Accomplice

In the Indian Evidence Act 1872, the word accomplice has not been defined; it can, therefore, be presumed as used in the ordinary sense by the
legislature.

The Black Law‟s dictionary defines an “accomplice” as a person who has participated in a guilty act and is liable in a criminal action, by being present
at the place where crime has been committed by aiding or abetting in it even when he is absent from the place where crime has been committed, the
person participated having advised or encouraged it.

The Court defined accomplice as one who is associated with an offender or offenders in the commission of a crime or one who knowingly or voluntarily
helps and cooperates with others in the commission of the crime. The term „accomplice‟ may include all participes criminis i.e., a partner in crime.
There are two cases in which a person has been held to be an accomplice even if he is not a participes criminis :
• Receivers of stolen property are taken to be accomplice of the thieves from whom they receive goods on a trial of the latter for the theft.
• an accomplice in a previous similar offence committed by the accused when evidence of the accused having committed crimes of identical type on
other occasions was admissible to prove the system and intent of the accused committing the offence charged.

A person cannot be said to be an accomplice unless he consciously does the crime with the accused for which he could be convicted for the criminal act.
A person who did not take part in the offence but was just present at the time of commission of the crime and he did not make any attempt in order to
report about the commission of the crime nor did he made any attempt to prevent the crime cannot be said to be an accomplice to the crime.
Categories of Accomplice
A person is an accomplice when he participates in the commission on the same crime. There are two broad categories of modes of participation in crime.

1. Principals in the first degree or second degree, and

2. Accessories before the fact, or after the fact.

Principal offender of First Degree and Second Degree

The principal offender of first degree is a person who actually commits the crime. The principal offender of the second degree is a person who either abets
or aids the commission of the crime.

Accessories before the fact

When a person incites, counsels connives at, encourages or procures the commission of the crime becomes an accessory before the fact. These are those
accomplices who counsel, incite, encourage or procure the commission of the crime. A person is an accessory before the fact if he participates in the
preparation of the crime. They are not an accomplice. For a person to be accomplices, he must participate in the commission of the same crime as the
accused person is charged with in the trial.
Accessories after the fact
They are the persons who receive or comfort or protect persons who have committed the crime knowing that they have committed the crime. If they help
the accused in escaping from punishments or help him from not being arrested, such person are known as harbourers. These persons can be accomplices
because all of them are the participants in the commission of the crime in some way or the other. Therefore anyone of them can be an accomplice.

Not an Accomplice
The following classes of persons are not accomplices:
1. When a person, under threat of death or other form of pressure, commits a crime along with others, he is not a willing participant in it, but victim of
such circumstances.
2. A person who witnesses a crime, and does not give information of it out of tenor.
3. Detectives, paid „informers‟ and „trap or decoy witnesses (to trap the accused) are not accomplices. A court may convict on an uncorroborated
testimony of trap witnesses if it is satisfied of their truthfulness.
Testimony of an Accomplice
Section 133 of Indian Evidence Act speaks about, “Accomplice as competent witness”. This section says that when an accomplice is not a co-accused
under trial in the same case,” an accomplice is a competent witness and his evidence could be accepted and if the court feels that there is enough
evidence to support the testimony of the accomplice then an conviction can be based on such a testimony.

But this competency that has been given to him by the process of law does not relieve him of the character of an accused. No accused should be forced
to be a witness against himself. But in case an accomplice is given a pardon, on the condition that he is speaking the truth, and is not acting under any
pressure, and he is not forced to give self-incrimination as is the rule given in Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, 1950.

The law of evidence, as laid down in Sections 306 and 308, Code of Criminal Procedure, remains unaffected by this law. When an accomplice is
pardoned, he is bound to make a complete and truthful disclosure. If he fails to do so, he would be tired of the charges levelled against him originally,
and his statement would then be used against him under Section 308
Note: a person who observes a crime being committed but doesn‟t prevent or report it, is not an accomplice. But a person who acts as a watchman while
his comrades execute the design is an accomplice. The real basis of making a person an accomplice is his direct or indirect involvement in the offence.
And if such person is pardoned his evidence can support a conviction. A person who by occupying public footpath without license is committing a crime,
and subsequently makes a complaint against a policeman for extracting money from him, he is not an accomplice to the crime of giving bribe. A person
who plays a role of the bribe-giver in a trap is not accomplice. He is only an interested witness.

A person who was forced to pay something by way of bribe on promise of doing or forbearing to do any official act by a public servant was held to be not
a partner In the crime and associate in guilt. He was not an accomplice for the purpose of this section.

When an offence is committed by more than one person in concert everyone participating in its commission is an accomplice, conspirators lay their plot in
secret, they execute it ruthlessly and do not leave much evidence behind. Often therefor the police has to select one of them for the purpose of being
converted into a witness. He is pardoned under section 306 Crpc subject to the condition that he will give evidence against his former partners in crime.
He is then known as an approver. An accomplice by becoming an approver becomes prosecution witness. He appears as a witness for the prosecution
against the accused person with whom he acted together in the commission of the crime.(basically accomplices were offered the hope of pardon if they
gave evidence against the state.
Section 133 and 114 are complimentary to each other and must be read together : Section 133 gives an authorization to the courts to convict
the accused on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, but since the witness is himself involved in a criminal act, he may not be
trustworthy. When the Court feels that testimony of the accomplice may not be trustworthy then that the courts are guided by the principle laid
down in Section 114 that if the Court finds it necessary, it can presume that the testimony given by the accomplice is unreliable unless his
statements are supported or verified by some independent evidence. Corroboration is necessary in case of testimony of an accomplice.

The reason of not trusting on the testimony or evidence given by an accomplice is the nature of the evidence. The evidence by an accomplice is
already tainted since:
1. he is a person of low character who has participated in a crime and is therefore likely to have no regard to the sanctity of his oath;
2. he is interested in falsely destroying the facts in order to shift the guilt from himself; and
3. he has the inducement of either a promised or implied pardon for his own part in the crime, and is therefore likely to be biased in favour of
the prosecution.
Somasundaram @ Somu v. The State Rep. by the DCP, Crl. Appeal no. 403/2010, SC
On 03rd June 2020, Hon‟ble Supreme Court observed that it would be unsafe to convict an accused solely based on uncorroborated testimony of an
accomplice. The bench comprising of Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman, KM Joseph and V. Ramasubramanian said that an accomplice, to be believed, he
must be corroborated in material particulars of his testimony.

The law as to accomplice evidence is well settled. The effect of section 133 is that the court trying an accused may legally convict him on the single
evidence, of an accomplice to this there is a rider in illustration (b) to section 114 which provides that the court may presume that an accomplice is
unworthy of credit unless he is corroborated in material particulars. This cautionary provisions incorporates a rule of prudence because an accomplice who
betrays his associates is not a fair witness and it is possible that he may , to please the prosecution weave false details into those which are true and his
whole story appearing true, there may be no means at hand to sever the false from that which is true. It is for this reason that courts before they act on
accomplice evidence, insist on corroboration in material respects as to the offence itself and also implicating in some satisfactory way however small each
accused named by the accomplice. In this way commission of offence is confirmed.
Section 30 is an exception to the rule that the confession of one person is entirely inadmissible against another. The object of this section is that
where an accused person unreservedly confesses his own guilt and at the same time implicates another person who is jointly tried with him for
the same offence, his confession may be taken into consideration against such other person as well as against himself, because the admission of
his own guilt operates as a sort of sanction which to some extent takes place of the sanction of an oath and so afford some guarantee that whole
statement is a true one.

Accomplice & Approver

An accomplice may be an approver also. The approver is an accomplice who is tendered pardon by the Court on condition that he makes true and
full disclosure of the whole circumstances of the case. Approver has been dealt with under the provisions of Section 306 of C.r.P.c. He is known
under C.r.P.c as an accomplice to whom the Court grants a pardon. Thus, an “approver” is always an „accomplice,‟ but an „accomplice‟ is not
necessarily an approver. Section 306 tenders pardon to an accomplice. The approver‟s evidence is looked upon with great suspicion as he is some
way concerned or associated in commission of the same crime. But, if found trustworthy, it can be decisive in securing a conviction.
Number of witness necessary in unlawful assembly
In reference to the value of a sole testimony for making out a person to be a member of an unlawful assembly the supreme court has to say this:
even the testimony of one single witness if wholly reliable is sufficient to establish the identity of an accused as a member of an unlawful assembly.
All the same when the size of the unlawful assembly is quite large and many persons were involved and many also might have witnessed the incident
it would be prudent to insist upon at least two reliable witnesses to testify to the participation of a particular accused person in the rioting.
Allahabad high court has been of the view that in riot cases it is not safe to convict anybody on the basis of the evidence of a sole witness unless
evidence emerges to be of convicting nature.