RESEARCH PROJECT ON

CONCEPT OF PATICEPS CRIMINIS

SUBMITTED TO:
Prof . Pushpendra Pandey

(Faculty – Evidence Laws )

SUBMITTED BY:

Abhyuday Bhotika

Roll No. 305

Semester-IV Year- 2nd

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, PATNA

1
 Table of Contents

1. Table of Cases
2. Acknowledgement
3. Research Methodology
4. Introduction
5. Concept of Accomplice
6. Concept of Particeps Criminis
7. Element of Motive
8. Burden of Proof
9. Competency of : Accomplice as a witness
10. Accomplice Evidence and confession of co – accused
11. Accomplice and sexual crimes
12. Necessity of corroboration
13. Nature of corroboration
14. Extent of Corroboration
15. Appreciation of Accomplice Evidence- The Corroboration Issue
16. Conclusion
17. Bibliography and references

2
 Table of Cases

In re, B.K Rajagopal, AIR 1944 Mad 117.

In re, Padmaraja Shetty, AIR 1951 Mad 746.
Ismail v. Emperor, AIR 1947 Lah 220.
Jaganath v. Emperor, AIR 1942 Oudh 221.
K.K Jadav v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1966 SC 821.
Miyabhai Pirbhai v. State, AIR 1963 Guj 188.
Narain Chandra Biswas v. Emperor, AIR 1936 Cal 101.
R v. Baskerville, (1916)2 KB 658.
R.K Dalmia v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1962 SC 1821.
Rameshwar Kalyan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1952 SC 54.
Ranjeet Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1988 SC 672.
Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 637.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sheodayal Gurudayal, AIR 1956 Nag 8.

Table Of Statutes

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Constitution of India, 1950.
Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

3
 Introduction

Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is the only absolute rule of law dealing with
accomplice evidence. However it is the opinion of some that this section is redundant as Section
118 makes all persons competent to testify except those persons which the section specifically
bars. Moreover there is no rule which requires that the evidence of an accomplice should be
corroborated. But Section 133 might lead persons to suppose that the Legislature desired to
encourage convictions on the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice. This interpretation
however cannot hold good in light of Section 114 (b) which lays down the presumption that an
accomplice is unworthy of credit unless he is corroborated in material particulars. Thus owing to
this conflict between Section 114(b) and Section 133 some experts feel that Section 133 should
have been omitted and the law relating to accomplice evidence would have been the same as it is
now and the awkwardness of appearing to sanction a practice so universally condemned would
have been avoided.
However the Courts have resolved this apparent conflict between the two sections by
harmoniously reading Sections 114(b) and 133 together and held that while it is not illegal to act
upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice it is a rule of prudence so universally
followed so as to amount almost to a rule of law that it is unsafe to act upon the evidence of an
accomplice unless it is corroborated in material respects so as to implicate the accused.
This in a nutshell is the core of accomplice evidence and must be kept in mind at all times while
dealing with the subject of accomplice evidence.
To the lay man, accomplice evidence might seem untrustworthy as accomplices are usually
always interested and infamous witnesses but their evidence is admitted owing to necessity as it
is often impossible without having recourse to such evidence to bring the principal offenders to
justice. Thus accomplice evidence might seem unreliable but it is often a very useful and even
invaluable tool in crime detection, crime solving and delivering justice and consequently a very
important part of the Law of Evidence.

4
 Research Methodology
Aims and Objectives
The aim of this project is to perform a comprehensive study of Accomplice Evidence in light of
the statutory provisions and case law. This project also aims at discussing the important issues
relating to Accomplice Evidence like the meaning of accomplice and what it signifies, the issue
of corroboration of an accomplice’s testimony etc. It is also an objective of this project to
perform a comparative analysis of the law relating to accomplice evidence in India and England.

Nature of Project
The project is analytical as well as descriptive in nature. However the majority of the project is
analytical in nature.

Sources of Data
The sources of data are primary as well as secondary in nature. Journals like All India Reporter,
Criminal Law Journal and All England Reporters have been used. A host of leading textbooks
relating to the Law of Evidence have also been referred to.

Concept of an Accomplice

It is extremely important to understand what the term accomplice means and signifies as to
attract Section 133 a person must be an accomplice.
The word ‘accomplice’ has not been defined by the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and should
therefore be presumed to have been used in the ordinary sense by the legislature. However the
judiciary has dealt with this issue extensively and has tried to explain comprehensively as to who
an accomplice is. An accomplice is one concerned with another or others in the commission of a
crime or one who knowingly or voluntarily cooperates with and helps others in the commission
of crime. It was held in R.K Dalmia v. Delhi Administration 1that an accomplice is a person who
participates in the commission of the actual crime charged against an accused. He is to be a
particeps criminis.
Concept of Particeps Criminis

1
R.K Dalmia v. Delhi Administration
5
There are two cases however, in which a person has been held to be an accomplice even if he is
not a particeps criminis. Receivers of stolen property are taken to be accomplices of the thieves
from whom they receive goods in a trial for theft. Accomplices in previous similar offences
committed by the accused on trial are deemed to be accomplices in the offence for which the
accused is on trial, when evidence of the accused having committed crimes of identical type on
other occasions is admissible to prove the system and intent of the accused in committing the
offence charged”.
The Court in Jaganath v. Emperor 2explained that an accomplice is a guilty associate or partner
in crime, or who in some way or the other is connected with the offence in question or who
makes admissions of facts showing that he had a conscious hand in the offence.
Element of Motive
Accomplice may have a motive for giving information as it may purchase immunity for his
offence. A spy on the other hand may be an honest man; he may think that the course he pursues
is absolutely essential for the protection of his own interests and those of society. Thus spies are
not such persons as would require corroboration of their evidence.
In the case of decoys or trap witnesses the mere fact that a witness has acted as a decoy or trap
witness should not be the grounds for rejecting their testimony. The rule of prudence requires
that evidence of a decoy witness must find some corroboration in material particulars. The
necessity of corroboration of decoy or trap witnesses depends on the facts and circumstances of
each case.
Burden of Proof- Whether Witness is an Accomplice or not?
The question of who is to decide or how is it to be decided whether a particular witness is an
accomplice or not is in most cases answered by the witness himself by confessing to
participation, by pleading guilty to it, or by being convicted of it. The burden of proving that a
witness is an accomplice is upon the party alleging it, namely, upon the defendant. However it
has also been held that it is mainly the duty of the prosecution to bring the accomplice character
of the evidence to the notice of the court. A witness should not be held to be an accomplice
unless he confesses that he had a conscious hand in the crime or unless he makes admissions of
facts showing that he had such hand or unless there are other grounds for believing that he was
concerned in the crime.

2
Jaganath v. Emperor
6
Competency of Accomplice as Witness
An accomplice is a competent witness provided he is not a co accused under trial in the same
case. But such competency which has been conferred on him by a process of law does not divest
him of the character of an accused.
Under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, 1950 no accused shall be compelled to be a
witness against himself. But as an accomplice accepts a pardon of his free will on condition of a
true disclosure, in his own interest and is not compelled to give self-incriminating evidence the
law in Sections 306 and 308, Code of Criminal Procedure is not affected. So a pardoned accused
is bound to make a full disclosure and on his failure to do so he may be tried of the offence
originally charged and his statement may be used against him under Section 308.

Accomplice Evidence and Confession of Co-accused

The confession of one of the co-accused cannot be used to corroborate the evidence of an
accomplice against the others, because such a confession cannot be put on a higher footing than
the evidence of an accomplice and is moreover not given on oath or subject to the test of cross-
examination and is guaranteed by nothing except the peril into which it brings the speaker and
which it is generally fashioned to lessen. Tainted evidence is not made better by being
corroborated by other tainted evidence

Accomplice and Sexual Crimes

In Rameshwar Kalyan Singh v. State of Rajasthan 3 the Supreme Court clearly laid down that:
The prosecutrix in a case of rape cannot be treated as an accomplice.
The Evidence Act nowhere provides that the evidence of a prosecutrix in a rape case requires
corroboration. As a matter of practice courts have insisted on the need of corroboration of the
evidence of the prosecutrix.
In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sheodayal Gurudayal 4the court laid down a test to determine
whether the evidence of a prosecutrix requires to be corroborated or not- “The test as to where
corroboration is necessary lies in the naturalness of the story deposed to by the prosecutrix. If
3
Rameshwar Kalyan Singh v. State of Rajasthan
4
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sheodayal Gurudayal
7
there be any doubt regard its genuineness there is the need of caution and therefore
corroboration”
These principles laid down by the courts should be viewed as guiding principles and not
inflexible rule of law so as to prevent injustice to the prosecutrix and the defendant.
Accomplice Evidence- The Question Of Corroboration

Reading Section 133 of the Evidence Act along with Section 114(b) it is clear that the most
important issue with respect to accomplice evidence is that of corroboration. The general rule
regarding corroboration that has emerged is not a rule of law but merely a rule of practice which
has acquired the force of rule of law in both India and England. The rule states that: A conviction
based on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice is not illegal but according to prudence
it is not safe to rely upon uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice and thus judges and juries
must exercise extreme caution and care while considering uncorroborated accomplice evidence.
However to understand the question of corroboration with respect to accomplice evidence in its
entirety one must look at the following aspects:

Necessity of Corroboration
An approver on his own admission is a criminal and a man of the very lowest character who has
thrown to the wolves his erstwhile associates and friends in order to save his own skin. His
evidence therefore must be received with the greatest caution if not suspicion. Accomplice
evidence is held untrustworthy and therefore should be corroborated for the following reasons:
An accomplice is likely to swear falsely in order to shift the guilt from himself. An accomplice is
a participator in crime and thus an immoral person.
An accomplice gives his evidence under a promise of pardon or in the expectation of an implied
pardon, if he discloses all he knows against those with whom he acted criminally, and this hope
would lead him to favor the prosecution.

Nature of Corroboration
Generally speaking corroboration is of two kinds. Firstly the court has to satisfy itself that the
statement of the approver is credible in itself and there is evidence other than the statement of the
approver that the approver himself had taken part in the crime. Secondly the court seeks

8
corroboration of the approver’s evidence with respect to the part of other accused persons in the
crime and this evidence has to be of such a nature as to connect the other accused with the crime.

Extent of Corroboration
The Court must look at all the surrounding circumstances in order to arrive at a conclusion
whether the evidence should be supported in essential and material particulars by evidence
aliened as to the facts deposed to by that accomplice. All persons coming technically within the
category of accomplices cannot be treated on precisely the same footing. No general rule can be
laid down on the subject. The fact that there is no corroborative evidence is not conclusive in
favor of the accused. Where an accomplice changes his statement very strong corroboration
would be necessary to accept his previous version as true. Where the accomplice is acting under
constraint the corroboration required establishing his credit worthiness will be less than if his
complicity in the offence has been voluntary and spontaneous.

These rules have been restated by the Supreme Court of India with the declaration that the law is
exactly the same in India.

Appreciation of Accomplice Evidence- The Corroboration Issue

The Supreme Court in Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab5
laid down the law with respect to assessment and appreciation of accomplice evidence and also
stated several principles and rules regarding corroboration of accomplice evidence. The Court
stated: “The problem posed by the evidence given by an approver has been considered by the
Privy Council and Courts in India on several occasions. It is hardly necessary to deal at length
with the true legal position in this matter. An accomplice is undoubtedly a competent witness
under the Indian Evidence Act.
Halsbury’s Laws of England states the law as:
The uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice is admissible in law and a jury may convict a
defendant upon it. Where, however, a person who is an accomplice gives evidence on behalf of
the prosecution it is the duty of the trial judge to warn the jury that while it may convict on his

5
Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab

9
testimony it is dangerous to do so unless it is corroborated; and this rule although originally one
of practice now has the force of a rule of law.
The Indian Position:
In India the law relating to Accomplice Evidence is exactly the same as English Law. Section
133 of the Evidence Act, 1872 clearly lays down that a conviction is not illegal merely because it
proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice and to hold that the corroboration
is necessary is to refuse to give effect to this provision.
The law relating to Accomplice Evidence has been considered by the Judiciary in various cases
and can be restated as follows:
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 does not require that there should be corroboration of the
testimony of an accomplice. Although Section 114(b) says that the Court may presume that an
accomplice is unworthy of credit unless he is corroborated in material particulars it makes it
clear in Section 133 that an accomplice shall be a competent witness against the accused person
and a conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of
an accomplice. There is no doubt therefore that the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice is
admissible in evidence.

Conclusion

The Courts in this country have by harmoniously reading Section 114(b) and Section 133
together laid down the guiding principle with respect to accomplice evidence which clearly lays
down the law without any ambiguity. This principle which the courts have evolved is that though
a conviction based upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice is not illegal or unlawful
but the rule of prudence says that it is unsafe to act upon the evidence of an accomplice unless it
is corroborated with respect to material aspects so as to implicate the accused. This guiding

10
principle though very clear is often faced with difficulties with respect to its implementation.
While implementing this principle different judges might have different levels of corroboration
for accomplice evidence and thus with no hard and fast rules relating to the extent and nature of
corroboration an element of subjective ness creeps in which can result in injustice.

However in spite of the problems and complexities associated with accomplice evidence it must
be borne in mind that accomplice evidence is of extreme importance and can often play the
decisive role in a criminal trial. The testimony of an accomplice can be equated to an expert’s
testimony. Just as a scientist may give evidence with respect to DNA etc. an accomplice can
testify about the entire background and facts and circumstances of the offence as he was
involved in the commission of the offence and has firsthand knowledge of everything related to
the offence. Thus accomplice evidence can help investigators to crack even the toughest of cases
and the accomplice is often the star prosecution witness who by his testimony can bring the
whole truth out into the open and help the Court bring the offenders to justice. Detractors of
accomplice evidence might argue that the testimony of an accomplice is unreliable and
untrustworthy as the accomplice is one who has betrayed his own people to save his own skin.
However such arguments although not baseless can be circumvented by exercising due care and
diligence while dealing with accomplices. Thus Accomplice Evidence is a necessary evil.
However its importance far outweighs its drawbacks and the complexities it poses. Accomplice
Evidence, thus, plays an extremely important role in crime detection, crime solving and
delivering justice and Accomplice Evidence in the trial can make the difference between delivery
of justice and the offender getting away scot-free.

Bibliography

Articles

Justice K.N Goyal, “Testimony of Accused” 2000(4) Criminal Law Journal 145.

Books

11
B. Malik et al., Law of Evidence- Volume V (Allahabad: Law Publishers India Private Limited,
1990).
Eric Shepherd et al., Analysing Witness Testimony (London: Blackstone Press Limited, 1999).
M. Monir, Principles and Digest of the Law of Evidence (Allahabad: Universal Book Agency,
1999).
M.C Sarkar et al., Law of Evidence- Volume II (New Delhi: Wadhwa and Company Law
Publishers, 1999).
M.L Singhal, Sir John Woodroffe and Syed Amir Ali, Law of Evidence- Volume IV (Allahabad:
Law Book Company Private Limited, 1993).
Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Law of Evidence (Nagpur: Wadhwa and Company Law Publishers,
2001).
Vepa P. Sarathi, Law of Evidence (Lucknow: Eastern Book Company, 1989)
B. Malik et al., Law of Evidence- Volume V (Allahabad: Law Publishers India Private Limited,
1990)at 4651.

Ibid at 4652.
M.L Singhal, Sir John Woodroffe and Syed Amir Ali, Law of Evidence- Volume IV (Allahabad:
Law Book Company Private Limited, 1993)at 512.
AIR 1962 SC 1821.
AIR 1942 Oudh 221.
An accomplice is also a person who is a guilty associate in crime or who sustains such a relation
to the criminal act that he can be jointly indicted with the defendant (principal).
Narain Chandra Biswas v. Emperor, AIR 1936 Cal 101.
Supra note 5 at 518.
Ismail v. Emperor, AIR 1947 Lah 220.
Supra note 5 at 4670.
If a person is induced by the police to take part in the commission of the crime for the purpose
of collecting evidence against others he is called a trap-witness.
M.C Sarkar et al., Law of Evidence- Volume II (New Delhi: Wadhwa and Company Law
Publishers, 1999)at 2088.
Miyabhai Pirbhai v. State, AIR 1963 Guj 188.

12
Supra note 16 at 2084-2085.
Ibid at 2080.
Supra note 5 at 569.
In re, B.K Rajagopal, AIR 1944 Mad 117.
In re, Padmaraja Shetty, AIR 1951 Mad 746.
AIR 1952 SC 54.
Thus it is clearly the law of the land that the prosecutrix cannot be treated as an accomplice
although her evidence should be generally corroborated.

AIR 1956 Nag 8.

M. Monir, Principles and Digest of the Law of Evidence (Allahabad: Universal Book Agency,
1999)at 1367.

Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Law of Evidence (Nagpur: Wadhwa and Company Law Publishers,
2001)at 436.

K.K Jadav v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1966 SC 821.

13