Accomplice under Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam

It is not uncommon for a crime to be committed by a single individual. However, there are instances where multiple persons are involved, working together in planning, aiding, abetting, and executing a criminal act in unison. Such individuals are referred to as accomplices.

According to general understanding, an accomplice is a person who intentionally and voluntarily participates in the commission of a crime alongside another. While the term accomplice is not expressly defined under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, it is commonly interpreted to mean a partner in crime (particeps criminis).

The court, in the case of Sheshanna Bhumanna Yadav v. State of Maharashtra (1970), held that an accomplice is someone who intentionally aids in the commission of a crime. The court further said that for a person to be an accomplice, he has to have an element of a guilty mind (mens rea), along with a conscious and voluntary act of cooperation. Merely because someone is present at the scene or knows the crime is not enough. There has to be an active role in facilitating the offence.

Having said so, the article will examine the provisions which deal with accomplice under the BSA, particularly Sections 24 and 138, and analyse their implications as mentioned in the Adhiniyam (Act) along with relevant judicial pronouncements.

Provisions under Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA)

As mentioned earlier, two major sections deal with the accomplice under the Adhiniyam, i.e., Sections 24 and 138 of the Act. To begin with, Section 138 of the Adhiniyam holds the accomplice to be a competent witness against the person who is accused and says that conviction based upon the corroborated testimony of the accomplice will be legal.

However, illustration (b) of Section 119 of the Adhiniyam acts as a rider for Section 138, which mandates that the accomplice’s statement cannot be trusted unless it is supported by other evidence. This means that while their testimony can be used, the court should be careful and look for independent proof before convicting someone based on it. Such independent proof has to be circumstantial evidence and not just another accomplice’s testimony.

Similarly, Section 24 explains how a confession made by one accused can be used against others who are being tried together for the same offence. If multiple people are facing trial for a crime, and one of them confesses, incriminating both themselves and the others. In that case, the court can consider that confession while deciding the case against all of them.

Furthermore, Explanation I of the section clarifies that the offence also includes the offence of abetment or an attempt to commit it.

Explanation II states that if one of the accused has fled or failed to respond to a proclamation issued under Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the trial of the remaining accused will still be treated as a joint trial. This means that even in the absence of the absconding accused, the proceedings against the others will continue as if all were present, allowing the court to consider the confession concerning everyone involved.

If an accomplice accepts pardon as mentioned under Section 343 of Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita. In that case, he becomes a competent witness of the state and may, as any other witness, be examined on oath; the Sanhita has vested such power to the Chief Judicial Magistrate and a Magistrate of the First Class, and the same can be granted at any stage of investigation, inquiry, or trial. It is also applicable to cases that carry a longer duration of imprisonment, i.e., imprisonment of seven or more years, or which are triable by the Court of Sessions Judge or the Special Judge.

Notable Judicial Pronouncements

The Supreme Court, in the case of Haroon Haji Abdulla v. State of Maharashtra (1968), held that while an accomplice’s testimony can legally form the sole basis for conviction under Section 133 of the Evidence Act, courts must be cautious, as stated in Illustration (b) to Section 114. An accomplice, having betrayed their associates, may mix falsehood with truth to support the prosecution’s case. Since it is difficult to separate the two, courts usually look for independent evidence that not only confirms the crime but also links the accused to it, no matter how small the corroboration.

While making such a statement, the court relied on the case of Nathu v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1956), which held that confessions of co-accused are not evidence. Still, if there is other evidence on which a conviction can be based, it can be referred to as lending some assurance to the verdict.

The court in the case Ravinder Singh v. State of Haryana (1975) held that to determine whether an accomplice’s testimony can be relied upon. Two things need to be kept in mind. The first is that their statement should naturally fit into the sequence of events without contradictions. Second, it must establish the accused’s involvement in a manner beyond a reasonable doubt.

As seen in the case of Shankar v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994), the court held that once the accomplice approves the certain act or testifies for the said act, it becomes the witness of the prosecution while interpreting section 133 and Illustration (b) to section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, the approver has to satisfy the doubt test as laid by the courts in previous judgements, which primarily means that his -

i. Evidence must be reliable

ii. Evidence should be sufficiently corroborated.

Although seeking corroboration is a wise approach to ensure reliability, it is not a strict legal requirement. It can be relaxed if the judge is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of an approver’s credibility; a conviction can be based solely on testimony, even without additional supporting evidence.

While the court has laid down the guidelines in the above judgments, the same has been dealt with in detail in the case of Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan (1952). The court, in this case, held that not every statement made by the accomplice needs to be corroborated. However, some additional independent evidence must be looked for to see whether the approver is speaking the truth, and there must be some evidence, direct or circumstantial, which connects the co-accused with the crime independently of the accomplice.

Conclusion

The role of an accomplice in criminal trials under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam is significant yet requires careful application of the judicial mind. While an accomplice is a competent witness under Section 138, courts exercise caution, as corroboration is a rule of prudence to prevent wrongful convictions. The court has time and again held that while a conviction can be based solely on an accomplice’s testimony, at times, the need for independent or corroborating evidence arises to ensure the reliability of the testimony. Hence, it keeps the principles of fairness and justice intact.

References

[1] Sheshanna Bhumanna Yadav v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1970 SC 1330

[2] Haroon Haji Abdulla v. State of Maharashtra, 1968 SCR (2) 641

[3] Nathu v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1956 SC 56

[4] Ravinder Singh v. State of Haryana 1975 SCR (3) 453

[5] Shankar v. State of Tamil Nadu 1994 SCC (4) 478

[6] Rameshwar v. The State Of Rajasthan (1952) SCR 377