DEFINITION AND COMPETENCY OF ACCOMPLICE WITNESSES
An Accomplice, is an individual who is involved in a criminal act, directly or indirectly, and can be linked to the offense either through their actions or by admitting their conscious participation in the crime.
Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act,addresses the competency of such Accomplices as witnesses in a legal proceeding. This section asserts that an accomplice is indeed a competent witness and is permitted to appear in court and provide evidence against the primary accused. However, there is a crucial condition attached to this competency i.e.,
- the accomplice must not be a co-accused in the same case. If they happen to be a co-accused, they are disqualified from being a prosecution witness. In such scenarios, a co-accused who wishes to provide evidence as an accomplice must seek pardon under Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code and assume the role of a government witness or approver.
RELIABILITY OF ACCOMPLICE TESTIMONY
Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act ,makes it clear that a conviction solely based on the testimony of an accomplice is not considered illegal. However, this stance diverges from Illustration (b) to Section 114, which implies that the testimony of an accomplice should be viewed with skepticism unless it is corroborated in material particulars.
HARMONY BETWEEN SECTION 133 AND ILLUSTRATION (B) TO SECTION 114
There exists a harmonious relationship between Section 133 and Illustration (b) to Section 114. While Section 133 permits convictions based on uncorroborated accomplice testimony, the courts have established a prudential rule that such testimony must pass a doubt test-
- The testimony of the accomplice must demonstrate their reliability as a witness.
- The accomplice’s testimony must be substantiated with material corroboration.
Illustration (b) to Section 114 encapsulates this rule of caution, and the courts have consistently upheld this principle. In the case of ‘Dagdu v. State of Maharashtra (1977) 3 SCC 68′, the court affirmed that there is no inherent conflict between Section 133 and Illustration (b) to Section 114; rather, the latter serves as a rule of presumption.
COURTS DISCRETION AND PRUDENCE
In conclusion, Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act underscores the importance of caution when evaluating the testimony of an accomplice in a criminal case. While it does permit convictions solely based on accomplice testimony, it is prudent for such testimony to be substantiated with material particulars. Ultimately, the court holds discretion in determining whether to rely solely on the testimony of an accomplice or to seek additional independent evidence, striking a balance between the pursuit of justice and fairness in each specific case.
REFERENCE:-
1-https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/sas-nagar-mohali/us-based-gangsters-accomplice-held-in-ropar-8304760/lite/ -THE INDIAN EXPRESS
2-https://m.timesofindia.com/topic/accomplice -THE TIMES OF INDIA
