Accomplice | 06 Dec 2023

Introduction

Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) deals with the concept of Accomplice. The
word accomplice has not been defined in the Act.

An accomplice means a person who has taken part in the commission of a crime, when
an offence is committed by more than one person and everyone participating in its
commission is an accomplice.

Section 133, IEA

Section 133 of IEA states that an accomplice shall be a competent witness against an
accused person; and a conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the
uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice.

Types of Accomplices

Principal offender of First Degree:

The principal offender of first degree is a person who actually commits the crime.
There can be multiple persons who committed the crime together, each one of them
will be principal offenders.
Principal offender of the Second Degree:
The principal offender of the second degree is a person who either abets or aids
the commission of the crime.
This refers to someone who is present at the crime scene and helps the principal
offender in any way.
Accessories before the fact:
They are the persons who abet, incite, procure, or counsel for the commission of
a crime and they do not themselves participate in the commission of the crime.
Accessories after the fact:
A person is an accessory after the fact when a person with the knowledge that the
accused has committed some crime receives him, comforts him or assists him to
help escape from punishment a crime or helps him escape arrest, exercising his free
will allowing him to escape, or opposes his arrest.

Evidentiary value of testimony of accomplice

When an accomplice makes a testimony, it is not seen as reliable evidence for a

conviction, and it has to be verified with other material evidence; this is called
corroboration.
The reason behind not considering the evidence provided by the accomplice is to protect
himself as he may go against the co-accused, but this does not mean that the court
cannot rely on the evidence of the accomplice.
An accomplice shall be a competent witness as against the accused person and a
conviction of the accused based on the testimony of an accomplice is valid even though
it is not corroborated in material particulars.

Related Case Laws

In Chandan v. Emperor (1930), the Allahabad High 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.
In Shanker v State of Tamil Nadu (1994), the Supreme Court held that when an
accomplice becomes an approver, he eventually becomes a prosecution witness.
In State of Rajasthan v. Bal Veera (2014), the Supreme Court held that an accomplice
will be presumed unworthy until and unless the evidence or testimony provided by
him is corroborated by some other material evidence.