in Sections 306 and 308, Code of Criminal
Procedure, remains unaffected by this law. When an accomplice is pardoned, he
is bound to make a complete and truthful disclosure. If he fails to do so, he
would be tired of the charges levelled against him originally, and his statement
would then be used against him under Section 308.
 In Haroon Haji Abdulla v State of Maharastra, the Court laid down that
an accomplice is a competent witness and his evidence could be accepted
and if the court feels that there is enough evidence to support the
testimony of the accomplice then an conviction can be based on such a
testimony.
 In Ravinder Singh v State of HKaryana, an approver is not the most
unworthy friend, if at all and having bargained for his immunity, must be
proved in the Court. This test is fulfilled, firstly, if the story given by the
accomplice seems to be truly natural and probable according to material
facts if given minute details are in accordance with reality and are likely
to be true. Secondly, if it is established that the story is reliable, then the
story must implicate him in such a manner as to give rise to a conclusion
of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
 In rare cases, uncorroborated evidence of an approver can be held to be
true and reliable by the Court after the Court has taken into consideration
all the facts of circumstance and situations governing a particular case.
 The general rule requires that an approver’s statement has to be
corroborated in material, particularly binding the disclosure between the
crime and criminal closely.
 An approver giving minute details or necessary features appertaining
directly to an accused if found to be reliable, by the presence of other
independent, credible evidence, would make the testimony of the
accomplice more credible.
Categories of Accomplices
A person is an accomplice when he participates in the commission on the same
crime. In Jagannath v Emperor the Court said that participation in crime could
be done in multiple ways. There are two broad categories of modes of
participation in crime,
(1) Principals in the first degree or second degree, and
(2) accessories before the fact, or
(3) after the fact.
Principals in the first and second degrees
One who actually commits the crime is a principal of first degree while a person
who is just present and assists in the perpetration of the crime is a principal of
the second degree. Undoubtedly under all the circumstances, these people are
accomplices.
Accessories before the fact
When a person incites, counsels connives at, encourages or procures the
commission of the crime becomes an accessory before the fact. These are those
accomplices who counsel, incite, encourage or procure the commission of the
crime. A person is an accessory before the fact if he participates in the
preparation of the crime. They are not an accomplice. For a person to be
accomplices, he must participate in the commission of the same crime as the
accused person is charged with in the trial.
Accessories after the fact
A person is an accessory after the fact when a person with the knowledge that
the accused has committed some crime receives him, comforts him or assists
him to help escape from punishment a crime or helps him escape arrest,
exercising his free will allowing him to escape, or opposes his arrest.
Three conditions must be fulfilled to establish that there was an accessory after
the fact;
(1) the crime must have been completed;
(2) the person assisting the accused must have the knowledge that the accused
committed a criminal act;
(3) the actions of the accomplice must result in helping the accused escape or
avoid consequences of the principal crime.
Accomplice and Co-accused
 The confession of one of the co-accused cannot be used to corroborate the
evidence of an accomplice against the others, because such a confession
cannot be put on a higher footing than the evidence of an accomplice and
is moreover not given on oath or subject to the test of cross-examination
and is guaranteed by nothing except the peril into which it brings the
speaker and which it is generally fashioned to lessen. Altered evidence is
not made better by being corroborated by other tainted evidence.
 Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act says that the Court may consider
the confession of co-accused as evidence.
  It may be noted that the confession of the co-accused must implicate
himself as well as some other accused. Further, the confessions made at
the previous trial will not be relevant. When they are jointly tried, but for
different offences, in those cases, confession is not relevant. Further, the
confession should be a free confession.
A confession by a co-accused cannot be treated in the same way as the
testimony of an accomplice:
1. The confession of co-accused is not ‘evidence,’ as it is not given in the
presence of the accused, nor is it not recorded on oath, and nor its truth
can be subject to cross-examination.
2. When the accomplice evidence is taken on oath and tested by cross-
examination, a higher probative value is thus given to it.
3. The basis of a conviction cannot be solely based on the confession of the
co-accused. There is a need of corroboration of such evidence if such
evidence is not corroborated and the court feels that confession of the co-
accused is free and natural the court can consider it. A conviction cannot
be termed illegal merely because it proceeds upon the corroborated
testimony of an accomplice.
4. The philosophy of Section 30 is that confession of a co-accused gives a
degree of sanction to the truth of his confession against others or himself.
Evidence of a co-accused is very weak evidence. The evidence of co-accused
can be used only to corroborate other evidence on record if the confession
affects himself as well as some other accused person.
Accomplice and Approver
An accomplice may be an approver also. The approver is an accomplice who is
tendered pardon by the Court on condition that he makes true and full disclosure
of the whole circumstances of the case. Approver has been dealt with under the
provisions of Section 306 of Cr.P.C. He is known under Cr.P.C as an
accomplice to whom the Court grants a pardon. Thus, an “approver” is always
an ‘accomplice,’ but an ‘accomplice’ is not necessarily an approver. Section
306 tenders pardon to an accomplice. The approver’s evidence is looked upon
with great suspicion as he is some way concerned or associated in commission
of the same crime. But if found trustworthy, it can be decisive in securing a
conviction.
In the case of Chandan v State of Rajasthan, the evidence of a witness
participating in a test identification parade but not examined at trial is not
sufficient to corroborate evidence of accomplice approver. Therefore, the
conviction was set aside.
In Ravindra Singh v State of Haryana, the Court said that an approver bargains
his immunity so he must prove his credibility in Court. This rest is fulfilled,
 Firstly, if the story he relates involves him inthe crime and appears
intrinsically to be a natural and probable catalog of events that had taken
place.
 Secondly, the story given by the approver so far as the accused on trial is
concerned must implicate him in such manner as to give rise to a
conclusion of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Accomplice and Sexual Crimes
In Rameshwar Kalyan Singh v. the State of Rajasthan the Supreme Court
clearly laid down that, in a case of rape, the prosecutrix cannot be treated as an
accomplice. The Evidence Act does not say that the evidence given by
prosecutrix in a rape case needs to be corroborated. But, the courts have insisted
on the need for corroboration of the evidence given by the prosecutrix as a
matter of practice. It was further felt that it would be inherently dangerous and
impossible to formulate what kind of evidence should or would be regarded as
corroboration.
The nature and extent of corroboration must vary with facts and circumstances
of every case and further according to the offence and particular circumstances
of the offence committed. But the Court has laid down some guidelines in this
regard:-
1. It is not compulsory that there should be independent confirmation of
every material circumstance in the sense that independent evidence in the
case, should in itself be sufficient to sustain a conviction, apart from the
testimonies of the complainant or the accomplice. But it’s required that
there must be some additional evidence that furnishes that the story of the
accomplice or complainant can be held as truth and that it is reasonably
safe to act upon it.
2. The independent evidence must, in some way or the other reason, be able
to connect or must tend to connect the accused with it by confirming in
some material form the evidence given by the accomplice that the
accused committed the crime. A piece of independent evidence cannot be
the sole reason to believe that the crime has been committed.
 3. Ordinarily, the testimony of one accomplice would not be sufficient to
corroborate that of another; thus, the corroboration should come from
independent sources.
4. The corroboration does not have to be the direct evidence that crime has
been committed by the accused. Mere circumstantial evidence of a
connection with the crime is also sufficient.
In the State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sheodayal Gurudayal, the Court laid down
“a test to determine whether in a certain case, the testimony of the prosecutrix
needed to be corroborated.” This test is whether there is genuineness in the story
given to by the prosecutrix, if there is no doubt on the account given by the
prosecutrix, then there is no need for corroboration. If there are doubts
regarding its originality, the testimony will require corroboration. These
principles laid down by the courts are to be viewed as guiding principles in the
trial of rape cases, but these principles are flexible, depending on the facts and
circumstances of the case.
Who is not an accomplice?
In some cases persons are not accomplice:-
 When a person, under threat of death or another form of pressure which
he is unable to resist, commits a crime along with others, he is not a
willing participant in it but a victim of such circumstances.
 A person who merely witnesses a crime, and does not give information
about it to anyone else out of terror, is not an accomplice.
 In Prakash Chand v State, the Court laid down that detectives, paid
‘informers,’ and ‘trap or decoy witnesses are not accomplices. A
court may convict on the uncorroborated testimony of trap witnesses
if the Court feels that there is truthfulness in testimony presented by
the trap witness.
As a general rule of an accomplice, it is for the judge to decide and to keep in
mind the facts and circumstances of a case whether the testimony of a trap
witness is reliable enough to act upon. Judge’s partiality towards prosecution
can hardly be ignored. Judges can be helped by knowing the character,
background, and the reputation of the witness to appreciate his evidence.
Evidentiary value of an Accomplice
  When an accomplice makes a testimony, it is not seen as reliable
evidence for a conviction, and it has to be verified with other material
evidence; this is called corroboration.
 According to Black law’s dictionary, to corroborate means to strengthen,
to make a statement or testimony more credible by confirming facts or
evidence. Corroborative evidence, in a way, is a supplementary testimony
to the already given evidence and tending to strengthen or confirm;
additional evidence of a different character to the same point.
 Corroboration does not mean that there should be independent evidence
of all facts which have been related by an accomplice. “Indeed, if it were
required that the accomplice should be confirmed, every detail of crime
evidence would not be essential in the case.” To count as corroboration, it
is not enough that a piece of evidence merely supports that the
accomplice is credible but must go a little further and implicate the
accused.
The corroboration of an accomplice is of two kinds:
1. The first one is that corroborating evidence which ensures that the
approver is trustworthy; and
2. The second which arises for the conclusion to the corroboration in
material particulars not only of the commission of a crime but also of the
complicity of the other accused persons in the crime.
Necessity of Corroboration
Corroboration is necessary; in fact, approver evidence has to satisfy the double
test:
 his evidence must be reliable;
 his evidence should be materially corroborated.
Every competent witness is not a reliable witness, and an approver has to satisfy
the test of reliability before the question of corroboration of his evidence is
considered by criminal courts.
Nature and Extent of Corroboration
The nature and extent of corroboration of accomplice evidence vary in each
case according to the facts and circumstances of the case; it is impossible to
make a single rule for this subject. But the Court has laid down guiding
principles in R v Baskerville. They are:-
 1. Independent confirmation is not necessary in every case, with every detail
of the crime committed, in the sense that the independent evidence in the
case, apart from the testimony of the complainant or accomplice, should
itself be sufficient to sustain conviction. All that is required is that there
must be “some additional evidence rendering that the story of the
accomplice (or the complainant) is true and that it is reasonably safe to
act upon it.
2. It is necessary that there is a confirmation in the form of some material
evidence that the crime has been committed and that it has been
committed by the accused. The independent evidence must not only make
it safe to believe that the crime was committed but must in some way
reasonably connect the accused with it.
3. One accomplice cannot corroborate the evidence of the other accomplice;
corroboration has to be done independently; it is to be done with other
material evidence. All that is necessary is that there should be
independent evidence which will make it reasonably safe to believe the
witness’s story that the accused was the one, or among those, who
committed the offence.
4. The corroboration does have to be a direct one that the crime has been
committed by the accused; it can be a circumstantial one too. There are
two basic kinds of evidence that may be admitted in court – direct
evidence and circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence does not require
any reasoning or inference to arrive at the conclusion to be drawn from
the evidence.
Circumstantial evidence, also called indirect evidence, requires that an inference
be made between the evidence and the conclusion to be drawn from it.
Circumstantial evidence is often discussed as if it carries less weight than direct
evidence. Under the law – and in life – that is not necessarily true. Any piece of
evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, must be evaluated in terms of
whether the source of the evidence is reliable. Sometimes direct witnesses are
also not a reliable one. While there are certainly differences between direct and
circumstantial evidence, reliability is not necessarily one of them.
Appreciation of Accomplice Evidence- The Corroboration Issue
The Supreme Court in Sarwan Singh v. the State of Punjab laid down the law
with respect to assessment and appreciation of accomplice evidence and also
stated several principles and rules regarding corroboration of accomplice
evidence. The Court stated the challenge of the credibility of evidence given by
an approver had been presented before the Court many times. But it is not
necessary to deal at length with what is the true legal position in this matter.
Further, the Court said that an accomplice is a competent witness under the
Indian Evidence Act.
Conclusion
To attract Section 133 of The Evidence Act, 1872, a person must be an
accomplice. An accomplice is a person who has taken part in the commission of
the crime, along with another or others. If an accomplice is arrested and
thereafter has been given a pardon, he is referred to as an approver.
Under Section 133, the term accomplice includes trap witnesses and approvers
as a competent witness. An accomplice can be considered a competent witness
if he is not co-accused under trial in the same case. But such competency which
has been given to him by the process of law does not relieve him of the
character of an accused.
There is no contrast between Section 133 and Section 114. There is no
opposition between Section 133 and Section 114, illustration (b) because the
illustration only says that the court ‘may’ presume certain state affairs. It does
not put a hard and fast guideline. Section 133 lays down the rule of law. But a
rule of prudence is laid down Section 114, illustration (b). It does not suggest a
conclusive presumption. Section 133 gives an authorization to the courts to
convict the accused on the corroborated testimony of an accomplice, but since
the witness is himself involved in a criminal act, he may not be trustworthy.
When the Court feels that testimony of the accomplice may not be trustworthy
then that the courts are guided by the principle laid down in Section 114 that if
the Court finds it necessary, it can presume that the testimony given by the
accomplice is unreliable unless his statements are supported or verified by some
independent evidence. This rule of prudence has now come to be accepted as
the rule of law by judicial legislation both in Indian and English law.
Corroboration is necessary in case of testimony of an accomplice. The nature
and extent of corroboration of accomplice evidence may necessarily vary with
the circumstances of each case.
---------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
Examine the evidentiary value of Accomplice
Section 133 reads as under :
133. Accomplice. An accomplice shall be a competent witness against an
accused person; and a conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon
the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice.
Conviction can be based on the evidence of approver but as per Section 114, the
care has to be taken by the Court that it should corroborated in material
particulars (Material facts' are the primary basic facts which must be pleaded by the
plaintiff to prove his cause of action. 'Particulars' on the other hand, are the details in
support of the material facts pleaded by the parties.)
The combined effect of Section
114(b) and Section 133 of the Evidence Act is that though a conviction can
be based on uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice but as a rule of
prudence, it is unsafe to place reliance on the uncorroborated testimony of
an approver as per illustration (b) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act.
It is observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of It is observed by
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Chandra Bahri Vs. State of
Bihar reported in AIR 1994 SC 2420 as under :
Section 133 deal with the testimony of an accomplice. It contemplates that an
accomplice shall be a competent witness against an accused person ; and a
conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated
testimony of an accomplice. The first part envisages that an accomplice in other
words a guilty companion in crime shall be a competent witness while the
second part states that conviction is not illegal merely because it is based on the
uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. But if one read S. 133 with
illustration (b) of S. 114 it may lead to certain amount of confusion and
misunderstanding as to the real and true intention of the Legislature because
quite contrary to what is contained in S. 133 illustration (b) to S. 114 lays down
“that an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in material
particulars”. A combined reading of the two provisions that is S. 133 and
illustration (b) of S. 114 go to show that it was considered necessary to place the
law of accomplice evidence on a better footing by stating in unambiguous terms
that according to S. 133 a conviction is “not illegal or in other words not
unlawful” merely because it is founded on the uncorroborated testimony of an
accomplice while accepting that an accomplice is a competent witness. But at
the same time the Legislature intended to invite attention to the illustration
(b) of S. 114 with a view to emphasise that the rule contained therein as
well as in S. 133 are parts of one and the same subject and neither can be
ignored in the exercise of judicial discretion except in cases of very
exceptional nature. However, the difficulty in understanding the combined
effect of the aforementioned two provisions arises largely due to their
placement at two different places of the same Act. It may be noticed that
illustration (b) attached to S. 114 is placed in Chap VII of Evidence Act while
S. 133 is inserted in Chap. IX of the Act. The better course was to insert the
illustration (b) to S. 114 as an explanation or in any case as proviso to S. 133 of
the Act instead of their insertion at two different places and that too in different
chapters of Evidence Act. In any case since an approver is guilty companion in
crime and, therefore, illustration (b) to S. 114 provides a rule of caution to
which the Courts should have regard. It is now well settled that except in
circumstances of special nature it is the duty of the Court to raise the
presumption in S. 114 illustration (b) and the Legislature requires that the
Courts should make the natural presumption in that section. Though a
conviction can be based on uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice but as a
rule of prudence it is unsafe to place reliance on the uncorroborated testimony
of an approver as required by illustration (b) of S. 114.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs.
Ashok Kumar Aggarwal and anr. [(2013) 15 SCC 222] has observed as under :
Section 114 Illustration (b) and Section 133 of the Evidence Act, 1872 provide
for the same that an accomplice is a competent witness and that his testimony
can be relied upon but depending upon the quality of the evidence. While
Section 133 reads that “Accomplice is a competent witness and a conviction can
be maintained on his evidence”, Illustration (b) of Section 114 provides for
presumption that “an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is
corroborated in material particulars”. Thus, in practice conviction of a person
on such evidence should not take place except under very rare and
exceptional circumstances. Usually substantial corroboration is required.
This provision incorporates a rule of caution to which the court must have
regard.
(Vide Sk. Zakir v. State of Bihar, Niranjan Singh v. State of Punjab and State of
T.N. v. Suresh.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
WHO IS AN ACCOMPLICE?
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 does not lay down the definition* > An
accomplice is a person who has concurred in the commission of an offence10
and the maxim “participes criminis*11 is included in the term. An accomplice is
a person who is guiltyassociate in crime or who sustains such a relation to the
criminal act that he can be jointly indicted with the principal criminal. A witness
concerned may not confess to his participation in a crime and may deny his
being an accomplice but it is for the courts to decide on a consideration of the
entire evidence whether he is an accomplice. The burden of proving that an
accomplice is definitely on the party alleging it for the purpose of invoking the
rule while the duty to bring the accomplice character of the evidence to the
notice of the court rests upon the prosecution and the court needs to believe by a
preponderance of probabilities.14 The essential prerequisite is participation in
crime willfully and this can be done in various ways.15 The term in fullness
includes all persons concerned in the commission of the crime, whether they in
the strict legal aptness are principals in the first degree16 or second degree
1Tmerely are accessories before or after the commission.20 In India two
categories of offenders are recognized- persons who are principals and abettors
or instigators and the term accomplice includes both of them i.e. the principal
and the privy. WHEN IS AN ACCOMPLICE COMPETENT WITNESS?
Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act speaks about competency of witness.
Competency is a condition precedent for examining a person as witness and the
sole test of competency laid down is that the witness should not be prevented
from understanding the questions posed to him or from giving rational answers
expected out of him by his age, his mental and physical state of disease. At the
same time Section 133 speaks about competency of accomplices. Further more
in case of accomplice witnesses, he should not be a co-accused under trial in the
same case and may be examined on oath. International Journal of Pure and
Applied Mathematics Special Issue 998 Let us consider the following
propositions suggested by courts. First, courts have opined that such
competency, which has been conferred on him by a process of law, does not
divest him of the character of an accused and he remains aparticipes criminis
and this remains the genesis of the major problem surrounding the credibility of
such evidence. Secondly, an accomplice by accepting a pardon under Section
306 CrPC becomes a competent witness and may as any other witness be
examined on oath, the prosecution must be withdrawn and the accused formally
discharged under Section 321 of the Criminal Code before he would be a
competent witness but even if there is omission to record discharge, an accused
is vested with competency as soon as the prosecution is withdrawn. Thirdly,
Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution says that no accused shall be compelled
to be a witness against himself. But as a co- accused accepts a pardon of his free
will on condition of a true disclosure, in his own interest, and is not compelled
to give self-incriminating evidence, the law in Section 306 and 308 of CrPC is
not affected and a pardoned accused is bound to make a full disclosure and on
his failure to do so he may be tried of the . offence originally charged and his
statement may be used against him under Section 308. This suggests that a
participes criminis continues to be the same and if so then despite the fact that
his involvement has been pardoned by a judicial act can be used for self-
incrimination and to expect a "true and full disclosure" is unreal. Regarding the
provisions of such a witness, under Indian Evidence Act, two Sections namely
114(b) and 133 have been enacted but both seems to be against each other. At
the outset, it has been proposed that incorporation of Section 133 when read in
the light of Section 118 speaking about the competency of witness does not
justify the inclusion of the former in the Act. Further Section 134 which deals
with the number of witnesses in a case negates the second part of Section 133
which narrates that the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice is not illegal.
But the inclusion of the section attains a highly elevated status, for without
inclusion of this specific section, there existed a dominant chance of the law
being misunderstood or misapplied. Section 114, illustration (b) creates a cloud
of doubt as to the competency of the accomplice witness and it seems
significant when seen from this perspective that inclusion of Section 133 was
required to settle a sound basis and caution that merely because the testimony of
the accomplice is uncorroborated does not make it illegal. The difficulty in
understanding the combined effect of the two sections proceeds largely on the
account that their positioned under different Chapters in the Act. It clearly
emerges that both-rule laid down in illustration (b) to Section 114 which deals
with International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics Special Issue 999
presumptions of various kinds and the caution laid down in Section 133 are part
of the same rule and neither can be ignored in the exercise of judicial discretion,
except in cases of a very exceptional nature. The application of the rules
together emerges as a rule of practice that has assumed the force of rule, of
law28 that evidence of the accomplice would be accepted with corroboration.
Why this "practical rule" emerged? This is an outcome of experience that an
accomplice is unworthy of credit for the following: 1. A bare and segregated
perusal of Section 133 may instigate the young magistrates and judges at the
lower courts to base their convictions on the uncorroborated testimony of
accomplice witness on the presumption that the legislature intended to
encourage such convictions and such testimonies. 2. This rule emerged in order
to ration the threats that flow from necessity for administration of justice for an
accomplice witnesses are a practical mandate as matter of necessity nevertheless
they are infamous and the most dangerous forms of witnesses to base a
conviction. 3. An accomplice is a „partner in guilt‟ and is definitely an
infamous witness and inevitably distrust flows into what he testifies calling for
fullest corroboration in material particulars for a conviction. He may without
this burden simply testify to save himself by procuring conviction for others.
CORRABORATION OF A WITNESS What is corroboration? Corroboration
means independent testimony. Lord Abinger said- “In my opinion that
corroboration ought to consist in some circumstance that affect the identity of
the party accused. A man who has been guilty of a crime himself will always be
able to relate the facts of the case, and if the confirmation be only truth of that
history, without identifying the persons, that is really no corroboration at all. If a
man were to break upon a house and put a knife to your throat, and steal your
property, it would be no corroboration that he had stated the facts correctly, that
he had described how the person did put the knife to the throat and steal the
property. It would not at all tend to show that the party accused participated in
it...............The danger is that when a man is fixed, and know that his guilt is
detected, he will purchase immunity by falsely accusing others.” Independent
corroboration does not mean that every detail must be corroborated by
independent International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics Special
Issue 1000 witnesses and all that is required is that there must be some
additional evidence rendering it probable that the story of the accomplice is
true. That is to suggest that supposed in a case of conspiracy, if there is
corroboration with regards to the general facts of the existence of a conspiracy
and also of participation in it of any particular accused, corroboration of the
specific acts is unnecessary unless the evidence of the accused is intrinsically
subject to suspicion. Amount of corroboration cannot be laid down in specific
as it depends upon the circumstances; particularly on the crime charged and the
degree of the accomplice‟s complicity. The evidentiary value of the statements
of a witness depends upon the nature of statements, substance of the testimony
and appreciation of the testimony by the court. Even a single statement may be
treated as sufficient evidence, while a long narration by the witness, may not
even be treated as a fact. This, however, depends upon the. value of statements
of a witness, which has thus emerged after cross-examination and corroboration.
It can further be said that mere becoming witness is not sufficient; the witness
must be of credible and reliable characteristics and qualities. It has been rightly
said by Robert Browning: “Oh the little more, and how much it is! And the little
less, and what worlds away. ” “Credibility” and “reliability” are two best
qualities of the personality of a person which provides him or her high quality
of reputation, regard, respect, honour and the likes in the society and provides a
passport to go anywhere, anytime in the family, society state and even in the
world. An attempt has been made in this chapter to discuss the credibility and
reliability of an accomplice. It can rightly be said that in considering the weight
and value of the testimony of any witness, the appearance, attitude, and
behavior of the witnesses, the interest of the witness in the outcome of the suit,
the relation of the witness to the parties, the inclination of the witness to speak
truthfully or not, the probability or improbability of the witness‟s statements,
and all other facts and circumstances in evidence may be taken into
consideration. Thus, the testimony of any witness may be given such weight and
value, as the testimony of such witness is entitled to receive. LIMITATIONS
OF THE STATUTE: International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics
Special Issue 1001 The established principle of Criminal Jurisprudence is that
the responsibility or exemption from criminal liability to a person should always
be made in accordance with the procedure established in criminal law for the
time being in force. Thus, though an accomplice has become entitled for
exemption, from criminal liability, yet, the pardon to him should be made
according to the provisions of Constitution (Art. 72 and Art. 161) and Code of
Criminal Procedure 1973 (Sec. 432 to 435), in this regard. Whether inspite of
committing the crime heinous or simple, pardoning him would give a bad or
good message in the society and after- effects of doing so, is a matter of deep
study and analysis which the researcher has undertaken in her project of
research. In this thesis, an effort has been made to deal and discuss the
procedure for pardon and prosecution of an accomplice when he has violated
the terms and conditions of granting him pardon under Sections 306 to 308 and
432 to 435 (A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. The provisions under
Section 337 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, have also been discussed
as many cases were decided under these sections before the enforcement of the
new Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This accomplice is called an approver
and his evidence is called State evidence. When a criminal is admitted to bear
testimony against his accomplice he is then said to turn "State evidence". Apart
from the information, which is obtained through this course in certain types of
crime, the only direct evidence that can be offered under the circumstances is
that of an accomplice. Therefore the reason for granting a pardon is to obtain
the evidence of a person supposed to be involved in an offence, in the trial of
another person involved in the same offence, in the trial of another person
involved in the same offence. As held by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in
Sarbijit Singh v. State ofPunjab,45 the object of pardon is that the fear of,
prosecution is removed. A person to whom parden is granted though privy to
the offence may feel free to give true evidence and make a full disclosure of the
event about the crime. The tender of pardon is in other words, quid pro quo. The
very object of the provisions contained in Sec. 337 (1) of the old Cr. P^C. is to
allow pardon to be tendered in cases where a grave offence is alleged to have
been committed by several persons so that, with the aid of the evidence of the
person pardoned, the offence can be brought home to the rest.46 So the
subsequent stopping of the trial for some reason will not affect the pardon
already granted. In re Dagdoo Bapu,47 an accomplice was given a conditional
pardon under Section 337, old Cr. P.C. The principal offender, having
absconded, the trial could not go on. The trying Magistrate referred the
International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics Special Issue 1002 case
to the High Court to have the order of pardon cancelled on the ground that it
was invalid, as it was not tendered for the purpose of an inquiry, but for the
purpose of securing evidence under Section 512, old Cr. P.C. Held, that there
was no ground for revision of the Magistrate's order under Section 337, old Cr.
P.C., inasmuch as the principal offence was under inquiry and in order to secure
the approver's evidence as to the offence, a pardon was tendered and the
proceeding under Section 512 was only ancillary to that inquiry.