An Accomplice is a person who is a guilty associate in a crime. In general sense he can be understood as a person who participates in the crime voluntarily and knowingly and assists the accused in some way or the other. While the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023 does not explicitly define "accomplice" its meaning and implications are clarified through judicial precedents. Indian courts have elaborated on the role of an accomplice in many cases.

In the case of R.K Dalmia v Delhi Administration (1) it was stated that an accomplice is a person who participates in the commission of the actual crime charged against the accused.

In the case of Sheshanna Bhumana Yadav v State of Maharashtra (2)it was stated that the primary meaning of accomplice is any party to the crime charged and someone who aids and abets the commission of the crime.

Essentials of an Accomplice

1. Knowledge of the Criminal Act: The accomplice must be aware that his actions are contributing to a criminal act. The knowledge can be of the crime itself or the criminal intent of the principal offenders. His actions must align to show that he either abets or assists the commission of the crime.
    
2. Voluntary participation: An accomplice must participate in the crime and not just be a mere observer. And his participation must be voluntary and not under the influence of any threat or coercion, it is not enough to have acted accidentally or without understanding the criminal nature of the crime.
    
3. Assistance in the crime: The accomplice must provide assistance or facilitate the crime. This can include a wide range of activities such as providing information, researching, technical help, etc. His involvement in the crime has to be shown to attract the definition of an accomplice. His assistance could be before or after the crime.

Categories Of An Accomplice:

• Principal in the first degree: A principal in the first degree is one who actually commits the crime.
  For example: During a robbery of the bank, the person who enters the bank and demands money is a principal in the first degree.
• Principal in the second degree: A principal in the second degree is a person who is present and aids or abets in the commission of the crime.
  For example: During the bank robbery, a person who remains in the getaway car outside the bank acting as a lookout is a principal in the second degree.
• Accessory before the fact: An accessory before the fact is someone who counsels, incites, connives at, or encourages the commission of the crime but does not actually participate directly in the act itself.
  For example: During the robbery, the person who provides the details of the security system of the bank or one who provides them with stolen weapons is an accessory before the fact.
• Accessory after the fact: An accessory after the fact is someone who receives or protects someone knowing that he has committed the crime, such as if he helps the accused in escaping punishment or helps him from not being arrested.
  For example: After the robbery is committed, the one who helps the robbers evade the police by hiding them or disposing of the stolen property is an accessory after the fact.

Accomplice and Co-accused:
The terms "accomplice" and "co accused" maybe seem similar but they differ significantly. An accomplice is a guilty associate in the crime whereas co-accused are individuals jointly charged for a crime. To understand the differences between accomplice and co -accused it is important to look at the following differences
 

Aspect	Accomplice	Co-Accused
Definition	An individual who voluntarily and knowingly participates in or assists or abets in the commission of the crime	Individuals who are jointly charged for committing the same crime
Role in the crime	Involved directly in the crime or assists in some other way	Directly and jointly involved in the crime with different roles but prosecuted together
Types	There are four types i.e., principal in first degree, principal in second degree, accessory before the fact and accessory after the fact	There are no types in co-accused. All the individuals charged for the same offence are co-accused
Legal liability	Accomplice are held criminally liable for their involvement tin the crime	All co accused are held criminally liable for the crime. Their roles and degree of involvement decide the penalties for each.

Competency of an accomplice to be a witness
An accomplice is a competent witness provided he is not a co-accused under trial in the same case. An accomplice by accepting the tender of the pardon by the court under provisions of sec 343 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,2023 may be examined as a witness. An accomplice who is tendered pardon gets protection from prosecution. When he is called as a witness for prosecution, he must comply with the condition of making a full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within his knowledge concerning the offense. Under section 343(4) the person accepting the pardon should be examined as a witness first in the court of magistrate and subsequently in the trail court.

Once an accomplice is given pardon he will be known as the approver and the testimony of an approver usually plays a great role in conviction of the accused.

The appreciation of approver's evidence has to satisfy a double test:

1. His evidence must show that he is reliable witness
2. Approver's evidence should receive sufficient corroboration.(3)

This test is fulfilled, firstly, if the story he relates involves him in the crime and appears to be natural, secondly, the story given by the approver so far as the accused is concerned must implicate him in such manner as to give rise to conclusive of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.(4)

It is important that the courts must first address the preliminary question as to whether the approver is a reliable witness or not, only if satisfied that he is reliable should the court move onto the question of corroboration. Every person who is a competent witness is not a reliable witness and the test of reliability has to be satisfied by an approver all the more before the question of corroboration of his evidence is considered by criminal courts. (3)

Even if the prosecution does not prosecute a witness and uses his evidence only as an accomplice it is legal and would be subject to the usual caution. The absence of a pardon does not render the evidence of an accomplice inadmissible.

Admissibility Of Accomplice Testimony
To understand accomplice testimony better we need to look into two sections of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023. (Herein after mentioned as BSA)

1. Section 138
2. Section 119 illustration (b)

Section 138
Section 138 of the BSA, 2023 deals with the competency of accomplice testimony. This states that an accomplice shall be a competent witness against an accused person; and a conviction is not illegal if it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. This section can be viewed positively as it states that an accomplice is competent to be a witness and that the accused can be convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice.

But it is important to remember that accomplice is a particeps crimins i.e., a party to the crime & therefore this section has to been read along with section 119 illustration (b)

Section 119 illustration (b)
Section 119 illustration (b) of the BSA,2023 states that an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless he is corroborated in material particulars. This section has incorporated 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. In this way the commission of the offence is confirmed by some competent evidence other than the single or unconfirmed testimony of the accomplice. (4)

The Combine Study Of These Two Sections:
Reading these two sections together the courts have held in many cases including the case of Madan Mohan v State of Punjab (5) that "it is the rule of prudence to be universally followed that courts ought not to act upon the testimony of an accomplice unless he is corroborated in material particulars". Because an accomplice who turns against their associates may not be a reliable witness. They might fabricate details to please the prosecution.

Therefore, to prove the crime, there must be some reliable evidence besides the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. If conviction is based on just the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice there is a risk that the innocent could be convicted due to accomplice's personal grudges or desire for revenge. To prevent this & ensure a fair trial the courts have incorporated this rule.

It is important to understand that sec 119 & sec 138 are not complete exact opposites of each other as sec 119 is concerned with "may presume" i.e., the court may presume the existence of any facts which it thinks likely to have happened regard being to the common course of natural events, human conduct public and private businesses in their relation to the facts of the particular case (5) whereas sec 138 provides a definite rule to the court to convict on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice but since an accomplice is a partner to a crime and his evidence is viewed with caution & therefore it is necessary to read these sections together to ensure that the evidence is evaluated in proper light of the cautious approach required for an accomplice's testimony.

Corroboration in material particulars
When it is said that the testimony of an accomplice should be corroborated in material particulars it means that it not enough if a piece of evidence corroborates a part of the testimony of the accomplice. It is necessary that the piece of evidence must corroborate that part of the testimony of an accomplice that suggest that the crime was committed by the accused. (6)

For example, if a witness states that he and accused stole a car and concealed it at some location, the mere discovery of the car at that location doesn't corroborate the testimony of an accomplice as against an accused. However, if the car is found close to the accused's house, at his relative's house or at a known hideout of the accused it could corroborate as then it would support to show that the accused has some part in the theft.

The corroboration required must be in material particulars connecting each of the accused with the offense, or in other words, the evidence of the Accomplice implicating several accused persons in the commission of the offense must not only be corroborated generally but also qua each accused. (7) It must be independent evidence connecting the accused with the crime. It can be either direct or circumstantial evidence

This doesn't mean that an accomplice's evidence cannot be relied upon unless it is totally and absolutely blemish less. It would not be right to expect such independent corroboration should cover the whole of the prosecution story on all material particulars. If such a view if adopted it would render the whole of the accomplice's evidence as wholly superfluous. (8)

Conclusion
An accomplice despite their involvement in the crime, can provide crucial evidence that aids in the administration of justice. However, his testimony is inherently suspect due to self-interest and potential bias. The accomplice is someone who betrays his associates for immunity of his prosecution and therefore, it is necessary that such testimony must be corroborated thoroughly to bring confidence in the mind of the court.

To accurately evaluate on an accomplice's testimony, Section 138 and section 119 illustration (b) must be read together. Section 138 provide that an accomplice is competent to be a witness whereas section 119 illustration (b) states such accomplice's testimony is admissible only if it corroborated in material particulars. By considering these sections jointly, the court can more effectively determine the credibility of the accomplice's evidence and ensure that justice is served with due diligence.

Relevant Case Laws:

• Madan Mohan v State of Punjab: in this case the court held that the evidence of the approver was reliable and it was corroborated with other credible evidence, directly connecting the accused with the crime and therefore the accused was convicted.
   
• Sarwan Singh v State of Punjab: In this case the Supreme Court ruled that when an approver's testimony is found unreliable for one accused, it necessitates a thorough re-evaluation of the approver's evidence for all co-accused. The case involved a situation where the trial court convicted three accused based on the approver's testimony, but the High Court acquitted one due to inconsistencies in the evidence. The Supreme Court held that such discrepancies should lead to a reassessment of the approver's credibility concerning the remaining accused as well.
   
• Ravinder Singh v State of Haryana: In this case the approver's evidence failed to prove the guilt of the accused as it was not corroborated in material particulars & therefore the accused was acquitted

References:
Books:

1. The Indian Evidence Act Batuk Lal, 23rd Edition 2020
2. The Indian Evidence Act Ratanalal & Dhirajlal 27th Edition 2019
3. R.V. Kelkar's Criminal Procedure Code 7th Edition 2021
4. V.P. Sarathi's Law of Evidence 18th Edition

End Notes:

1. 1962 AIR 1821
2. 1970 AIR 1330
3. Sarwan Singh v State of Punjab 1957 S.C.R 953
4. Ravinder Singh v State of Haryana AIR 1956 SC 856
5. AIR 1970 SC 1006
6. Sarwan Singh v State of Punjab 1957 S.C.R 953
7. Somasundaram @ Somu v State Rep. By. COMM. of. Police AIRONLINE 2016 SC 495
8. Dagdu v State of Maharashtra 1977 3SCC 268
9. Sheshanna Bhumana Yadav v State of Maharashtra 1970 AIR 1330
10. A. Devendran v State of T.N AIR 1998 SC 2821
11. Somasundaram @ Somu v State Rep. By. COMM. of. Police AIRONLINE 2016 SC 495

Case Laws Referred:

1. Tribhuvan Nath vs The State of Maharashtra AIR1972SC2134
2. Jabir Singh v Vipin Kumar jaggo AIR 2001 SC 2734
3. Khokan Giri v State of West Bengal AIR 2017 SC 668
4. Bangaru Laxman v. State, (2012) 1 SCC 500
5. Mrinal Das v. State of Tripura, (2011) 9 SCC 479
6. Bihari Mandal vs. State, AIR 1957 Ori 260
7. Abdul Sattar v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, 1985 (Supp) SCC 599
8. Haroon Haji Abdulla vs State of Maharashtra 1968 AIR 832
9. Kashmira Singh V State of Madhya Pradesh (1952 AIR 159
10. Ram Narain v. State of Rajasthan, (1973) 3 SCC 805

Award Winning Article Is Written By: Ms.Keerthi Rebecca

Authentication No: AG458973288313-10-0824