INTRODUCTION

“Accomplices are usually interested and always infamous witness and whose testimony is
admitted from necessity, it being always impossible without having recourses to such
evidence to bring up the principal offenders to justice”

- Lord Taylor (A Treatise on the law of Evidence)1

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 does not lay down the definition of the word “accomplice”
nowhere. An accomplice means “a guilty associate” or a partner in crime.” Section 133 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 2 is the only absolute rule of law dealing with accomplice
evidence.3 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. An accomplice is a person who is connected with another or others in the commission
of crime. He is a person who participates in the commission of the crime. Where the witness
sustains such relations to the criminal act that he would be jointly indicted with the accused,
he is an accomplice. For example, when number of persons have committed an offence and
one of them is produced as a witness before the court, he is called as accomplice. 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.4

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
1
(1931) Vol 1 Para 967
2
Section 133 of Indian Evidence Act 1872- 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.
3
The procedural aspects relating to Accomplice Evidence are dealt with in Sections 306-308 and 315 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
4
B. Malik et al., Law of Evidence- Volume V (Allahabad: Law Publishers India Private Limited, 1990)at 4651.

EVIDENCE Page 1
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. 5
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.

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.

Under the English Common Law, an accomplice is a person who actively participates in
the commission of a crime, or a person who knowingly or voluntarily helps another in a
crime or wrongdoing, even if they take no part in the actual criminal offense.

S.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.
S.114. Illustration (B) — The court may presume that an accomplice is unowrthy of credit,
unless he is corroborated in material particulars.

5
Ibid at 4652.

EVIDENCE Page 2
 ACCOMPLICE


WHO IS AN ACCOMPLICE?

The word “accomplice” has nowhere been defined in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is
extremely important to understand what the term accomplice means and signifies as to attract
Section 133 a person must be an accomplice. An accomplice means “a guilty associate” or a
partner in crime.” According to Judicial decisions, an accomplice is one of the guilty
associates or partners in the commission of crime or who in some way or the other is
connected with the commission of crime or who admits that he has a conscious hand in the
commission of a crime. principles criminals. An accomplice by becoming an approver
becomes a prosecution witness .An approver’s evidence has to satisfy a doubt test :

(1) His evidence must be reliable and

(2) His evidence should be sufficiently corroborated.6

Usually most of the crimes are committed at secluded places where there will not be any eye
witness to testify regard to these offences, and it would not be possible for the police to get
sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. In such cases, police pick up one of the
suspects and arrest him who is usually least guilty and offers to him an assurance that if he is
willing to divulge all information relating to the commission of the crime and give evidence
against his own colleagues, he will be pardoned. So, any such person who is picked up or
who is taken by the police for the purpose of giving evidence against his own colleagues is
known as an accomplice or an approver.

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.7
It was held in R.K Dalmia v. Delhi Administration8 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
6
Shanker v.State of T.N 1994 CrLJ 3071
7
M.L Singhal, Sir John Woodroffe and Syed Amir Ali, Law of Evidence- Volume IV (Allahabad: Law Book
Company Private Limited, 1993)at 512.
8
R.K Dalmia v. Delhi Administration AIR 1962 SC 1821.

EVIDENCE Page 3
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. Emperor9 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.10

CONDITIONS TO BE FOLLOWED BY AN ACCOMPLICE

1. To be an approver or accomplice he is to be an associate with other partners of the

crime and must have elements of mens rea. If he does not have any element of mens
rea for which the offence was committed, he is not an accomplice. 

2. Acceptance of the evidence of an accomplice will be accepted provided he proves
himself to be trustworthy or by circumstantial evidence. 

3. Before accepting testimony of an accomplice, the identity of other associates has to be
confirmed by the accomplice witness. 


EVIDENCE AS OF A WITNESS ADMISSIBLE AS ACCOMPLICE EVEN IF HE IS NOT

PROSECUTED AND NOT GRANTED PARDON

Even if the prosecution does not prosecute a witness and use his evidence only as an
accomplice, it is perfectly legal. The evidence of such witness subject to the usual caution is
admissible evidence. The contention that his evidence would be inadmissible because he has
not been granted pardon or has not been made accused is of no consequence.11

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

9
Jaganath v. Emperor9 AIR 1942 Oudh 221.
10
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).
11
Chandran v. State of Kerala, AIR 2011SC 1594 at p. 1616.

EVIDENCE Page 4
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.12

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. 13 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.

CATEGORIES OF ACCOMPLICE


PRINCIPAL OFFENDER OF FIRST DEGREE AND SECOND DEGREE:

The principal offender of first degree is a person 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
.These persons are undoubtedly under all circumstances, accomplice.

12
Supra note 16 at 2084-2085.
13
Ibid at 2080.

EVIDENCE Page 5
Example - A administers poison through B to kill C. Ais the principle offender in first
degree, and B is the principal offender in the second degree.

ACCESSORIES BEFORE THE FACT:

Accessories before the facts are persons who abet, incite, procure or counsel for the
Commission of a crime are called "Accessories Before the Crime" and they do not
themselves participate in the commission of the crime of these persons, those who counsel,
incite encourage or procure the commission of the crime are certainly accomplices . As for
the persons who the fact, if they participates in the preparation of the crime are accomplice
committed they are not participating in the commission of the same crime as the accused
person in a trial are charged.

Example: A provides facilities or gives financial aid to B to commit Murder of 'D' Here A is
Necessary before the fact
ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT:

Accessories after the fact are persons who receives or comfort or protect persons who have
committed the crime of felony knowing that they have committed the crime of felony. If
accessories help the accused in escaping from punishment or help him from not being
arrested, such person are known as horboures and these persons and these persons can be
accomplices because all of them are participants in the commission of the crime in some way
or the other.

If a man sees the perpetration of the crime and does not give information of it to any one else,
he might well be regarded in law as an accomplice. Such person though technically not an
accomplice, his position is not superior to that of an accomplice.

Example: X commits murder of Y, If Z is knowing that X committed the murder and gives
shelter to X, Z is called accessory after the crime/ fact

RELIANCE AT THE TESTIMONY OF ACCOMPLICE

Section 133 of the evidence act lays down that an accomplice is a competent witness and a
conviction based on the sole of testimony of an accomplice is not illegal, contrary to the

EVIDENCE Page 6
provision of section 133, section 114, illustration (b) says the court may presume that an
accomplice is unworthy in material particulars.

In Emperor V. Srinivas krisna14 it has been laid down that section 133 is the only absolute
rule of law as regard the evidence of an accomplice. In Haroon Haji Abdullah v State of
Maharashtra: The Supreme court in this case held that:

“The Indian Evidence Act in section 133 provides that an accomplice is a competent witness
against an accused person and that a conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon
the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice .The effect of this provision is that the court
trying an accused may legally convict him on the single evidence of an accomplice. To this
there is a rider in illustration (b) to section 114 of the act which provides that the court may
presume that an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless he is corroborated in material
particulars. This cautionary provision incorporated a rule of prudence because an accomplice
who be of credit unless he is corroborated in material particulars. This cautionary provision
incorporated a rule of prudence because an accomplice who betrays his associates is not a fair
witness and it is possible that he may, to please the prosecution, weaves false details into
those which are true and his whole story appearing true, there may be no means at hand to
sever the false from that which is true. It is for this reason that courts, before they act on
accomplice evidence, insist on corroboration in material respects as to the offence itself also
implicating in some satisfactory way however small, each accused named by the accomplice.
In this way the commission of the offence is confirmed testimony of the accomplice and the
inclusion by the accomplice of an innocent person is defeated. This rule of caution or
prudence has become so ingrained in the consideration of Accomplice evidence as to have
almost the consideration of Accomplice evidence as to have almost the standing of a rule of
law. The corroboration of evidence could be direct or circumstantial. One such circumstance
may be the making of a number of confession by the co-accused. But before even a number
of such confession can be used each such confession must inspire confidence both in its
making and when there is a single retracted confession corroborating other accomplice
evidence the caution must necessarily be still greater and the probative value smaller.”

ACCOMPLICES, 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
14
1950(7) bom lr 969

EVIDENCE Page 7
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.15

In the case of decoys or trap witnesses16 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.17

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.18

LEGITIMACY OF WITNESS:

The difference between the evidence of an approver and the confession of a co –accused is
that in the first case, it is evidence given on oath and subject to cross-examination by the
accused against whom it will be used; where as in the case of a co –accused against whom it
is sought to be used or from the dock at the time of the trial. In either case, it cannot be
subjected to cross-examination.

Chandan and others v The state of Rajasthan: So far as the question about the conviction
based on the testimony of the accomplice is concerned the law is settled and it is established
as a rule of prudence that the testimony of accomplice if it is thought reliable as a whole
conviction could only be based if it corroborated by independent evidence either direct or

15
Supra note 5 at 4670.
16
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.
17
M.C Sarkar et al., Law of Evidence- Volume II (New Delhi: Wadhwa and Company Law Publishers, 1999)at
2088.
18
Miyabhai Pirbhai v. State, AIR 1963 Guj 188.

EVIDENCE Page 8
circumstances connecting the accused with the crime. Thus where in a murder case there was
no direct evidence and the only available was that of the approver and other evidence
regarding recovery of articles, but so far as the identification the articles at the parade was not
examined at the trial, his evidence could not be ensued to corroborate the evidence of the
approver because:

(i) what he identified and stated to the Magistrate who conducted the identification parade is
only be used to corroborated his testimony if he was examined at the trial and; (ii) what he
stated to the Magistrate at the time of the test identification parade is not subjected to cross-
examination was at the back of the and hence could not be used as evidence against by the
approver did not approve, to be natural, the conviction of the accused was, therefore, liable to
be set. So, far as the question about the conviction based on the testimony of the accomplice
is concerned the law is settled and it is established as a rule of prudence that the testimony of
accomplice it is thought reliable as a whole conviction could only be based if it is
corroborated by independent evidence either direct or circumstantial connecting the accused
with the crime .

Haroon Haji Abdulla v State of Maharastra: 19

An accomplice is a competent witness and his evidence could be accepted and a conviction
based on it if there is nothing significant to reject it as false. But the rule of prudence,
ingrained in the consideration of accomplice evidence, requires independent corroborated
evidence the accused against when the accomplice evidence is used with crime.

Ravinder singh v state of Haryana:20

In this decision the first test indicated is that if the story given out by the accomplice appears
intrinsically to be natural and probable, then alone that evidence could of some value and
then it is further observed that ordinarily an approver’s statement has to be corroborated. In
this view of the settled legal position which was not disputed before us, it was contended that
the evidence about recovery is of no consequences as there is no consequences there is no
evidence of identification but as it was contended. As the opposition said that, Gyausi lal who
is the son of the deceased is not examined at the trial but he had identified articles at the
identification parade and the learned counsel attempted to contend that this evidence could
not be looked into because:

19
1968 2 SCR 641
20
1975 3 SCR 435

EVIDENCE Page 9
(i) Who he identified and stated to the Magistrate who conducted the identification parade is
only hearsay evidence as that evidence cannot be used to corroborate his testimony if he was
examined at the trial.

EVIDENCE OF AN APPROVER AND THE CONFESSION OF THE

CO-ACCUSED

Is that in the first case, it is evidence given on oath and subject to cross-examination by the
accused against whom it will be used, where as in the case of a co-accused the confession is
made before the trial, behind the back of the accused against whom it is sought to be used, or
from the dock at the time of the trial. In either case, he cannot be subjected to cross-
examination. That is why it is a week evidence, and, taken into consideration only in
extraordinary circumstance.

In Kashmira Singh case, it was held that:

“A co-accused who confesses is naturally an accomplice and the danger of the testimony of
one accomplice to corroborate another has repeatedly been pointed out. The danger is in no

EVIDENCE Page 10
way lessened when the evidence is not on oath and cannot be tested by cross-examination.
The courts have insisted on corroboration in the case an evidence of accomplice, because:

(i)The evidence of an accomplice is obliviously tainted evidence, he himself being one who
taken a part in the crime

(ii)No harm will come to him whatever part he gives himself, because, either he is not
arrested by the police or if arrested, there is the lender of guilt on to innocent persons against
whom a grudge is borne; and as pointed out in:

Bhuboni Sahu v R.; “The real danger is that he is telling a story which in its general outline
is true and it is easy for him to work into the story matter which is untrue.

EVIDENCE Page 11
 ACCOMPLICE AND CRIMES

SEXUAL CRIMES

In the case of rape the evidence of prosecutrix that she had enforceably subjected to sexual
intercourse along with co-accused when her conduct and circumstances indicate that she was
consenting party, has to be disbelieved by court unless there is adequate corroboration-as held
in Jarnail Singh v State of Rajasthan.21 A prosecutrix cant be considered as an accomplice
and her testimony cant be acquitted with that of an accomplice in an offence. She is infact a
victim of crime and her evidence must receive the same weightage as is attached to an injured
complainant or witness. Corroboration is not the ‘Sine Quanon’ for conviction in a rape case.
The Indian courts refusing to act on the testimony of victim of sexual assault in the absence
of corroboration as a rule, is adding insult to injury. There is no reason why the evidence of
the female who complains of such, should be viewed with the aid of a spectacle fitted with
lenses tinged with doubt or disbelief or suspicion. To do so, is to justify the charge the charge
of male superiority in a male dominated society.22 There is no rule of law that her testimony
cant be acted upon without corroboration in materials particulars. She stands on a higher
pedestal then injured witness. In the later case, there is injury on the physical form, while in
the former it is physical as well as physiological and emotional. However, if the court on
facts, finds its difficult to accept her version on its face value it may search for evidence,
direct or circumstantial, to lend assurance to her testimony. Assurance, sought of
corroboration, as understood in the context of an accomplice, would suffice.23

CRIME OF MURDER

Conviction of the accused resting primarily on the testimony of the accomplice in a murder
case is valid only if the testimony is reliable and is corroborated in material particulars and in
where exculpatory statement of the accomplice which was full of infirmities and was
uncorroborated, there was no evidence on record to show that the deceased died an unnatural
death.24

21
(1972) CrLJ 824 (Raj).
22
Rameshwar Kalyan Singh v State of Rajasthan AIR 1952 SC 54.
23
State of H.P v Shree Kant, (2004) 8 SCC 153.
24
Banwari Lal v State of H.P, (2004) CrLJ 1067.

EVIDENCE Page 12
 CORROBORATION

Corroboration is evidence from a source independent of the relevant witness which implicates
the accused by tending to show both that the crime was committed and that the accused
committed it.

Corroboration, more broadly, however, might be taken to apply to any case in which one item
of evidence boosts up the value of another item of evidence higher than it was before. The
following definitions for ‘corroborate’ are given by the Oxford English Dictionary: To
strengthen (an opinion, statement, argument, etc.) by concurrent or agreeing statements or
evidence; to make more sure or certain; to support, confirm: said of a person.

The corroboration is not necessary of independent nature. Independent corroboration doesn’t

mean that every detail given by the Accomplice must be corroborated by the independent
witnesses. All that is required is that there must be some additional evidence rendering it
probable that the story of the Accomplice is true and it is safe to rely on.

In reference to the requirements of corroboration, the word used is “may” and not “must”,
and no decision of court can make it must. It ultimately depends upon court’s view as to the
credibility of evidence tendered by an accomplice. If it is found credible and cogent, the court
can record conviction on its basis even if uncorroborated. Corroboration in material
particulars means that there should be some additional or independent evidence;

(a) Rendering it probable that the story revealed by the accomplice is true and it is reasonably
safe to act upon it;

(b) Identifying the accused as one of those, or among those, who committed the offence;

(c) Showing the circumstantial evidence of his connection with the crime, though it may not
be direct evidence; and

(d) Ordinarily the testimony of one accomplice should not be sufficient to corroborate that of
the other.25

25
K.hasim v. state of T.N.,(2005).237 1 SCC

EVIDENCE Page 13
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

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 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.26 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.27 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.28

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

26
Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Law of Evidence (Nagpur: Wadhwa and Company Law Publishers, 2001)at 436.
27
K.K Jadav v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1966 SC 821.
28
Ranjeet Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1988 SC 672.

EVIDENCE Page 14
can be laid down on the subject. The fact that there is no corroborative evidence is not
conclusive in favour of the accused.29 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 weight of such
corroborative evidence depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.30

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. Baskerville31 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

29
Supra note 3 at 4667.
30
Supra note 5 at 574.
31
R v. Baskerville (1916)2 KB 658.

EVIDENCE Page 15
 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.

EVIDENCE Page 16
 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.

EVIDENCE Page 17