Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the term “accomplice” refers to a person who has been directly or indirectly involved in the commission of a crime and may have criminal liability or involvement in the same crime for which a trial is being conducted. The testimony of an accomplice is treated with caution and requires corroboration because such witnesses may have an interest in shifting blame or gaining leniency for their own involvement in the crime.
Section 133 – Accomplice as a competent witness
According to Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act, an accomplice is considered a competent witness and can be examined and cross-examined like any other witness. This section states that an accomplice is a competent witness unless he/she is a person accused of the same offense charged in the case. In such cases, the person is not competent to give evidence for the prosecution.
Section 114 – Accomplice’s testimony to be corroborated
Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that while the testimony of an accomplice is admissible, it is generally considered weak evidence and must be corroborated by independent evidence connecting the accused with the crime. The judge or jury may choose not to convict an accused person solely based on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice.
The rationale behind requiring corroboration for accomplice testimony is to ensure that convictions are not based solely on the unverified statements of individuals who may have their own motives for implicating others in a crime. Corroboration from independent sources helps establish the credibility and reliability of the accomplice’s testimony.
| Topic | Key Points |
|---|---|
| Definition of Accomplice Witness | – An accomplice witness is someone connected to a crime through unlawful acts or omissions, whether before, during, or after the crime. They may be a principal, accomplice, or accessory. The term is not defined in the Indian Evidence Act. |
| Categories of Accomplices | – Principal offenders of the first and second degree, accessories before the fact, and accessories after the fact. |
| Competency of Accomplice as a Witness | – An accomplice is a competent witness if not a co-accused under trial in the same case. They become competent after accepting a pardon under Section 306 CrPC. |
| When Accomplice Becomes Competent | – An accomplice becomes competent when the prosecution is withdrawn or after the accused is formally discharged under Section 321 CrPC. They must make a full disclosure. |
| Nature of Corroboration | – Corroboration is necessary for accomplice testimony. It should be of such a nature as to connect the accused with the crime and can be circumstantial. |
| Application of the Concept of Accomplice Witness | – Courts exercise caution when considering accomplice evidence and require corroboration. The “double test” of reliability and corroboration is applied. |
Case Laws on Accomplice
| Case | Key Points |
|---|---|
| Janendra Nath Ghose v. State of West Bengal | – Conviction based on the evidence of an approver corroborated in material particulars.<br>- The case affirmed the double test for approver’s evidence: reliability and corroboration. |
| Raghubir Singh v. State of Haryana | – Recognized that public officials or individuals acting for public justice in traps are not accomplices.<br>- Cautions against condemning individuals who collaborate with culprits for public interest. |
| Lachi Ram v. State of Punjab | – The quality and general integrity of an honest trap witness can be high, making uncorroborated evidence admissible.<br>- Quality of the witness’s testimony and reliability considered. |
| Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab | – Laid down the “double test” for approver’s evidence: reliability and corroboration. Approver’s evidence must be credible and corroborated in material aspects to implicate the accused. |
| C.R. Mehta v. State of Maharashtra | – An approver’s evidence can be considered reliable if it passes the “double test.”<br>- The complainant Minister’s evidence was of high quality and integrity, justifying conviction based on uncorroborated evidence. |
Illustrations & Examples
- Bank Robbery Case:
- Illustration: A group of individuals plans and executes a bank robbery. Among them, one person acts as the getaway driver, another disables the security system, and a third individual enters the bank with a firearm. The person disabling the security system and the driver can be considered accomplices to the armed robber.
- Explanation: In this case, all individuals involved in the bank robbery may be charged with various degrees of involvement. The armed robber is the principal offender, while the person disabling the security system and the getaway driver can be seen as accomplices who aided or abetted the crime.
- Drug Trafficking Operation:
- Illustration: A drug trafficking ring operates in a city. Some members of the group manage drug distribution, while others handle finances and logistics. A member who transports the drugs or handles the money can be considered an accomplice.
- Explanation: Accomplices in a drug trafficking operation may not directly handle or distribute drugs but play critical roles in supporting the criminal enterprise. These accomplices can be charged with conspiracy or other related crimes.
- Bribery in a Corporation:
- Illustration: Within a corporation, an executive is involved in bribery to secure a major contract. Other employees who facilitate the payment of bribes or hide financial transactions related to the corruption are accomplices.
- Explanation: In corporate bribery cases, the principal offender is often the executive who directly engages in the corrupt activity. Accomplices can include employees or associates who assist in the illegal scheme, knowingly or unknowingly, by providing financial or logistical support.
- Murder for Hire:
- Illustration: A person hires a hitman to murder an individual. The person who arranged the contract with the hitman is the principal offender, while the hitman is the accomplice.
- Explanation: The person who hires someone to commit a murder is the principal offender, and the hitman is the accomplice in the commission of the crime. Both can be charged with murder-related offenses.
- Robbery with a Decoy:
- Illustration: In a jewelry store robbery, one individual distracts the store owner while another steals valuable items. The person causing the distraction is the accomplice.
- Explanation: The distraction in this case allows the principal offender to commit the robbery without raising suspicion. The accomplice’s role aids in the commission of the crime.
- Online Scam:
- Illustration: In an online fraud scheme, one individual creates a fake website to deceive victims, while another manages the financial transactions. The person creating the website is the principal offender, and the one handling finances is the accomplice.
- Explanation: Accomplices in online scams often handle critical aspects of the operation, such as money laundering or maintaining the fraudulent online presence, which is crucial for the scam to succeed.
