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. Accomplice and admissibility of accomplice
witnesses are mentioned in Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872.

Who is an Accomplice? 
 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.  
 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. 

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. 

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.