CHAPTER-II

ACCOMPLICE-CONCEPT OF THE TERM

An accomplice is someone who intentionally helps another in

committing a crime. At common law, this type of activity is usually
described as aiding and abetting or encouraging, procuring, soliciting, or
advising the commission of the crime.

(1) Who is an Accomplice ?

The term 'accomplice' is not defined in the Evidence Act or the

Criminal Procedure Code or in any Statute or the Indian Acts so it has to
be presumed that it has been used in the Indian Evidence Act in its
ordinary sense, or in other words according to the Dictionary meaning
thereof. The meaning of the words is thus given in Wharton's Law
Lexicon: Accomplice (fr. complice, Fr. complex, Lat., bound up with one
in a project, but always in a bad sense), one concerned with another or
others in the commission o f a crime12.

As stated by Maule, J. in R.V. Mullins2 that an accomplice is one

who has concurred in the commission of an offence. It signifies a guilty
associate or partner in crime. In United States v. Neverson, Centruy Digest,
Vol. 14, Col., it was said that who in some way or other is connected with
the offence in questions, or who makes admission of facts showing that he

1 Hawk PC 87.
2 Cox C. 756.

[22]
had a conscious hand in the commission of the offence3 or when the
witness sustains such a relation to the criminal act that he could be jointly
indicted with the accused, he is an accomplice4. This definition is based on
U.S.v. Neverson5, which was also relied on in Kailash v. R.6. The words
"partner" and "associate" have their apparent connotation. Obviously,
when bribe is extorted and the giver is not a willing participant but a
victim, he cannot be possibly described as an accomplice for he is neither a
partner nor an associate in the crime committed by the bribe taker.
Actually, he resisted the illegal gratification demanded from him but could
not ultimately stand the pressure put on him.

An accomplice, by long legal tradition, is a notoriously infamous

witness, one who being particeps criminis, purchases his immunity by
accepting to accuse others7.

The primary meaning of accomplice is any party to the crime

charged and some one who aids and abets the commission of crime8.

The New Oxford Dictionary says that "accomplice" may be spelt as

”a complice", meaning a partner in crime, an associate in guilt9.

"The expression accomplice" has not been defined in the Evidence

Act, but there can be little doubt that it means a person who knowingly or

3 Jagannath v. R. 17 Luck 516: A1942 O 221: R.v. Burn 11 Bom LR 1153: 10 Cr LJ 530; Yacoob v.
Emperor AIR 1933 Rang. 199; R. v. Ghulam Rasul. A1950 L 129;
4 Per SUBRAMANIA AYYAR, J in Ramasami v. R, 27 M.
5 Century D ig Col 1279 and White v Com 14 Century Dig Col 1280.
6 AIR 1942 Oudh 221
7 Balwant Kaur v. Union Territory o f Chandigarh AIR 1988 SC 139 at p. 142.
8 Sheshanna Bhumanna Yadav v. State o f Maharashtra, AIR 1970 SC 1330 at p. 1332.
9 Kailash Missir v Emperor AIR 1931 Pat 105 at P. 109.

[23]
voluntarily co-operates with or aids and assists another in the commission
of a crime."

Accomplices are usually interested and always infamous witness

and whose testimony is admitted from necessity, it being often impossible
without having recourse to such evidence, to bring the principal offenders
to justice10.

An accomplice witness is one who is either being jointly tried for

the same offence and makes admission which may be taken as evidence
against a co-prisoner and which makes the confessing accused pro hac
vice, a sort of witness, one who has received conditional pardon on the
understanding that he is to tell all he knows and who may at time be
regulated to the dock if he fails in his understanding11.

Thus, a particeps criminis in respect of the actual crime charged is

an accomplice12, all persons who have been concerned in the commission
of crime, all participes criminis whether they are considered in strict legal
propriety as principals in the first degree or second degree or merely as
accessories before or after the fact13.

As defined in Sect 133 of the Indian evidence Acts 'accomplice' be

explained on the basis of following principle which was laid down by
apex court in R.K. Dalmia Vs. Delhi Administration14. In this case Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed that-

10 Taylor on Evidence Sec. 967.

11 Per Glover, J in R.V. Ramsoday Chuckerbutty (1873) 20 WR (Cr) 19.
12 Mohd. Husain Umar Kochra v. K.S. Dalipsingh ji, AIR 1970 SC 45 at p. 55 Davis v. Director of
public prosecution 1954 AC 378 at pp. 400-402.
13 (Fost Cr Las 341).
14 AIR 1962 S.C. 1821 Para 141.

[24]
 "An accomplice is a person who- participates in the commission of
the actual crime charged against an accused. He is to be particeps criminis.
There are two cases however, in which a person has been held to be an
accomplice even if he is not particeps criminis; Receivers of stolen
property are taken to be accomplices of the thieves, from whom they
receive goods, on a trial of theft. Accomplices in previous similar offences
committed by the accused on trial 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 be admissible to
prove the system and intent of the accused in committing the offence
charged".

An indication of the meaning of the word accomplice may be found

in Criminal Procedure Code15, which occurs, in the marginal note of
Section 337, Criminal Procedure Code (now section 306 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973). Taking the language used in the body of
Section 337 (now Section 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), it
seems that the word indicates a person directly or indirectly concerned in,
or privy to the offence. His hands like the accused person are also
besmeared with guilt. The connection which the accomplice bears to the
crime fixes his culpability & warrants his joint trial with the other accused
persons16.

Accomplice means a person who knowingly or voluntarily co­

operates with or aids and assists another in the commission of crime. The

15 [per Newbould J in Suryakanto v. R. CWN 119]

16 (Dr. Jagannanda Rao).

[25]
expression obviously include principals in the first and second degree.
"The mere fact, that one had knowledge that a crime had been committed
or that he concealed or failed to disclose such knowledge, does not render
him an accomplice. If, for example, the concealment is due to the witness's
anxiety for his own safety rather than to any desire to shield the criminal,
he would not be an accomplice. Nor would a person who remains
passively silent after obtaining knowledge of the commission of the crime
be an accessory or accomplice within the rule as to the testimony of
accomplices. To render a person an accomplice his participation in the
crime must be criminally corrupt17.

An accomplice means a guilty associate or partner in a crime, a

person participating in the crime or one concerned in the commission of
the crime.

"A person's knowledge of the deliberations in the course of which

the dacoity was planned, his having seen the accused departing for a
particular purpose or his having accompanied the accused when the latter
went for disposal of the stolen articles cannot be said to be an accomplice
and his evidence does not require corroboration on material particulars18".

After reviewing the above mentioned material it can be said that the
term "accomplice" includes the following persons, who are called as
witnesses for the prosecution and thus fall within the category of
accomplice:

17 AIR 1947 Lah 220.

18 K.S. Nirmal vs State, AIR 1954 P. 55.

[26]
(i) An accomplice means a guilty associate or partner in a crime-A
person who is connected with the offence or who makes admission
of facts showing that he had a conscious hand in it.

Where a witness is not concerned with the commission of the crime

he cannot be said to be an accomplice although he gives no information
about it until the arrival of the Police owing to fear of the accused.

In a case where husband is charged with having committed sodomy

and making wife to masturbate him, it was held that wife was not a
consenting party but was compelled to these acts and thus she was not an
accomplice. An accomplice means a guilty associate or partner in a crime,
a person participating in the crime or one concerned in the commission of
the crime.

For example, in a case of murder, the witness present when accused

dragged body to pit after murder and the witness disclosed murder, it was
held that the witness was not an accomplice in the crime of which the
accused was charged as he had not been concerned in the perpetration of
the murder and his evidence need not be corroborated.

(ii) Accomplices are those who are in some way or other connected with
the offence in question.

(iii) On any view, persons who are particeps criminis in respect of the
actual crime charged, whether as principals or accessories before or
after the act (in felonies) or persons committing procuring or aiding
and abetting (in the case of misdemeanours). This is surely the

[27]
 natural and primary meaning of the term accomplice but in two
cases persons falling strictly outside the ambit of this category have,
in particular decisions, been held to be accomplices for the thieves
from whom they received goods on a trial of the later for larcency.

(iv) When X has been charged with a specific offence on a particular

occasion and evidence is admissible and has been admitted of his
having committed crimes of this identical type on other occasions,
as proving system and intent and negativing accident; in such cases
the Court has held that, in relation to such other similar offences, if
evidence of them were given by parties to them, the evidence of
such other parties should not be left to the jury without a warning
that it is dangerous to accept it without corroboration.

In order that a person may be treated as an accomplice it must be

established that he has assisted the accused in the commission of the
offence charged. The fact that the witnesses committed similar
offences does not justify the contention that they are accomplices.

(v) The word accomplice in inter-changeable with an associate in crime

who is consciously so connected with the criminal act done by his
confederate, that he on account of the presence of the necessary
'means rea' and his participation in the crime in some way or the
other, can be tried along with the confederate actually perpetrating
the crime. Witness who could not be so indicted as the element of
means rea was entirely absent cannot be held to be accomplice.

[28]
(vi) Although the expression accomplice has not been defined in the
Evidence Act, there can be no doubt that it means a person who
knowingly or voluntarily co-operates with or aids and assists another
in the commission of a crime. The expression obviously includes
principals in the first and second degree.

(vii) An accomplice is one who is an active participant in the commission

of the crime. The fact that a person is passively helping another to
commit a crime or having been present when the crime was
committed does not inform the police, or for the matter of fact where
a person helps the criminal in disposing of the murdered body or
concealing it, would not make him an accomplice. One has to take
into consideration the nature and extent of his participation in the
crime. If the court finds that his act is such as to render it probable
that he himself would have been charged for the offence, and then
his evidence is absolutely of no value. Similarly, the widow of the
accused could not be treated as an accomplice as she stated that she
helped the accused to dispose of the body as the accused threatened
to kill if she did not help him.

Also, one who deposes that he only helped the accused in disposing
of the body of the deceased after he was killed by the accused is not
an accomplice.

(viii) Whether a witness is or is not an accomplice depends upon the facts

in each considered in connection with the nature of the crime.
Persons to be accomplices must participate in the commission of the

[29]
 same crime as the accused persons in a trial are charged. If the
evidence of a witness falls short of these tests, he is not an
accomplice, and his testimony must be judged on principles
applicable to ordinary witnesses. Persons being in position of
submission when joined under pressure to commit an offence cannot
be said to sustain such a relation to the criminal act that they could
be jointly indicted with the principal offenders and therefore, not
being guilty associates with crime, they could not be accomplices.

(ix) Accomplice includes one who poses as accomplice and his evidence
requires corroboration.

(x) An accomplice confesses himself a criminal and may have a motive

for giving information as it may purchase immunity for his offence.

(xi) For establishing the charge of conspiracy having for its object the
subversion of British rule in India by armed revolt, evidence has to
be taken of persons who may have knowledge of secret
organizations but who have not taken part in the perpetration of a
crime, persons to whom overt acts can be attributed. It would not be
right to regard a person who is cognizant of a crime or who has
made an attempt to prevent it or who did not disclose its commission
as an accomplice and to apply to his case the same rule as applies to
accomplices. The function of the court is to ascertain what is the
degree of credit to be attached to the evidence coming from witness
of the above description, regard being had to all the circumstances

[30]
 and facts for the case and not to class such witnesses as accomplices
or practically accomplices.

(xii) The word accomplice is made at times to bear, improperly a larger

meaning than is allowable. An accomplice confesses himself a
criminal. No man ought to be treated as an accomplice on mere
suspicion unless he confesses that he had a conscious hand in the
crime or he makes admission of fact showing that he had such hand.
If the evidence of a witness falls short of these tests he is not an
accomplice and his testimony must be judged on principles
applicable to ordinary witnesses.

(xiii) Person consenting to offence is accomplice and his evidence must

be corroborated in material particulars. Similarly, when the woman
is cognizant of intention of her paramour of killing her husband and
she did not disclose it to her husband, her testimony is considered of
no higher value than that of accomplice. Similarly where the wife is
the consenting party of husband's murder, she is in position of
accomplice and her evidence also cannot be accepted without
independent corroboration.

(xiv) Person keeping watch to see whether police were approaching is

accomplice.

(xv) A person who has knowledge of the commission of an offence but

keeps quiet for some days is no better than an accomplice.

[31]
(xvi) Persons who witnessed crime, gave no information to police but
assisted in concealing it are accomplices.

(xvii) Where the witness though did not actually help the accused in
committing the crime, but helped him in keeping his position
concealed, was in no better position than that of an accomplice and
it is highly unsafe to use such a man's evidence against him without
any material corroboration.

(xviii) In a case where petition was for restitution of conjugal rights, wife
was pleading cruelty and adultery and the evidence of P who was the
mistress of the husband was taken. There was no other evidence.
Held that the witness was an accomplice in the offence and her
evidence was not sufficient in law and there should be some
corroboration19.

(xix) Where it is found as a fact that the complainant was a consenting

party to the accused committing unnatural offence upon him, the
complainant must be regarded as an accomplice. In such
circumstances it would be unsafe to convict the accused on the basis
of his evidence unless corroborated in material particulars
implicating the accused.

(xx) A married woman who consents to her husband's committing an

unnatural offence with her is an accomplice in the felony and as
such, her evidence requires confirmation, although consent or non-

19 Simmons vs. Simmons 1 Rob Ecc. 566- (1847). 163ER 1137 (1142).

[32]
 consent is quite immaterial to the offence as per the decision of R.v.
Jellyman20.

(xxi) To render wife of deceased an accomplice, there should be evidence

to show that she shared with accused such intention that deceased
should be killed.

(xxii) A person who knowingly aids in the disposal of stolen property is an

accomplice. Similarly where a person not actually participating in
theft but only accepting the property stolen is an accomplice only by
implication or in a secondary sense and his evidence does not
require the same amount of corroboration as that of a person actually
concerned in the crime; sufficiency or otherwise of the corroboration
is to be judged by the circumstances of the particular case.

(xxiii) A person employed by another person at night to remove foodgrains

from bags lying a Government godown and substitute dust in their
place is an accomplice of the employer.

An accomplice is a person who voluntarily participates in the

commission of the crime along with other. He is therefore, guilty of the
crime along with the other accused persons. The accomplice might not be
an accused in the case, but it is still a fact that he was an accomplice in the
crime. In the case of a prosecutrix for rape she is a victim of the offence
and not an offender. The case of an accomplice, therefore, materially
differs from that of a prosecutrix for rape and the evidence of both cannot

20 Car. & P. 604 = (1838) 173 ER (637).

[33]
be placed on the same footing. And hence in law, the evidence of the
prosecutrix does not require corroboration like that of an accomplice.

Hence, the rule of prudence requires that evidence of a prosecutrix

in a rape case must be corroborated in material particulars by independent
testimony connecting the accused with the crime and he further states that
the previous statement of the prosecutrix is not the kind of corroboration
sought in such cases. Each case depends upon its facts and of after taking
all the circumstances into consideration the evidence of the prosecutrix
could be believed then the accused could be convicted on her evidence
alone, although there is no corroboration in independent testimony
connecting the accused with the crime. It is a very well settled rule of
practice in our country, following the English rule that the evidence of the
complainant must be corroborated in rape cases and the nature of
corroboration depends on the facts of each case. Hence, in rape cases, the
conduct of the complainant becomes very important and whether she
makes a charge promptly or not is always relevant. Therefore, in crimes
involving sexual offences, mostly the victim is not considered an
accomplice and the provisions of law regarding an accomplice are not
attached to the victim. And in any case, if the person in question is
declared as an accomplice, then the testimony of such a person shall have
to be corroborated, but it is also possible that the conviction of the accused
was based on the uncorroborated evidence of the accomplice and this is
what brings along with it a risk that the accomplice might be trying to

[34]
escape liability by cooking up a story such that the Court might convict the
accused and forget about the accomplice.

(2) What is the Liability of Accomplices ?

Generally, one who is found to be an accomplice is deemed liable

for the crimes committed by the primary party. Some courts even consider
accomplices liable for other crimes that are a "natural and probable
consequence" of the crime that the accomplice aided or abetted.

There are three elements to accomplice liability:-

(1) Proof that someone committed the underlying crime-- it is not

necessary, however, for the government to have tried and convicted
somebody, or even that the principal is identified; proof in this sense
means probable cause that a crime was committed.

(2) Actus reus-- accomplice law eases the requirement of proving actus
reus, but it does so with hard-to-define words. Words such as "aid",
"abet", "counsel", "induce" or "incite" may have different meanings
depending upon what jurisdiction you are in. Normally, you can't be
considered as an accomplice simply for being there. You must be
constructively present. This is known as the Mere Presence rule, but
there are exceptions in places with Good Samaritan laws where you
can be tried as an accomplice for just standing there and watching
someone get beaten.

[35]
Case law has ruled the following are example of accomplice actus
reus:

• acting as a lookout

• providing guns, supplies, or instruments of crime (even under color

of financial transaction if seller is a aware of purpose)

• driving a getaway vehicle

• sending the victim to the principal

• preventing warnings from reaching the victim (but not merely

failing to disclose the occurrence of a crime to authorities).

(3) means rea-- this is the element that it all boils down to in obtaining a
conviction for being an accomplice. All the words used in
accomplice law ("abet" for example) carry an implication of
purposive attitude toward the crime. Other courts have held to a less
strict standard than "purposively" (even thought the MPC
recommends this only) such as "knowingly" but still other courts
have allowed "recklessly".

Case law has ruled the following are example of accomplice means
rea:

• an intent that the crime be committed to the commission desire to

see it done.

• knowledge that they are contributing to the commission of a crime,

knowing that the outcome would have a dangerous result or criminal
consequences

[36]
• recklessness and negligence under such circumstances as to
indirectly benefit or share in the financial proceeds of the crime; a
"stake" in the outcome.

(3) What Makes a Person an Accomplice?

There are four different categories of accomplices, based on the level of

participation.

(i) Principal in the first degree This person either physically

commits the crime or commits it by use of an innocent
instrumentality or human agent.

(ii) Principal in the second degree Such an accomplice

intentionally helps another commit a crime while in the presence of
the principal in the first degree (i.e. a "lookout").

(iii) Accessories before the fact.- An accessory before the fact is one
who counsels, connives at, encourages or procures the commission
of the crime. Of these persons, those who counsel, incite, encourage
or procure who do nothing but only connive at are not necessarily
accomplice. All accessories before the fact, if they participate in the
preparation for the crime are accomplices but if their participation is
limited to the knowledge that a crime is to be committed they are not
accomplices. Persons to be accomplices, must participate in the
commission of the same crime as the accused persons in a trial are
charged21.

21 AIR 1942 Oudh 221.

[37]
 Accomplices in the previous similar offence committed by the
accused on trial are deemed to be a accomplices in the offence, for
which the accused is on trial, when the evidence of the accused
having committed crimes of identical type on other occasions be
admissible to prove the system and the intent of the accused in
committing the offence charged22.

Such an accomplice is not present at the scene of the crime, but does
solicit or command the principal in the first degree to commit the crime.

(iv) Accessories after the fact.- Accessories after the fact are also
accomplices. Mahadeo v. The King, AIR 1936 PC 242. Every person
is an accessory after the fact to a felony, who knowing that a felony
has been committed by another person receives, relieves, comforts
or assists him in order to enable him to escape from punishment, or
rescues him from arrest; or having him in custody for felony,
intentionally and voluntarily allows him to escape, or opposes his
arrest. Three conditions must unite to render one an accessory after
the fact (1) the felony must be complete (2) the accessory must have
the knowledge that the felony has been committed; and (3) the
accessory must harbour or assist the principal felony23.

Such an accomplice intentionally helps a guilty party to avoid arrest,

trial, or conviction. The accessory after the fact provides aid after the crime
is already committed.

22 AIR 1962 S.C. 1821 : (1963) 1 SCR 253.

23 AIR 1960 Pat. 459.

[38]
 Under accomplice liability principal in the second degree and an
accessory before the fact are just as liable for the crimes committed as the
principal in the first degree. However, today most jurisdiction view
accessory after the fact as a separate and less serious offence than the
crime committed by the principal in the first degree.

(4) Defence to the Crime being an Accomplice:-

There are three ways to offer a defence to the crime of being an

accomplice:

(1) Mistake of fact-- this is not same as "I didn't know it was a
crime" (mistake of law) but a mistake of fact, good faith claim,
because of the way a person perceives the world and makes
reasoned judgments.

(2) Abandonment-- the complicity was abandoned in a timely

manner; the accomplice terminated their participation either
completely or in part such as to deprive the principal of
effectiveness at committing the crime. "I didn't help so they could
get caught and learn their lesson".

(3) Withdrawal-- the complicity was repudiated voluntarily (not

merely because of a fear of getting caught); "I didn't help because it
was wrong"; some attempts are made to neutralize or thwart the
crime such as by notifying authorities.

(5) Burden of proving that a witness is an Accomplice:-

The question whether a witness is or is not an accomplice is a

question for the jury to determine, and it would amount to a misdirection

[39]
on the part of the Judge to say that a witness is not an accomplice. This
view is supported by a decision of the Calcutta High Court reported in
E. St. C. Moss v Emperor24, where it was held that-

"In any jury trial where the facts and circumstances of the case
raised a sufficient suspicion that a certain person had something to do with
the transaction concerning the offence, it is necessary for the Judge to have
it put to the jury to consider whether such person is or is not an
accomplice."

Whether a Person is or is not an accomplice depends upon the facts

in each particular case considered in connection with the nature of the
crime, and persons to be accomplices must participate in the commission
of the same crime as the accused persons in a trial are charged. If the
evidence of a witness falls short of these tests, he is not an accomplice, and
his testimony must be judged on principles applicable to ordinary
witnesses. Where a witness is not concerned with the commission of the
crime for which the accused is charged, he cannot be said to be an
accomplice in the crime. Persons coming technically within the category
of accomplices cannot be treated on precisely the same footing. The
burden of proving that a witness is an accomplice ordinarily is upon the
body alleging it, namely the accused, though it is the duty of the
prosecution to bring the accomplice character of the evidence to the notice
of the Court25.

(6) Approver’s Evidence:-

24 100, I.C. 358 : 1927 Cal. 460.
25 AIR 1942 Oadh 221 at PP. 223-24.

[40]
 Approver meaning- He is an accomplice in crime who accuses
others of the same offence, and is admitted as a witness at the discretion of
the court to give evidence against his companions in guilt. Anciently it
means one who, when indicted and are arraigned for treason or felony,
confessed, before pleading, the charge against him took an oath to reveal
all treasons and felonies within his knowledge, and accused his
accomplices. No one could be an approver who was attainted or incapable
of taking an oath26.

An approver is a most unworthily friend if at all and he having

bargained for his immunity, must prove his worthiness for credibility in the
court. The approver's evidence must show that he is a reliable witness. This
test is common to all the witnesses. If this test is fulfilled, his evidence
should be corroborated in material particulars to connect each of the
accused persons with the commission of the offence. If the testimony of
the approver is itself uninspiring and unacceptable justifying its outright
rejection, it would be futile and unnecessary to look for corroborative
evidence. It is only when the approver's evidence is considered otherwise
acceptable that the court applies its mind to the rule that his testimony
needs corroboration in material particulars connecting or tending to
connect each one of the accused persons with the commission of the crime
charged27. An approver is a most unworthy friend and he having bargained
for his immunity must pass two tests in proving his credibility in court,
namely, that the story he relates involves him in the crime and appears
26 Jowitts Dictonary o f English Law.
27 State o f Orissa v Bishnu Charan Muduli 1985 Cr LJ 1573 (Ori); State o f Rajashtan v Teka 1978 Cr LJ
(NOC) 241 (Raj) : 1977 Cr C 273.

[41]
intrinsically to be a natural and probable catalogue of events that had taken
place. Secondly, the story given by the approver so for as the accused on
trial is concerned must implicate him in such a manner as to give rise to a
conclusion of guilt beyond doubt28.

In the case of Data Ram vs. State o f Rajasthan29. The earlier view of
supreme court were reviewed and following guidelines were prescribed
with regards to an Approver -

1. According to, s. 133 of the Indian Evidence Act, an approver is a

competent witness and conviction shall not be illegal if based upon an
uncorroborated testimony of the approver;

2. According to the illustration (b) of s. 114 of the Indian Evidence

Act, the court may presume that an approver is a man of untrustworthiness
unless he is corroborated in material particulars;

3. Court should not ordinarily convict unless the evidence of the

approver is corroborated in material particulars qua the accused, and if
more than one, qua each accused;

4. Such corroboration can be direct and circumstantial;

5. If the evidence of an approver is intrinsically or inherently

impossible or is otherwise unreliable or unacceptable, it should be rejected
straightway without caring to seek corroboration;

28 Ravinder Singh v. State o f Punjab AIR 1975 SC 856; Khagendra Kahan v Stae o f Orissa Cr LJ 487
(Ori); State o f Orissa v Nazrul Ali Seikh 1985 Cr. LJ 1311: (1985) 1 Crimes 458; (1985) 60 Cut LT 9:
(1985) 1 Ori LR 254.
29 1977 Cr LJ. 1428.

[42]
6. There are several circumstances by which the reliability of an
approver has to be adjudged; one important test of reliability is that he is
corroborated by other evidence in material particulars; and

7. The approver should be particeps criminis on his own admission or

appear to be so by evidence.

When an accomplice turns to be an approver about 20 months after

the offence being committed and he is sought to be corroborated by the
victim (here a lady involved in cheating) who even in her F.I.R. omitted to
mention the names of the accused persons despite knowing their role in the
conspiracy to cheat her, conviction cannot be sustained30. An approver
whose earlier statement to police is not supplied and who turns an approver
after a long time after the occurrence (here twenty months) is not worthy
of credence31. Ordinarily approver's evidence is to be corroborated in
material particulars bridging closely the distance between the crime and
criminal, yet in rare cases conviction is not illegal merely because it
proceeds on uncorroborated testimony of accomplices32. As stated by
LORD REID: there is nothing technical in the idea of corroboration. When
in the ordinary affairs of life one is doubtful whether or not to believe a
particular statement one naturally looks to see whether it fits in with other
statements one circumstances relating to the particular matter; the better it
fits in, the more one is inclined to believe it. The doubted statement is

30 Lalchand v State o f Haryana, AIR 1984 SC 226: 1984 Cr LJ 164: (1984) 1 SSC 686: (1984) 1
Crimes 337.
31 Lalchand v State o f Haryana, (Ibid).
32 Ravinder v State o f Haryana AIR 1975 SC 856: 1975 Cr Lj 765; Rajani Kanta v State of Orissa 1976
Cr LJ 1674.

[43]
corroborated to a greater or lesser extent by the other statements or
circumstances with which it fits in33.

Statement of approver that he did not disclose to anyone about his

participation in offence before he was arrested is quite natural for he is not
expected to make it public. No adverse inference from this conduct can be
drawn34. Approver making application for obtaining pardon three months
after his arrest--no adverse inference can be drawn35. Evidence of
accomplice is required to be reliable and the court should also see if it has
been corroborated in material particulars by other independent evidence
either direct or circumstantial36. Unless the evidence of approver or
accomplice is found reliable, the accused cannot be convicted, whether or
not he has been corroborated in material particulars37. The first test of
reliability of approver or accomplice evidence is for the court to be
satisfied that there is nothing inherently impossible in the evidence after
that corroboration becomes necessary38. Approver's evidence when is
exculpatory and contains intrinsic infirmities, no conviction thereon can be
sustained39. The nature of corroboration is that it is confirmatory evidence
and it may consist of evidence of a second witness or of circumstances like
the conduct of the person against whom it is required, Corroboration must
connect the accused with the crime. It is not enough if a piece of evidence
33 D.P.P. v Kilbourne 1957 Cr. App R 381 (409).
34 Moti v. State o f Haryana 1978 Cr LJ (NOC) 186 (Puni).
35 Moti v State o f Haryana (Ibid).
36 Tribhuban Nath v State o f Maharshtra AIR 1973 SC 450: 1972 Cr. LJ 1277 : 1972 SCD 571: 1972 Cr
App R 257 (SC):
37 State o f Kerala v Thomas Cherian 1982 Cr LJ 2303; Krishinlal v State o f W.B. 1982 Cr LJ 1305
(Cal).
38 SarwanSingh v State o f Punjab 1975 Cr LJ 1014: AIR 1957 SC 637; Lachiram v State o f Punjab 1967
Cr LJ 671: AIR 1967 SC 792.
39 Jaga Gola v State of Gujarat AIR 1982 SC 1227: 1982 Cr LJ 1579: 1982 SCC (Cr) 141.

[ 44 ]
tends to confirm the truth of a part of the testimony to be corroborated40.
When approver's evidence is adequately corroborated conviction in murder
case can be given. But so for as approver's evidence is concerned there is
always a tendency to minimise one's own part and shift and assign the
dominant role in the commission of the offence to accused. There death
sentence may be reduced to life sentences41.

The reasons for taking usually precautions before accepting the

evidence of an approver are not far to seek. An approver is an accused
converted as a prosecution witness. In order to escape the possible
consequences of the charges against him he is one likely to swear falsely.
He is an immoral person having participated in the crime. Consequently he
cannot have much regard for the sanction of oath. The thought of pardon
always makes him lean towards the prosecution. His inclination is always
to make his own share in the transaction as slight as possible and to place
the serious blame on others. If there is other independent evidence about
the crime the testimony of an accomplice is superfluous. Therefore in
practice police usually invites a party to become an approver only after
they have failed in every other way to supply the missing links. For all
these reasons an approver is a suspect witness and his evidence can be
accepted only if it is materially corroborated42.

In view of this inclination of an approver the Supreme Court has

impressed upon the need of court's being satisfied about the approver's
40 Bhumanna v State AIR 1970 SC 1330: 1970 Cr LJ 1158: (1971) 1 SCJ 556: (1971) 1 Mad LJ (Cr)
274: (1971) 1 SCR 617: 73 Bom LR 806.
41 Subramaniam v State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1975 SC 139: 1975 Cr LJ 226: 1975 SCC (Cr) 40: (1975) 3
SCC 414.
42 1969 Cr LJ 1577 (Ker)

[45]
truthfulness The Supreme Court lays down that unless he is found to be a
reliable witness the worth of his evidence is lost and even by seeking
corroboration such evidence cannot be the foundation for conviction43.

43 1986 Cr LJ 1072 (S.C.)

[46]