Accomplice Evidence
Evidence of accomplice: An Introduction
Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is the only absolute rule of law dealing with accomplice evidence. 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.
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. 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.
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
Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is the only absolute rule of law dealing with accomplice evidence. 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.
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. 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.
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
Bibliography: 1. B. Malik et al., Law of Evidence- Volume V, Allahabad: Law Publishers India Private Limited, 1990. 3. Pasayat, Dr. Arijit, The Indian Evidence Act 1872 (A Concise Commentary), Asia Law House, Hyderabad, 1st Ed., 2007. 4. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, Law Of Evidence, Wadhwa & Co., Nagpur, 21st Ed., 2007. 5. Singh, Dr. Avtar, Principles of The Law of Evidence, Central Law Publications, Allahabad, 19th Ed., 2011. 6. Woodroffe, Sir John & Syed Amir Ali, Law Of Evidence Vol. 3, Lexis Nexis, Nagpur, 18th Ed., 2009. [ 3 ]. The procedural aspects relating to Accomplice Evidence are dealt with in Sections 306-308 and 315 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. [ 4 ]. B. Malik et al., Law of Evidence- Volume V (Allahabad: Law Publishers India Private Limited, 1990) at 4651. [ 6 ]. Govinda Balaji v. E. 1936 N 245. [ 7 ]. 1954 AC 378. [ 9 ]. (1977) 3 SCC 68 at pp. 74-75 : AIR 1977 SC 1579 : 1977 CrU 1206. [ 12 ]. (1916) 2 KB 658. [ 13 ]. (1949) 76 I.A. 147. [ 14 ]. Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan, 1952 SCR 377.