STATUS OF EVIDENCE OF AN ACCOMPLICE UNDER INDIAN

EVIDENCE ACT, 1872

Contents
I.

Introduction..................................................................................................................2

II. Research Methodology.................................................................................................4

1.

Aims and Objectives.................................................................................................4

2.

Nature of Project.......................................................................................................4

3.

Sources of Data.........................................................................................................4

4.

Scope and Limitation................................................................................................4

5.

Research Questions...................................................................................................4

6.

Mode of Citation.......................................................................................................5

III.

Accomplice Evidence: Issues And Perspectives.......................................................6

I.

Who Is An Accomplice?.......................................................................................6

II. Accomplices, Trap Witnesses, Punters, Spies, Decoys, Informers etc.................8

III.

Burden of Proof: Whether Witness is an Accomplice or not?...........................9

IV.

Competency of Accomplice as Witness............................................................9

IV. Accomplice Evidence and Confession of Co-accused..............................................10

V.

Accomplice and Sexual Crimes.................................................................................10

VI. Accomplice Evidence: The Question Of Corroboration............................................11

VII.

Necessity of Corroboration.....................................................................................12

VIII. Nature of Corroboration.........................................................................................12

IX. Extent of Corroboration.............................................................................................13
X.

Appreciation of Accomplice Evidence: The Corroboration Issue.............................14

XI. English Law Vs. Indian Law: A Comparative Analysis............................................16

XII.

Conclusion..............................................................................................................19

References..........................................................................................................................20

STATUS OF EVIDENCE OF AN ACCOMPLICE UNDER INDIAN

EVIDENCE ACT, 1872
I.

INTRODUCTION

Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 1 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

1 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.
2 The procedural aspects relating to Accomplice Evidence are dealt with in Sections 306308 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.

STATUS OF EVIDENCE OF AN ACCOMPLICE UNDER INDIAN

EVIDENCE ACT, 1872
an accomplice or not, competency of an accomplice as a witness, accomplice evidence in sexual
offences and the relation between accomplice 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
accomplices 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.

STATUS OF EVIDENCE OF AN ACCOMPLICE UNDER INDIAN

EVIDENCE ACT, 1872
II.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
1. 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 accomplices 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.

2. NATURE OF PROJECT
The project is analytical as well as descriptive in nature. However the majority of the project is
analytical in nature.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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?

STATUS OF EVIDENCE OF AN ACCOMPLICE UNDER INDIAN

EVIDENCE ACT, 1872
What is the necessity for corroborating an accomplices testimony?
How is an accomplices 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?

6. MODE OF CITATION
A uniform mode of citation has been adopted throughout the course of this project.

STATUS OF EVIDENCE OF AN ACCOMPLICE UNDER INDIAN

EVIDENCE ACT, 1872
III.
I.

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

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 R.K Dalmia v. Delhi Administration AIR 1962 SC 1821.
7 Jaganath v. Emperor 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).

STATUS OF EVIDENCE OF AN ACCOMPLICE UNDER INDIAN

EVIDENCE ACT, 1872
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 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

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.

STATUS OF EVIDENCE OF AN ACCOMPLICE UNDER INDIAN

EVIDENCE ACT, 1872
anxiety for his own safety rather than any desire to shield the criminal. A person who remains
passively silent after obtaining 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

II.

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 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 witnesses 15 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.

STATUS OF EVIDENCE OF AN ACCOMPLICE UNDER INDIAN

EVIDENCE ACT, 1872

III.

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

IV.

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.

18 Supra note 16 at 2084-2085.

19 Ibid at 2080.

STATUS OF EVIDENCE OF AN ACCOMPLICE UNDER INDIAN

EVIDENCE ACT, 1872
IV.

ACCOMPLICE EVIDENCE AND CONFESSION OF COACCUSED

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 crossexamination 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 accomplices evidence 21. 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 approvers evidence. 22 The confession of a co-accused cannot
afford better or more reliable evidence than that of an accomplice. If an accomplices 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 approvers
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.

V.

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

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

STATUS OF EVIDENCE OF AN ACCOMPLICE UNDER INDIAN

EVIDENCE ACT, 1872
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 judgebefore a conviction
without corroboration can be sustained. The court also made it clear that the corroboration
should be such so as to render the prosecution story reliable and safe to act upon24
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.

VI.

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:

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

STATUS OF EVIDENCE OF AN ACCOMPLICE UNDER INDIAN

EVIDENCE ACT, 1872

VII.

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.

VIII.

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

STATUS OF EVIDENCE OF AN ACCOMPLICE UNDER INDIAN

EVIDENCE ACT, 1872

IX.

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 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.

30 Supra note 3 at 4667.

31 Supra note 5 at 574.

STATUS OF EVIDENCE OF AN ACCOMPLICE UNDER INDIAN

EVIDENCE ACT, 1872
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.

X.

APPRECIATION OF ACCOMPLICE EVIDENCE: THE

CORROBORATION ISSUE

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

32 R v. Baskerville (1916)2 KB 658.

33 Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 637.

STATUS OF EVIDENCE OF AN ACCOMPLICE UNDER INDIAN

EVIDENCE ACT, 1872
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 approvers
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 approvers 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.

STATUS OF EVIDENCE OF AN ACCOMPLICE UNDER INDIAN

EVIDENCE ACT, 1872
XI.

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 evidenceThe 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 accomplices testimony was uncorroborated.
Halsburys 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

34 In Archbolds 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 Supra at 32
36 Supra note 5 at 543.

STATUS OF EVIDENCE OF AN ACCOMPLICE UNDER INDIAN

EVIDENCE ACT, 1872
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.
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:

STATUS OF EVIDENCE OF AN ACCOMPLICE UNDER INDIAN

EVIDENCE ACT, 1872
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.

STATUS OF EVIDENCE OF AN ACCOMPLICE UNDER INDIAN

EVIDENCE ACT, 1872
XII.

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 experts
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.

STATUS OF EVIDENCE OF AN ACCOMPLICE UNDER INDIAN

EVIDENCE ACT, 1872
REFERENCES
Cases
In re, Padmaraja Shetty, AIR 1951 Mad 74611
In re, B.K Rajagopal, AIR 1944 Mad 117.11
Ismail v. Emperor, AIR 1947 Lah 220.................................................................................9
Jaganath v. Emperor AIR 1942 Oudh 221.........................................................................7
K.K Jadav v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1966 SC 821.............................................................14
Miyabhai Pirbhai v. State, AIR 1963 Guj 188..................................................................10
Narain Chandra Biswas v. Emperor, AIR 1936 Cal 101....................................................8
R v. Baskerville (1916)2 KB 658......................................................................................15
R.K Dalmia v. Delhi Administration AIR 1962 SC 1821...................................................7
Rameshwar Kalyan Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1952 SC 54...................................11
Ranjeet Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1988 SC 672....................................................14
Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 637.........................................................16
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sheodayal Gurudayal AIR 1956 Nag 8...............................12
Statutes
Section 133 of Indian Evidence Act 1872...........................................................................3
Sections 306-308 and 315 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.................................3
Books
B. Malik et al., Law of Evidence- Volume V (Allahabad: Law Publishers India Private
Limited, 1990)at 4651............................................................................................passim
d. 8
M. Monir, Principles and Digest of the Law of Evidence (Allahabad: Universal Book
Agency, 1999)at 1367....................................................................................................13
M.C Sarkar et al., Law of Evidence- Volume II (New Delhi: Wadhwa and Company Law
Publishers, 1999)at 2088...........................................................................................9, 10
M.L Singhal, Sir John Woodroffe and Syed Amir Ali, Law of Evidence- Volume IV
(Allahabad: Law Book Company Private Limited, 1993)...............................................7
Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Law of Evidence (Nagpur: Wadhwa and Company Law
Publishers, 2001)at 436.................................................................................................14