accomplice evidence

Dear Mr. Prof.

Both has a substantial differnece. Confession is not admitted in evidecne except U/s 27 of E Act and 164 Cr.P.C. Accomplice eviodence is elaborately discussed in prevention fo Corruption Act as a bribe giver is considered as an accomplice. In the case of accomplice the court has to consider the degree of complicity and then look for corroboration if necessary as a rule of prudence. It may be evn circumstantial evidence. The former one is barred and admitted by law for limited poerpose. The latter is admitted in evidecne but very cautiously.

Dear Mr. Prof.

Both has a substantial differnece. Confession is not admitted in evidecne except U/s 27 of E Act and 164 Cr.P.C. Accomplice eviodence is elaborately discussed in prevention fo Corruption Act as a bribe giver is considered as an accomplice. In the case of accomplice the court has to consider the degree of complicity and then look for corroboration if necessary as a rule of prudence. It may be evn circumstantial evidence. The former one is barred and admitted by law for limited poerpose. The latter is admitted in evidecne but very cautiously.

The evidentiary value of confession is  that it can be acted upon as provided u/s 27 of the Evidence Act. The position regarding an accomplice evidence becomes aptly clear by a joint reading of S. 133 and  the illustration(b) to S. 114 of the  Act.The former Section categorically declares that an accomplice is a competent witness and the court may convict on the basis of such evidence and the conviction will not be illegal simply because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of  an accomplice. Again, The court may presume that an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless corroborated in material particulars in view of S. 114.

thanks to all for complete solution