Accomplice

Introduction

Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) deals with the concept of Accomplice. The word accomplice has not been defined in the Act.

• An accomplice means a person who has taken part in the commission of a crime, when an offence is committed by more than one person and everyone participating in its commission is an accomplice.

Section 133, IEA

• Section 133 of IEA states that 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.

Types of Accomplices

• Principal offender of First Degree:
  • The principal offender of first degree is a person who actually commits the crime.
  • There can be multiple persons who committed the crime together, each one of them will be principal offenders.
• Principal offender of the Second Degree:
  • The principal offender of the second degree is a person who either abets or aids the commission of the crime.
  • This refers to someone who is present at the crime scene and helps the principal offender in any way.
• Accessories before the fact:
  • They are the persons who abet, incite, procure, or counsel for the commission of a crime and they do not themselves participate in the commission of the crime.
• Accessories after the fact:
  • A person is an accessory after the fact when a person with the knowledge that the accused has committed some crime receives him, comforts him or assists him to help escape from punishment a crime or helps him escape arrest, exercising his free will allowing him to escape, or opposes his arrest.

Evidentiary value of testimony of accomplice

• When an accomplice makes a testimony, it is not seen as reliable evidence for a conviction, and it has to be verified with other material evidence; this is called corroboration.
• The reason behind not considering the evidence provided by the accomplice is to protect himself as he may go against the co-accused, but this does not mean that the court cannot rely on the evidence of the accomplice.
• An accomplice shall be a competent witness as against the accused person and a conviction of the accused based on the testimony of an accomplice is valid even though it is not corroborated in material particulars.

Related Case Laws

• In Chandan v. Emperor (1930), the Allahabad High Court defined accomplice as one who is associated with an offender or offenders in the commission of a crime or one who knowingly or voluntarily helps and cooperates with others in the commission of the crime.
• In Shanker v State of Tamil Nadu (1994), the Supreme Court held that when an accomplice becomes an approver, he eventually becomes a prosecution witness.
• In State of Rajasthan v. Bal Veera (2014), the Supreme Court held that an accomplice will be presumed unworthy until and unless the evidence or testimony provided by him is corroborated by some other material evidence.