Sometimes individuals who were indulged in the crime may testify against the main accused are known as accomplices.The law directs how their testimony should be treated, by making sure that both fairness and justice are maintained.
What is Accomplice?
An Accomplice, is an individual who is directly or indirectly involved in a criminal act, and can be connected to the offense either through their actions or by acceptance of their conscious participation in the crime. Section 138 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023(BSA) talks about the competency of such Accomplices who act as witnesses in a legal proceeding.An accomplice is indeed a competent witness and is allowed to appear in court and give evidence against the primary accused.
RELIABILITY OF ACCOMPLICE TESTIMONY
Section 138 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023(BSA) makes it clear that a conviction based solely on the statement of an accomplice is not considered illegal. However, this stance diverges from example (b) of Section 119 of BSA, which implies that the testimony of an accomplice should be viewed with doubt unless it is corroborated with material particulars.
HARMONY BETWEEN SECTION 138 AND EXAMPLE (B) OF SECTION 119 OF BSA
There exists a balanced relationship between Section 138 and Illustration (b) to Section 119 of BSA.Section 138 allows convictions based on uncorroborated accomplice testimony in the court, the courts have made a provident rule that such testimony must firstly pass a doubt test-
- The testimony of the accomplice must display their reliability as a witness.
- The accomplice’s testimony must be validated with material corroboration.
Example (b) to Section 119 of BSA contains this rule of caution, and the courts have often upheld this principle. In the case of ‘Dagdu v. State of Maharashtra (1977) 3 SCC 68′, the court stated that there is no inherent conflict between Section 138 and Illustration (b) to Section 119 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023(BSA); rather, the latter works as a rule of presumption.
Key Components
- Definition of Accomplice: Someone associated with the crime, either by direct action or by admitting their participation.
- Competency as Witness: They are considered to be competent witnesses which means they can testify in court against the co-accused, but their competency has certain conditions.
- Testimony Requirements: Their testimony can lead to a conviction, it is recommended that their testimony needs to be corroborated and supported by additional evidence for ensuring its reliability.
Exceptions
- Co-Accused Disqualification: The accomplice must not be a co-accused in the same case. If they happen to be a co-accused in the same case, they are disqualified from being a prosecution witness. In such a case, a co-accused who wants to give evidence as an accomplice must seek pardon under Section 343 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,2023 and accept the role of a government witness or approver.
Examples
If two people commit a robbery and 1 of the 2 (the accomplice) decides to testify against the other accused ,his testimony alone could lead to a conviction of the other accused . However, if there is additional evidence like security footage or witness accounts which support the accomplice’s testimony , the court is more doubtlessly to consider the accomplice testimony credible.
Why is this Important?
The importance of Section 138 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023(BSA) lies in harmonizing justice and fairness. Accomplices can give key evidence that may otherwise be difficult to obtain. However, as they are connected with the crime, their testimony might be prejudiced or self-serving. Therefore, the law stresses the necessity for corroboration, by making sure that convictions are not solely based on potentially unreliable testimony.
Section 138 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023(BSA) highlights the importance of caution when assessing the testimony of an accomplice in a criminal case. While it does allow convictions solely based on accomplice testimony, it is advisable for such testimony to be substantiated with material particulars.At the end, the court has the discretion in deciding whether to rely solely on the testimony of an accomplice or to want to have additional evidence, by making a balance between the pursuit of justice and fairness in each specific case.
Source:
