Correct option is D
This section explicitly declares that an accomplice is a
competent witness against an accused person. However, it is a well-established legal principle that the testimony of an accomplice requires
corroboration for the court to convict the accused solely on such evidence. The rationale behind this is that an accomplice, being involved in the crime, may have a motive to shift blame or distort facts, making their testimony less reliable unless independently verified.
Section 133 recognizes the importance of accomplice testimony in criminal trials, but courts often apply caution and rely on the
doctrine of corroboration to support such testimony.
Information Booster
An
accomplice is someone who has taken part in the commission of a crime. Since accomplices are directly involved in the criminal activity, their testimony may be tainted with self-interest, including the possibility of reducing their own punishment by helping the prosecution. Hence, while an accomplice is a
competent witness, the law encourages that their testimony should be corroborated with additional evidence or testimony to ensure its reliability.
Key Aspects of Section 133:
1.
Accomplice as a Competent Witness: Section 133 allows an accomplice to testify in court and provides that their evidence is admissible. This section does not demand the rejection of their testimony simply because they participated in the crime.
2.
Corroboration: While an accomplice is legally competent to give evidence, courts usually seek corroboration from independent sources to support the accomplice's testimony. This is often reinforced by the
illustration (b) to Section 114, which states that the court may presume that an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless corroborated.
3.
Conviction Based on Accomplice Testimony: Courts can legally convict an accused based on an accomplice's testimony, but this is rare without strong corroboration, due to the possibility of bias or self-preservation by the accomplice.
Additional Knowledge
(a) Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act
Section 114 deals with
presumptions of fact, where the court can presume certain facts based on the available evidence. One such presumption is that an accomplice is generally unworthy of credit unless corroborated. However, this section does not declare the accomplice as a competent witness, but rather highlights the necessity for corroboration when dealing with accomplice testimony.
