Scribd
Upload
1K views5 pages

What Is The Evidentiary Value of Accomplice Evidence

1) An accomplice is defined as someone who voluntarily helps others commit a crime and is considered a participator in the actual crime. 2) The testimony of an accomplice can be relied upon, but some corroboration is considered necessary due to concerns over their credibility and potential to be unfaithful. 3) For a conviction based solely on accomplice testimony, courts must take proper caution and ensure the testimony is corroborated in material particulars such as the circumstances of the crime and identity of the defendant.

Uploaded by

Naina Parashar
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
1K views5 pages

What Is The Evidentiary Value of Accomplice Evidence

1) An accomplice is defined as someone who voluntarily helps others commit a crime and is considered a participator in the actual crime. 2) The testimony of an accomplice can be relied upon, but some corroboration is considered necessary due to concerns over their credibility and potential to be unfaithful. 3) For a conviction based solely on accomplice testimony, courts must take proper caution and ensure the testimony is corroborated in material particulars such as the circumstances of the crime and identity of the defendant.

Uploaded by

Naina Parashar
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

WritingLaw.

com

What is the evidentiary value of accomplice evidence?

R.K Dalmia vs Delhi Administration, 1962

An accomplice was defined as someone who voluntarily co-


operates with, and helps others in commission of the crime. He
is said to be 'particeps criminis' - a participator in the actual
crime.

The question is to what extent the testimony of accomplice


can be relied upon.
Two provisions in the Act touch this problem.
Section 133 categorically declares that an accomplice is a
competent witness and the court may convict on the basis of
such evidence and the conviction will not be illegal simply
because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an
accomplice.

The other provision dealing with this matter is in illustration


(b) of Section 114 which says that the court may presume that
an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless corroborated in
material particulars.

The reasons why corroboration has been considered


necessary are that-
1. He has been criminal himself and therefore his testimony
should not carry the same respect as that of a law abiding
citizen.

2. He has been faithless to his companions and may be


faithless to courts.

The true meaning of corroboration is best explained in the case


of:
R vs Baskerville

It was said that the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice


is admissible in law, but proper caution is taken while
convicting a person on the basis of such evidence. And if after
proper caution, the court convicts a person, the legality of
such a conviction cannot be questioned merely upon the
ground that accomplice testimony was uncorroborated.
As to the nature and extent:
In R vs Stubbs

The evidence if an accomplice must be confirmed not only as


the circumstances of the crime but also as the identity of
prisoner.

Article 20(3) of Constitution of India and 339(1) of


Criminal Procedure Code

Article 20(3) says a person cannot be compelled to be a


witness against himself. But an accomplice accepting pardon
under section 337 of CrPC on his/by his free will is bound to
make a full disclosure and on his failure, may be tried for the
offence of which he was originally charged and his statement
may be used against him.

Lachhi Ram v State of Punjab AIR 1967 SC

The court should find that there is nothing inherently


improbable in the evidence given by the approver and there is
no finding that the approver has given false evidence. The
another test remains is of corroboration, and it is not always
necessary that his evidence receive sufficient corroboration.

Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary v State of Maharashtra


AIR 2000 SC

Court held that the court must look at the broad spectrum of
the approver's version and then find out whether there is other
evidence to corroborate and lend assurance to that version.
And court also added that corroboration need not be in the
form of ocular testimony. It may be even in the form of
circumstantial evidence and the corroborative evidence must
be independent and not vague or unreliable.

VICTIM OF RAPE AS ACCOMPLICE

In Karnel Singh vs State of M.P 1995 SC

Court held that victim of rape cannot be put at par with an


accomplice. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under
section 118 of Indian Evidence Act and therefore her evidence
need not be tested with the same amount of suspicion as that of
an accomplice.

The testimony of an accomplice is evidence under section 3 of


Indian Evidence Act and has to be dealt with as such. The
evidence is of a tainted character and is weak, but nevertheless
it is evidence and may be acted upon subject to corroboration
in material particulars.

Sarwan Singh vs State of Punjab AIR 1957

The Supreme Court was of the view that though an accomplice


is undoubtedly a competent witness, the very fact that he has
participated in the commission of the offence introduces a
serious stain in his evidence and courts are naturally reluctant
to act on such tainted evidence unless it is corroborated in
material particulars by other independent witness.
However one should not expect that such independent
corroboration should cover the whole of the prosecution or
even all material particulars. On the other hand it would not be
safe to act upon such evidence merely because it is
corroborated in minor particulars.

Because in such a case the corroboration does not afford the


necessary assurance that the main story disclosed by approver
can be reasonably accepted.

The Supreme Court thus said, first and essential condition to


consider is whether accomplice evidence is reliable witness.
Only when the question is satisfied the court will go to the
question of corroboration.

Read Indian Evidence Act in a systematic way or Download its


PDF.

Read more Law Notes

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy