Accomplice in Evidence Act

The concept of an accomplice in Evidence Act plays an important role in criminal proceedings, where individuals involved in criminal activities may provide testimony against their associates. An accomplice, while competent to testify, requires their testimony to be corroborated with other evidence due to potential bias.

This requirement aims to ensure the reliability and credibility of the evidence presented in court. Understanding the role and implications of accomplice testimony is essential for a fair and just legal process.

Who is an Accomplice?

In legal contexts, particularly under Section 133 of The Evidence Act, 1872, the term ‘accomplice’ plays an important role. An accomplice is someone who participates in a crime alongside another person or group.

When law enforcement persuades an individual to engage in criminal activities to gather evidence against others, that individual is known as a trap witness. If a trap witness who is also an accomplice receives a pardon, they may be referred to as an approver. Notably, Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, considers trap witnesses and approvers as competent witnesses, falling under the definition of ‘accomplice’ as used in the section.

Although the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, does not explicitly define the term ‘accomplice,’ it is generally understood in its ordinary sense. The judiciary has attempted to define the term through various rulings. For example, in Chandan v Emperor, the court described an accomplice as someone who is involved with an offender or offenders in committing a crime or someone who knowingly and voluntarily aids and abets others in the commission of a crime. Essentially, an accomplice in Evidence Act can be considered a partner in crime or particeps criminis.

In R.K Dalmia v. Delhi Administration, the Supreme Court defined an accomplice as a person who actively participates in the criminal act for which the accused is being tried, being a particeps criminis. However, there are situations where a person may be deemed an accomplice even if they are not directly involved in committing the crime. For instance, someone who receives stolen property can be considered an accomplice of the thieves who stole the property.

Moreover, in Shanker v State of Tamil Nadu, the court clarified that when an accomplice becomes an approver, they transition into a prosecution witness. For an approver’s testimony to be considered valid, it must pass two tests: reliability and sufficient corroboration.

Section 133, IEA

Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act (IEA) stipulates that an accomplice is considered a competent witness against an accused person and a conviction is not deemed illegal solely because it relies on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice.

Types of Accomplices

There are several types of accomplices in Evidence Act based on their level of involvement in the crime:

• Principal Offender of First Degree: This is a person who directly commits the crime. If multiple individuals commit a crime together, each one is considered a principal offender of the first degree.
• Principal Offender of Second Degree: This refers to a person who aids, abets or assists in the commission of the crime. They are present at the crime scene and assist the principal offender in some manner.
• Accessories Before the Fact: These individuals do not directly participate in the commission of the crime but encourage, incite, procure or counsel others to commit the crime.
• Accessories After the Fact: An individual becomes an accessory after the fact when they knowingly assist a person who has committed a crime in escaping punishment or arrest. This assistance can include harbouring the offender, providing comfort, helping them escape or opposing their arrest.

Accomplice as a Competent Witness

An accomplice in Evidence Act can serve as a competent witness as long as he is not a co-accused under trial in the same case. However, even if the law confers competency on him, he still retains his status as an accused. By accepting a pardon under Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), an accomplice becomes a competent witness and can be examined on oath like any other witness.

For this to happen, the prosecution must be withdrawn and the accused must be formally discharged under Section 321 of the CrPC. If there is an omission to record the discharge, the accused still becomes a competent witness upon the withdrawal of prosecution.

Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, 1950, states that no accused shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. However, when an accomplice accepts a pardon willingly and agrees to make a true disclosure, he is not compelled to give self-incriminating evidence.

Therefore, the provisions of Sections 306 and 308 of the CrPC are not affected. A pardoned accused is obligated to make a full disclosure and if he fails to do so, he may be tried for the originally charged offence and his statement may be used against him under Section 308.

When an Accomplice Becomes a Competent Witness

Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with the competency of witnesses. Competency is a prerequisite for examining a person as a witness and the sole criterion for competency is that the witness should not be prevented by his age, mental or physical state or disease from understanding the questions posed to him or from giving rational answers.

Similarly, Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act describes the competency of accomplice witnesses, stating that they should not be co-accused under trial in the same case and may be examined on oath.

Evidentiary Value of Accomplice Testimony

When an accomplice in Evidence Act provides testimony, it is not considered reliable evidence on its own for a conviction. This testimony must be corroborated with other material evidence to be deemed valid; this requirement is known as corroboration. The rationale behind this rule is to protect the accomplice, who may be providing testimony against their co-accused.

However, this does not imply that the court cannot rely on the evidence provided by an accomplice. An accomplice is deemed a competent witness against the accused person and a conviction based solely on the testimony of an accomplice is considered valid, even if it is not corroborated in all material particulars.

Case Laws

• Chandan v. Emperor (1930): The Allahabad High Court defined an accomplice as someone who is associated with an offender or offenders in the commission of a crime or someone who knowingly or voluntarily helps and cooperates with others in the commission of the crime.

• Shanker v State of Tamil Nadu (1994): The Supreme Court held that when an accomplice becomes an approver, they eventually become a prosecution witness.

• State of Rajasthan v. Bal Veera (2014): The Supreme Court held that an accomplice’s testimony will be presumed unworthy unless it is corroborated by some other material evidence.

Conclusion

The role of an accomplice in Evidence Act is significant yet complex. While an accomplice is considered a competent witness, their testimony alone is not sufficient for a conviction and must be corroborated with other evidence. This requirement is important to prevent false or biased testimony and to ensure the integrity of the legal process. Despite the challenges associated with accomplice testimony, it remains a valuable tool in criminal investigations and trials.

It underscores the importance of thorough investigation and the need for corroborating evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Understanding the nuances of accomplice testimony is essential for both legal practitioners and individuals involved in the criminal justice system.