โLaw Masterโs Publications
โOf Witnessesโ
Prof. S. D. Bhosale
145
connecting the accused to the crime. In such cases, anyone from the accused who is least
guilty is assured that if he tells all information about the commission of a crime and gives
evidence against his own colleagues, he will be pardoned. Such a person who gives
evidence against his own colleagues is known as an 'accomplice' or an 'approver'.
a) Categories of Accomplices:-
Under English law, persons in the following categories are known as 'accomplices'.
(i)
Principle of the first and second degree:-
In committing some offences, several persons join their hands; the principle of the
first degree are those who actually commit the criminal act themselves or through an
innocent agent, i.e., a child, lunatic, etc. โPrinciple of the second degreeโ are those who are
present at the crime scene and aid and abet the commission of a crime. E. g. if A commits
theft, B remains there to watch and alarm, and C is in a vehicle to drive them. A is a
principle of the first degree; B and C are principles of the second degree. Indian law does
not distinguish between the principle of the first degree and the principle of the second
degree.
(ii)
Accessories before the fact:-
โAccessories before the factโ is someone who procures, counsels, or abets another
to commit the crime. Still, he does not participate in the commission of the crime and
remains absent while the crime is being committed. โBefore the factโ means before the
crime.
(iii)
Accessories after the fact:-
A person who knows that another person has committed the offence receives,
comforts, or assists him in order to enable him to escape from punishment; or rescues him
from arrest; or has him in custody, intentionally and voluntarily allows him to escape, or
oppose his arrest. Under Indian law, โaccessories after the factโ are known as harbourers.
b) Contradictions to the rule under S.133:--
Illustration (b) to S.114 provides a contradiction to the rule laid down under S.133.
It provides that evidence of an accomplice cannot be relied upon unless corroborated in
material particulars. Whereas S.133 lays, โan accomplice shall be a competent witness as
against the accused person, and the conviction of the accused based on the testimony of an
accomplice is valid, even though it is not corroborated in material circumstances.
In such circumstances, a question arises regarding which sections shall prevail over
the other. The general rule is laid down under S.133. On the other hand, illustration (b) of
S.114 contradicts S.133. Therefore, the rule under S.133 will obviously prevail.
However, in practice, courts are always guided as a precautionary measure by the
rule of prudence as provided in S.114, illustration (b). Whenever an accomplice gives