evidence accomplice

Accomplice EvidenceAccomplice Evidence Law of Evidence Law of Evidence

Table Of Cases

1. In re, B.K Rajagopal, AIR 1944 Mad 117.

2. In re, Padmaraja Shetty, AIR 1951 Mad 746.

3. Ismail v. Emperor, AIR 1947 Lah 220.

4. Jaganath v. Emperor, AIR 1942 Oudh 221.

5. K.K Jadav v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1966 SC 821.

6. Miyabhai Pirbhai v. State, AIR 1963 Guj 188.

7. Narain Chandra Biswas v. Emperor, AIR 1936 Cal 101.

8. R v. Baskerville, (1916)2 KB 658.

9. R.K Dalmia v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1962 SC 1821.

10. Rameshwar Kalyan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1952 SC 54.

11. Ranjeet Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1988 SC 672.

12. Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 637.

13. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sheodayal Gurudayal, AIR 1956 Nag 8.

1


Table Of Statutes

1. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. Constitution of India, 1950.

3. Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

2


Introduction

Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act, 18721 is the only absolute rule of law dealing

with accomplice evidence.2 However it is the opinion of some that this section is

redundant as Section 118 makes all persons competent to testify except those persons

which the section specifically bars. Moreover there is no rule which requires that the

evidence of an accomplice should be corroborated. But Section 133 might lead persons

to suppose that the Legislature desired to encourage convictions on the uncorroborated

evidence of an accomplice. This interpretation however cannot hold good in light of

Section 114 (b) which lays down the presumption that an accomplice is unworthy of

credit unless he is corroborated in material particulars. Thus owing to this conflict

between Section 114(b) and Section 133 some experts feel that Section 133 should

have been omitted and the law relating to accomplice evidence would have been the

same as it is now and the awkwardness of appearing to sanction a practice so

universally condemned would have been avoided.3

However the Courts have resolved this apparent conflict between the two sections by

harmoniously reading Sections 114(b) and 133 together and held that while it is not

illegal to act upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice it is a rule of prudence

so universally followed so as to amount almost to a rule of law that it is unsafe to act

upon the evidence of an accomplice unless it is corroborated in material respects so as

to implicate the accused.4 This in a nutshell is the core of accomplice evidence and must

be kept in mind at all times while dealing with the subject of accomplice evidence.

This project endeavours at performing a comprehensive study of Accomplice Evidence.

The first section discusses the important issues relating to accomplice evidence. It

explains who an accomplice is and analyses other aspects like burden of proof to

determine whether a witness is an accomplice or not, competency of an accomplice as a

witness, accomplice evidence in sexual offences and the relation between accomplice 1 Section 133- 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.2 The procedural aspects relating to Accomplice Evidence are dealt with in Sections 306-308 and 315 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.3 B. Malik et al., Law of Evidence- Volume V (Allahabad: Law Publishers India Private Limited, 1990)at 4651.

4 Ibid at 4652.

3


evidence and confession of a co-accused. The second section deals with the question of

corroboration which undoubtedly is the most important aspect relating to accomplice

evidence. This section explores the necessity for corroboration of an accomplice’s

evidence and discusses the nature and extent of corroboration required. It also deals

with the relevant case law and examines the important issue of appreciation of

accomplice evidence from the point of view of corroboration. The final section performs a

comparative analysis between English and Indian law relating to accomplice evidence

and comes to the conclusion that the law in both countries is exactly the same.

To the lay man, accomplice evidence might seem untrustworthy as accomplices are

usually always interested and infamous witnesses but their evidence is admitted owing

to necessity as it is often impossible without having recourse to such evidence to bring

the principal offenders to justice. Thus accomplice evidence might seem unreliable but it

is often a very useful and even invaluable tool in crime detection, crime solving and

delivering justice and consequently a very important part of the Law of Evidence.

4


Research Methodology

Aims and Objectives

The aim of this project is to perform a comprehensive study of Accomplice Evidence in

light of the statutory provisions and case law. This project also aims at discussing the

important issues relating to Accomplice Evidence like the meaning of accomplice and

what it signifies, the issue of corroboration of an accomplice’s testimony etc. It is also an

objective of this project to perform a comparative analysis of the law relating to

accomplice evidence in India and England.

Nature of Project

The project is analytical as well as descriptive in nature. However the majority of the

project is analytical in nature.

Sources of Data

The sources of data are primary as well as secondary in nature. Journals like All India

Reporter, Criminal Law Journal and All England Reporters have been used. A host of

leading textbooks relating to the Law of Evidence have also been referred to.

Scope and Limitation

The project is limited in its scope in the sense that it deals with only those issues relating

to accomplice evidence which in the opinion of the researcher are most relevant and

important owing to the extreme wide and vast scope of the topic. Moreover American

Law relating to Accomplice Evidence has not been looked at.

Research Questions

The Research Questions are:

Which are the statutory provisions dealing with Accomplice Evidence?

Who is an accomplice?

What is the relation between accomplice evidence and confession of a co-

accused?

What is the nature and extent of corroboration required to corroborate the

testimony of an accomplice?

5


What is the necessity for corroborating an accomplice’s testimony?

How is an accomplice’s evidence appreciated?

What is the importance of accomplice evidence?

What are the problems and complexities associated with accomplice evidence?

What are the differences and similarities in the law relating to accomplice

evidence in India and England?

Mode of Citation

A uniform mode of citation has been adopted throughout the course of this project.

6


Accomplice Evidence- Issues And Perspectives

Who is an Accomplice?

It is extremely important to understand what the term accomplice means and signifies as

to attract Section 133 a person must be an accomplice.

The word ‘accomplice’ has not been defined by the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and

should therefore be presumed to have been used in the ordinary sense by the

legislature. However the judiciary has dealt with this issue extensively and has tried to

explain comprehensively as to who an accomplice is.

An accomplice is one concerned with another or others in the commission of a crime or

one who knowingly or voluntarily cooperates with and helps others in the commission of

crime.5 It was held in R.K Dalmia v. Delhi Administration6 that “an accomplice is a person

who participates in the commission of the actual crime charged against an accused. He

is to be a particeps criminis. There are two cases however, in which a person has been

held to be an accomplice even if he is not a particeps criminis. Receivers of stolen

property are taken to be accomplices of the thieves from whom they receive goods in a

trial for theft. Accomplices in previous similar offences committed by the accused on trial

are deemed to be accomplices in the offence for which the accused is on trial, when

evidence of the accused having committed crimes of identical type on other occasions

be admissible to prove the system and intent of the accused in committing the offence

charged”. The Court in Jaganath v. Emperor7 explained that an accomplice is a guilty

associate or partner in crime, or who in some way or the other is connected with the

offence in question or who makes admissions of facts showing that he had a conscious

hand in the offence.8

In order to be an accomplice a person must participate in the commission of the same

crime as the accused and this he may do in various ways. In English law the modes of

5 M.L Singhal, Sir John Woodroffe and Syed Amir Ali, Law of Evidence- Volume IV (Allahabad: Law Book Company Private Limited, 1993)at 512.6 AIR 1962 SC 1821.7 AIR 1942 Oudh 221.8 An accomplice is also a person who is a guilty associate in crime or who sustains such a relation to the criminal act that he can be jointly indicted with the defendant (principal).

7


complicity with crime are treated under the heads of principals in the first degree or

second degree and accessories before or after the fact.9

In English Law the term ‘accomplice’ in its fullness includes in its meaning all the

persons concerned in the commission of the crime-principals of the first degree, second

degree and accessories before and after the fact.

In India all accessories before the fact if the participate in the preparation for the crime

are accomplices but if their participation is limited to the knowledge that crime is to be

committed they are not accomplices.10 However opinion is divided as to whether

accessories after the fact are accomplices or not. In some cases it has been held that in

India there is no such thing as an accessory after the fact whereas in some cases

accessories after the fact have been held to be accomplices. Three conditions must

unite to render one an accessory after the fact:11

The felony must be complete

The accessory must have knowledge that the principal committed the felony

The accessory must harbour or assist the principal felon.

Mere acts of charity which relieve or comfort a felon but do not hinder his apprehension

and conviction nor aid his escape, do not render one an accessory after the fact. He

must be proved to have done some act to assist the felon personally. The mere fact that

one had knowledge that a crime had been committed and that he concealed or failed to

disclose such knowledge does not render him an accomplice.12 This is because the

concealment may be owing to the witness’ anxiety for his own safety rather than any

desire to shield the criminal. A person who remains passively silent after obtaining

9 A principal of the first degree is one who actually commits the crime; A principal of the second degree is a person who is present and assists in the perpetration of the crime; an accessory before the fact is one who counsels, incites, connives at encourages or procures the commission of a crime. And everyone is an accessory after the fact to a felony who, knowing a felony to have been committed by another, receives, comforts or assists him in order to enable him to escape from punishment or rescues him from arrest for the felony or having him in custody for the felony allows him to escape or opposes his arrest. It is to be noted that a married woman who receives, comforts, or relieves her husband knowing him to have committed a felony does not thereby become an accessory after the fact.10 Narain Chandra Biswas v. Emperor, AIR 1936 Cal 101.11 Supra note 5 at 518.12 Id.

8


knowledge of the commission of the crime is not an accomplice. To render a person an

accomplice his participation in the crime must be criminally corrupt.13

Accomplices and Trap Witnesses, Punters, Spies, Decoys, Informers

etc.

An accomplice may have a motive for giving information as it may purchase immunity for

his offence. A spy on the other hand may be an honest man; he may think that the

course he pursues is absolutely essential for the protection of his own interests and

those of society. Thus spies are not such persons as would require corroboration of their

evidence.14

In the case of decoys or trap witnesses15 the mere fact that a witness has acted as a

decoy or trap witness should not be the grounds for rejecting their testimony. The rule of

prudence requires that evidence of a decoy witness must find some corroboration in

material particulars. The necessity of corroboration of decoy or trap witnesses depends

on the facts and circumstances of each case.16

Thus though the evidence of spies, informers, trap witnesses etc. may be looked upon

unfavourably they cannot be treated as accomplices unless it can be actually proved that

they had instigated an offence or abetted the commission of an offence. This may

sometimes happen in their enthusiasm to detect an offence or get an offender arrested.

A punter is not in the same position as that of an accomplice. He is entitled to greater

credit and his evidence is entitled to greater value. The evidence of a punter who is

interested in securing a conviction is unworthy of credit and the principles applicable to

the testimony of an accomplice who is unworthy of credit are not in applicable to the

evidence of a punter who is unworthy of credit for different reasons but as to the extent

of corroboration it is not necessary that there should be independent corroboration in all

material particulars.17

13 Ismail v. Emperor, AIR 1947 Lah 220.14 Supra note 5 at 4670.15 If a person is induced by the police to take part in the commission of the crime for the purpose of collecting evidence against others he is called a trap-witness.16 M.C Sarkar et al., Law of Evidence- Volume II (New Delhi: Wadhwa and Company Law Publishers, 1999)at 2088.17 Miyabhai Pirbhai v. State, AIR 1963 Guj 188.

9


Burden of Proof- Whether Witness is an Accomplice or not?

The question of who is to decide or how is it to be decided whether a particular witness

is an accomplice or not is in most cases answered by the witness himself by confessing

to participation, by pleading guilty to it, or by being convicted of it. The burden of proving

that a witness is an accomplice is upon the party alleging it, namely, upon the defendant.

However it has also been held that it is mainly the duty of the prosecution to bring the

accomplice character of the evidence to the notice of the court. A witness should not be

held to be an accomplice unless he confesses that he had a conscious hand in the crime

or unless he makes admissions of facts showing that he had such hand or unless there

are other grounds for believing that he was concerned in the crime.18

Competency of Accomplice as Witness

An accomplice is a competent witness provided he is not a co accused under trial in the

same case. But such competency which has been conferred on him by a process of law

does not divest him of the character of an accused.19 An accomplice by accepting a

pardon under Section 306 CrPC becomes a competent witness and may as any other

witnesses be examined on oath; the prosecution must be withdrawn and the accused

formally discharged under Section 321 CrPC before he can become a competent

witness. Even if there is an omission to record discharge an accused becomes a

competent witness on withdrawal of prosecution. Under Article 20(3) of the Constitution

of India, 1950 no accused shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. But as an

accomplice 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 Sections 306

and 308, Code of Criminal Procedure is not affected. So 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.

Accomplice Evidence and Confession of 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

18 Supra note 16 at 2084-2085.19 Ibid at 2080.

10


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. Tainted evidence is

not made better by being corroborated by other tainted evidence20. The Madras High

Court held that in view of the provisions of Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

the confession of a co-accused can be accepted as corroboration of an accomplice’s

evidence21. But the same court later pointed out that Section 30 does not affect the rule

of practice that the Courts should be loath to accept tainted evidence as a corroboration

of an approver’s evidence.22 The confession of a co-accused cannot afford better or

more reliable evidence than that of an accomplice. If an accomplice’s evidence is tainted

evidence, the confession of a co-accused is also tainted evidence. Section 30 does not

compel a Court to accept the confession of a co-accused as corroboration of the

approver’s evidence. It only empowers the Court to take into consideration such

confession as against the person jointly tried with him or against the person who makes

such a confession.

Accomplice and Sexual Crimes

In Rameshwar Kalyan Singh v. State of Rajasthan23 the Supreme Court clearly laid down

that:

The prosecutrix in a case of rape cannot be treated as an accomplice.

The Evidence Act nowhere provides that the evidence of a prosecutrix in a rape

case requires corroboration.

As a matter of practice courts have insisted on the need of corroboration of the

evidence of the prosecutrix.

Thus the Supreme Court laid down the principle that “the rule which according to the

cases has hardened into one of law is not that corroboration is essential before there

can be a conviction but that the necessity of corroboration as a matter of prudence

except where the circumstances make it safe to dispense with it must be present to the

mind of the judge…before a conviction without corroboration can be sustained. The

20 Supra note 5 at 569.21 In re, B.K Rajagopal, AIR 1944 Mad 117.22 In re, Padmaraja Shetty, AIR 1951 Mad 746.23 AIR 1952 SC 54.

11


court also made it clear that the corroboration should be such so as to render the

prosecution story reliable and safe to act upon”24

In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sheodayal Gurudayal25 the court laid down a test to

determine whether the evidence of a prosecutrix requires to be corroborated or not- “The

test as to where corroboration is necessary lies in the naturalness of the story deposed

to by the prosecutrix. If there be any doubt regard its genuineness there is the need of

caution and therefore corroboration”

These principles laid down by the courts should be viewed as guiding principles and not

inflexible rule of law so as to prevent injustice to the prosecutrix and the defendant.

24 Thus it is clearly the law of the land that the prosecutrix cannot be treated as an accomplice although her evidence should be generally corroborated.

25 AIR 1956 Nag 8.

12


Accomplice Evidence- The Question Of Corroboration

Reading Section 133 of the Evidence Act along with Section 114(b) it is clear that the

most important issue with respect to accomplice evidence is that of corroboration. The

general rule regarding corroboration that has emerged is not a rule of law but merely a

rule of practice which has acquired the force of rule of law in both India and England.

The rule states that: A conviction based on the uncorroborated testimony of an

accomplice is not illegal but according to prudence it is not safe to rely upon

uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice and thus judges and juries must exercise

extreme caution and care while considering uncorroborated accomplice evidence.

However to understand the question of corroboration with respect to accomplice

evidence in its entirety one must look at the following aspects:

Necessity of Corroboration

An approver on his own admission is a criminal and a man of the very lowest character

who has thrown to the wolves his erstwhile associates and friends in order to save his

own skin. His evidence, therefore must be received with the greatest caution if not

suspicion. Accomplice evidence is held untrustworthy and therefore should be

corroborated for the following reasons:26

An accomplice is likely to swear falsely in order to shift the guilt from himself.

An accomplice is a participator in crime and thus an immoral person.

An accomplice gives his evidence under a promise of pardon or in the

expectation of an implied pardon, if he discloses all he knows against those with

whom he acted criminally, and this hope would lead him to favour the

prosecution.

Nature of Corroboration

Generally speaking corroboration is of two kinds. Firstly the court has to satisfy itself that

the statement of the approver is credible in itself and there is evidence other than the

statement of the approver that the approver himself had taken part in the crime.

Secondly the court seeks corroboration of the approver’s evidence with respect to the

26 M. Monir, Principles and Digest of the Law of Evidence (Allahabad: Universal Book Agency, 1999)at 1367.

13


part of other accused persons in the crime and this evidence has to be of such a nature

as to connect the other accused with the crime.27 The corroboration need not be direct

evidence of the commission of the offence by the accused. If it is merely circumstantial

evidence of his connection with the crime it will be sufficient.28 The corroboration need

not consist of evidence which, standing alone, would be sufficient to justify the conviction

of the accused. If that were the law it would be unnecessary to examine an approver. All

that seems to be required is that the corroboration should be sufficient to afford some

sort of independent evidence to show that the approver is speaking the truth with regard

to the accused person whom he seeks to implicate.29

Extent of Corroboration

The Court must look at all the surrounding circumstances in order to arrive at a

conclusion whether the evidence should be supported in essential and material

particulars by evidence aliunde as to the facts deposed to by that accomplice. All

persons coming technically within the category of accomplices cannot be treated on

precisely the same footing. No general rule can be laid down on the subject. The fact

that there is no corroborative evidence is not conclusive in favour of the accused.30 The

Courts in India should follow the English practice as to the amount of corroboration

required to support the evidence of an accomplice. His testimony should be confirmed

not only as to the circumstances of the case but also to the identity of the person. The

extent of corroboration must necessarily vary with the circumstances of each case and

also according to the circumstances of the offence charged, including the character and

antecedents of the accomplice and the degree of suspicion attached to his evidence. It

will depend much upon the nature of the crime and the degree of moral guilt attached to

its commission. However the extent of corroboration required is upto the discretion of the

judge trying the case and while exercising this discretion the judge must keep in mind

the nature of the offence, the extent of complicity of the accomplice in the crime and the

circumstances under which the accomplice makes his statement. The minimum

corroboration which the law ordinarily requires of the evidence of an accomplice is

evidence of at least one material fact pointing to the guilt of the accused person. The

27 Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Law of Evidence (Nagpur: Wadhwa and Company Law Publishers, 2001)at 436.

28 K.K Jadav v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1966 SC 821.29 Ranjeet Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1988 SC 672.30 Supra note 3 at 4667.

14


weight of such corroborative evidence depends upon the facts and circumstances of

each case.31

Where an accomplice changes his statement very strong corroboration would be

necessary to accept his previous version as true.

Where the accomplice is acting under constraint the corroboration required to establish

his credit worthiness will be less than if his complicity in the offence has been voluntary

and spontaneous.

The nature and extent of corroboration must necessarily vary with the circumstances of

each case and it is not possible to enunciate any hard and fast rule. But the guiding rules

laid down in R v. Baskerville32 are clear and beyond controversy. They are:

It is not necessary that there should be independent confirmation in every detail

of the crime related by the accomplice. It is sufficient if there is a confirmation as

to a material circumstance of the crime.

The confirmation by independent evidence must be of the identity of the accused

in relation to the crime, ie. confirmation in some fact which goes to fix the guilt of

the particular person charged by connecting or tending to connect him with the

crime. In other words, there must be confirmation in some material particular that

not only has the crime been committed but that the accused committed it.

The corroboration must be by independent testimony that is by some evidence

other than that of the accomplice and therefore one accomplice cannot

corroborate the other.

The corroboration need not be by direct evidence that the accused committed the

crime, it may be circumstantial.

These rules have been restated by the Supreme Court of India with the declaration that

the law is exactly the same in India.

Appreciation of Accomplice Evidence- The Corroboration Issue

31 Supra note 5 at 574.32 (1916)2 KB 658.

15


The Supreme Court in Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab33 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 problem posed by the evidence given by an approver has been considered by the

Privy Council and Courts in India on several occasions. It is hardly necessary to deal at

length with the true legal position in this matter. An accomplice is undoubtedly a

competent witness under the Indian Evidence Act. There can be, however, no doubt that

the very fact that he has participated in the commission of the offence introduces a

serious stain on and Courts are naturally reluctant to act on such tainted evidence

unless it is corroborated in material particulars by other independent evidence. It would

not be right to expect that such independent corroboration should cover the whole of the

prosecution story or even all the material particulars. If such a view is adopted it would

render the evidence of the accomplice wholly superfluous. On the other hand it would

not be safe to act upon such evidence merely because it is corroborated in minor

particulars or incidental details because, in such a case corroboration does not afford the

necessary assurance that the main story disclosed by the approver can be reasonably

and safely accepted as true. But it must never be forgotten that before the court reaches

the stage of considering the question of corroboration and its adequacy or otherwise, the

first initial and essential question to consider is, whether, even as an accomplice, the

approver is a reliable witness. If the answer to the question is against the approver then

there is an end of the matter and no question as to whether evidence is corroborated or

not needs to be considered. In other words the appreciation of an approver’s evidence

has to satisfy a double test. His evidence must show that he is a reliable witness and

that is a test which is common to all witnesses. If this test is satisfied the second test,

which still remains to be applied, is that the approver’s evidence must receive sufficient

corroboration. This test is special to the cases of weak or tainted evidence like that of an

approver”

Thus these tests laid down by the Supreme Court are the guiding principles according to

which accomplice evidence must be appreciated.

33 AIR 1957 SC 637.

16


English Law Vs. Indian Law- A Comparative Analysis

In England there is now an increasing tendency to insist that the evidence of an

accomplice must be corroborated.34 However the fullest and most authoritative

exposition of English Law is laid down in R v. Baskerville35 where all the leading

authorities were reviewed and principles applicable were stated in clear terms by the

Court of Appeal. Lord Reading the Lord Chief Justice stated the law as follows: There is

no doubt that the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice is admissible in law… But it

has long been a rule of practice at common law for the judge to warn the jury of the

danger of convicting a prisoner on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice or

accomplices and in the discretion of the Judge to advise them not to convict upon such

evidence but the Judge should point out to the jury that it is within their legal province to

convict upon such unconfirmed evidence…The rule of practice has become virtually

equivalent to a rule of law and since the Court of Criminal Appeal came into operation

this Court has held that in the absence of such a warning by the judge the conviction

must be quashed….If after the proper caution by the judge the jury nevertheless convict

the prisoner, this Court will not quash the conviction merely upon the ground that the

accomplice’s testimony was uncorroborated.

Halsbury’s Laws of England states the law as:36

The uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice is admissible in law and a jury may

convict a defendant upon it. Where, however, a person who is an accomplice gives

evidence on behalf of the prosecution it is the duty of the trial judge to warn the jury that

while it may convict on his testimony it is dangerous to do so unless it is corroborated;

and this rule although originally one of practice now has the force of a rule of law.

In India the law relating to Accomplice Evidence is exactly the same as English Law.

Section 133 of the Evidence Act, 1872 clearly lays down that a conviction is not illegal

merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice and to

hold that the corroboration is necessary is to refuse to give effect to this provision.

34 In Archbold’s “Criminal Pleading” it is said that ‘it is now fully recognized to be an established practice, virtually equivalent to a rule of law, to require corroboration of the evidence of an accomplice by independent evidence on some material particulars going to the offence itself and implicating the accused’.35 (1916)2 KB 658.36 Supra note 5 at 543.

17


The law relating to Accomplice Evidence has been considered by the Judiciary in

various cases and can be restated as follows:

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 does not require that there should be corroboration of the

testimony of an accomplice. Although Section 114(b) says that the Court may presume

that an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless he is corroborated in material particulars

it makes it clear in Section 133 that an accomplice shall be a competent witness against

the accused person and a conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the

uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. There is no doubt therefore that the

uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice is admissible in evidence.

But the rule of practice at common law which has become virtually equivalent to a rule of

law and which is exactly the law in India as far as accomplices are concerned and it is

certainly not any higher in the case of sexual offences has become ingrained in Indian

law and has the force of a rule of law in India too. The only clarification necessary in

India is that as the offences are tried by a judge without the aid of a jury the rule about

the advisability of corroboration should be present in the mind of the judge. It is

necessary that the judge should give some indication in his judgment that he had this

rule of caution in mind and should proceed to give reasons for considering it

unnecessary to require corroboration on the facts of the particular case before him and

show why he considers it safe to convict without corroboration in that particular case. It

is wrong for a judge to think that he could not, as a matter of law, convict without

corroboration.

The rule which according to the cases has hardened into one of law is not that

corroboration is essential before there can be a conviction but that the necessity of

corroboration, as a matter of prudence, except where the circumstances make it safe to

dispense with it, must be present to the mind of the judge and in jury cases must find

place in the charge before a conviction without corroboration can be sustained.

Thus to sum up, the following are the salient features of the law relating to accomplice

evidence in India and which are applicable under English law too:

18


According to Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 an approver is a

competent witness and conviction shall not be illegal if based upon the

uncorroborated testimony of the approver.

According to illustration (b) of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the

court may presume that an approver is a man of untrustworthiness until he is

corroborated in material particulars.

Court should not ordinarily convict unless the evidence of the approver is

corroborated in material particulars qua the accused and if more than one

accused, qua each accused.

Such corroboration can be direct and circumstantial.

If the evidence of an approver is intrinsically or inherently impossible or is

otherwise unreliable or unacceptable it should be rejected straightaway without

caring to seek for corroborations.

There are several circumstances by which the reliability of an approver has to be

adjudged- one important test of reliability is that he is corroborated by other

evidence in material particulars.

The approver should be a particeps criminis on his own admission or appear to

be so by evidence.

19


Conclusion

The Courts in this country have by harmoniously reading Section 114(b) and Section

133 together laid down the guiding principle with respect to accomplice evidence which

clearly lays down the law without any ambiguity. This principle which the courts have

evolved is that though a conviction based upon the uncorroborated testimony of an

accomplice is not illegal or unlawful but the rule of prudence says that it is unsafe to act

upon the evidence of an accomplice unless it is corroborated with respect to material

aspects so as to implicate the accused. This guiding principle though very clear is often

faced with difficulties with respect to its implementation. While implementing this

principle different judges might have different levels of corroboration for accomplice

evidence and thus with no hard and fast rules relating to the extent and nature of

corroboration an element of subjective ness creeps in which can result in injustice.

However in spite of the problems and complexities associated with accomplice evidence

it must be borne in mind that accomplice evidence is of extreme importance and can

often play the decisive role in a criminal trial. The testimony of an accomplice can be

equated to an expert’s testimony. Just as a scientist may give evidence with respect to

DNA etc. an accomplice can testify about the entire background and facts and

circumstances of the offence as he was involved in the commission of the offence and

has first hand knowledge of everything related to the offence. Thus accomplice evidence

can help investigators to crack even the toughest of cases and the accomplice is often

the star prosecution witness who by his testimony can bring the whole truth out into the

open and help the Court bring the offenders to justice. Detractors of accomplice

evidence might argue that the testimony of an accomplice is unreliable and

untrustworthy as the accomplice is one who has betrayed his own people to save his

own skin. However such arguments although not baseless can be circumvented by

exercising due care and diligence while dealing with accomplices. Thus Accomplice

Evidence is a necessary evil. However its importance far outweighs its drawbacks and

the complexities it poses. Accomplice Evidence, thus, plays an extremely important role

in crime detection, crime solving and delivering justice and Accomplice Evidence in the

trial can make the difference between delivery of justice and the offender getting away

scot-free.

20


Bibliography

Articles

1. Justice K.N Goyal, “Testimony of Accused” 2000(4) Criminal Law Journal 145.

Books

1. B. Malik et al., Law of Evidence- Volume V (Allahabad: Law Publishers India

Private Limited, 1990).

2. Eric Shepherd et al., Analysing Witness Testimony (London: Blackstone Press

Limited, 1999).

3. M. Monir, Principles and Digest of the Law of Evidence (Allahabad: Universal

Book Agency, 1999).

4. M.C Sarkar et al., Law of Evidence- Volume II (New Delhi: Wadhwa and

Company Law Publishers, 1999).

5. M.L Singhal, Sir John Woodroffe and Syed Amir Ali, Law of Evidence- Volume IV

(Allahabad: Law Book Company Private Limited, 1993).

6. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Law of Evidence (Nagpur: Wadhwa and Company

Law Publishers, 2001).

7. Vepa P. Sarathi, Law of Evidence (Lucknow: Eastern Book Company, 1989).

21

evidence accomplice

Documents

syed amir ali

universal book agency

sir john woodroffe

company law publishers

important issues relating

indian evidence act

accomplice evidence law

indian law