Accomplice
sridhar pasumarthy
(Querist) 06 November 2011
This query is : Resolved
Respected Experts,
Section 114(b) of Indian Evidence Act says "That an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in material particulars"
Section 133 of Indian Evidence Act says 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"
My query is :-
1. Do the above provisions are not contradictory to each other?
2. How should they be understood?
pls explain.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 07 November 2011
"accomplice" is a word though used in the Evidence Act but has been left UNDEFINED.Not even GENERAL CLAUSES speaks about the word.
If I CHOOSE to define it then I would say that an ACCOMPLICE is friend of a criminal who helped him in committing a crime.So
while A is breaking the lock B is watching the police to alert A,B would be called accomplice of thief A.
However i think anomaly pointed out by you has either stood removed or proposed to be removed by
redrafting the section 133 which *perhaps*
now read as follows[or at least proposed so,saying so as i have a very old text by S.C.SARKAR]
However the courts used these two sections by giving them HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION :::
*perhaps* THE INDIAN EVIDENCE (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2003 *perhaps*
Accomplice
133. An accomplice shall be a competent witness against an accused person but
his evidence is unworthy of credit unless he is corroborated in material particulars:
Provided that where the accomplice is a person whose evidence, in the opinion of the Court, is highly creditworthy as not to require corroboration, a conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice.
Illustrations 47
(a) A, a person of the highest character, is tried for causing a man’s death by an act of negligence in arranging certain machinery. B, a person of equally of good character, who also took part in the arrangement, describes precisely what was done, and admits and explains the common carelessness of A and himself.
The evidence of B shall have to be considered by the Court, while deciding on the negligence of A.
(b) A crime is committed by several persons. A, B and C, three of the criminals are captured on the spot and kept apart from each other – each gives an account of the crime implicating D, and the accounts corroborate each in such a manner as to render the previous concert highly improbable. The variance in the different accounts of facts given by A, B, C as to the part of D shall be taken into account
by the Court while deciding if D was an accomplice.”
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 07 November 2011
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(P. SATHASIVAM & DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.)
PRITHIPAL SINGH ETC.
Appellants
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. ETC.
Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 523-527 of 2009 and Criminal Appeal No. 528 of 2009-Decided on 4-11-
2011.
Murder – Human Right Activities - Police Atrocities – Conviction upheld
JUDGMENT
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.
laid down on EVIDENCE OF AN ACCOMPLICE - Not put on trial:
18. An accomplice is a competent witness and conviction can lawfully rests upon his
uncorroborated testimony, yet the court is entitled to presume and may indeed, be justified in
presuming in the generality of cases that no reliance can be placed on the evidence of an
accomplice unless the evidence is corroborated in material particulars, which means that there has
to be some independent witness tending to incriminate the particular accused in the commission
of the crime. (Vide: Rameshswar S/o Kalyan Singh v. The State of Rajasthan, AIR 1952 SC
54; and Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 637).
19. In K. Hasim v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2005 SC 128, this Court examined the issue while
taking into consideration the provisions of Section 133 read with Section 114 Illustration (b) of
the Evidence Act and held that the provision of Section 114 Illustration (b) embodies a rule of
prudence cautioning the court that an accomplice does not generally deserve to be believed unless
corroborated in material particulars. The legislature in its wisdom used the word `may' and not2011 STPL(Web) 947 SC 9
Prithipal Singh Vs. State of Punjab
Supreme Court Judgements @ www.stpl-india.in
`must' and, therefore, the court does not have a right to interpret the word `may' contained therein
as `must'. The court has to appreciate the evidence with caution and take a view as to the
credibility of the evidence tendered by an accomplice. In case evidence of an accomplice is found
credible and cogent, the court can record the conviction based thereon even if uncorroborated.
The Court further explained that the word "corroboration" means not mere evidence tending to
confirm other evidence. Firstly, it is not necessary that there should be an independent
corroboration of every material circumstance in the sense that the independent evidence in the
case, apart from the testimony of the accomplice, should in itself be sufficient to sustain
conviction. All that is required is that, there must be some additional evidence rendering it
probable that the case of the accomplice is true and it is reasonably safe to act upon it.
Secondly, the evidence on record must reasonably connect or tend to connect the case with the
crime by confirming in some material particular the testimony of an accomplice. Thirdly, the
circumstances involved in the case must be such as to make it safe to dispense with the necessity
of corroboration, though, such evidence may be merely circumstantial evidence to show
connection of the case with the crime.
(See also: Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar, AIR 1994 SC 2420).
20. The issue was again considered by this Court in Chandran alias Manichan alias Maniyan
& Ors. v. State of Kerala, (2011) 5 SCC 161, wherein the Court had an occasion to appreciate
the evidence of a person who had not been put on trial, but could have been tried jointly with
accused and found his evidence reliable in view of the law laid down by this Court in Laxmipat
Choraria & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 938. The Court held as under:
"78. The argument raised was that this evidence could not be taken into consideration and
it would be inadmissible because this witness, though was an accomplice he was neither
granted pardon under Section 306 CrPC nor was he prosecuted and the prosecution
unfairly presented him as a witness for the prosecution. The contention is clearly
incorrect in view of the decision of this Court in Laxmipat Choraria (supra). While
commenting on this aspect, Hidayatullah, J. observed in AIR para 13 that there were a
number of decisions in the High Courts in which the examination of one of the suspects
as the witness was not held to be legal and accomplice evidence was received subject to
safeguards as admissible evidence in the case. The Court in Laxmipat Choraria (supra)
held:
"13. On the side of the State many cases were cited from the High Courts in India
in which the examination of one of the suspects as a witness was not held to be
illegal and accomplice evidence was received subject to safeguards as admissible
evidence in the case. In those cases, Section 342 of the Code and Section 5 of the
Oaths Act were considered and the word `accused' as used in those sections was
held to denote a person actually on trial before a court and not a person who
could have been so tried... .... the evidence of an accomplice may be read
although he could have been tried jointly with the accused. In some of these
cases the evidence was received although the procedure of Section 337 of the
Criminal Procedure Code was applicable but was not followed. It is not
necessary to deal with this question any further because the consensus of opinion
in India is that the competency of an accomplice is not destroyed because he
could have been tried jointly with the accused but was not and was instead made2011 STPL(Web) 947 SC 10
Prithipal Singh Vs. State of Punjab
Supreme Court Judgements @ www.stpl-india.in
to give evidence in the case. Section 5 of the Oaths Act and Section 342 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure do not stand in the way of such a procedure."
21. In view of the above, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that the deposition
of an accomplice in a crime who has not been made an accused/put to trial, can be relied upon,
however, the evidence is required to be considered with care and caution. An accomplice who has
not been put on trial is a competent witness as he deposes in the court after taking oath and there
is no prohibition in any law not to act upon his deposition without corroboration.
