Which one of the following is the relevance of testimony given by an accomplice in criminal proceedings?

Correct option is A

The correct option is (a) He can be a competent witness against an accused person.

Explanation

Based on the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023 (which replaced the Indian Evidence Act), the legal status of an accomplice is defined by two seemingly conflicting but complementary rules.

1. Legal Competency (Section 138 BSA / Old Section 133 IEA): This section explicitly states that an accomplice shall be a competent witness against an accused person. It further clarifies that a conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. Therefore, legally, an accomplice is fully capable of testifying.
2. The Rule of Prudence (Section 119, Illustration (b) BSA / Old Section 114): While Section 138 says he is competent, the Court's discretion under Section 119 allows it to "presume" that an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless corroborated in material particulars.

The question asks for the relevance/legal status of the testimony. Since the law (Section 138) explicitly grants him the status of a "competent witness," option (a) is the most legally accurate statement.

Information Booster:

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 maintains the historical "Double Test" for accomplice evidence:

• Who is an accomplice? A person who is a "guilty associate in crime" or a "particeps criminis." They participate in the commission of the offence or help the offender.
• The Competency Test: Under Section 138, the law recognizes them as a witness. This is a rule of Law.
• The Reliability Test: Under Section 119, Illustration (b), the court is cautioned to look for corroboration. This is a rule of Prudence/Practice.
• The Result: A conviction based solely on an accomplice's word is legally valid (Section 138), but judges, as a matter of caution, almost always require corroboration to ensure the accomplice isn't falsely blaming others to save themselves.