​Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023-Accomplice (Section 138)
Introduction
Criminal offences are often committed with the participation of more than one person. In such cases, one of the participants in the crime may come forward to give evidence against the others. Such a person is known as an accomplice.

Section 138 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) deals with the competency, admissibility, and evidentiary value of accomplice testimony. This provision plays a vital role in prosecuting complex crimes such as conspiracies, organized offences, and economic crimes.

Section 138 – Statutory Provision 
Section 138 states that:

• An accomplice is a competent witness against an accused person; and
• A conviction is not illegal if it proceeds upon the corroborated testimony of an accomplice.

Thus, accomplice evidence is legally admissible, but corroboration is mandatory for sustaining a conviction.

Changes Introduced under Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, conviction based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice was not illegal, though courts followed corroboration as a rule of prudence.
Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023:

• Corroboration has become a legal requirement, not merely a practice.
• The earlier rule of prudence has now attained the force of law.
• Courts must insist on independent corroborative evidence before upholding a conviction based on accomplice testimony.

Scope of Section 138

• An accomplice is competent to testify provided he is not an accused at the time of giving evidence in that case.
• Accomplice evidence is admitted on the ground of necessity, since:
  • Without such evidence, it is often impossible to bring the principal offenders to justice.
• However, due to the tainted nature of such testimony, courts must apply strict scrutiny and corroboration.

Who Is an Accomplice?
An accomplice is a person who knowingly and voluntarily participates in the commission of a crime. He is a guilty associate or partner in crime.
An accomplice may be a person who:

• Assists or abets the commission of an offence
• Participates in a criminal conspiracy
• Conceals or facilitates the crime
• Provides false information or evidence
• Helps the offender evade arrest or punishment

An accomplice may be liable for the same offence as the principal offender, depending on the facts and law.

Accomplice and Approver
An approver is an accomplice who:

• Is tendered pardon by the court, and
• Agrees to make a full and true disclosure of all circumstances of the offence.

Once pardon is granted:

• The accomplice becomes an approver, and
• Testifies as a prosecution witness.

Case Law: Laxmipat Choraria v. State of Maharashtra

• An airline stewardess, an accomplice in gold smuggling, testified for the prosecution.
• It was argued that she should have been prosecuted instead of being examined as a witness.

Held:

• An accomplice is a competent witness.
• Article 20(3) of the Constitution protects only an accused, not an accomplice examined as a witness.
• Her evidence could not be excluded merely because she was an accomplice.

Judicial Principles Governing Accomplice Evidence
Case Law: Chandra Prakash v. State of RajasthanThe Supreme Court summarized the law on accomplice evidence and laid down the following principles:
(i) Competency vs Safety

• Section 138 BSA (earlier Section 133) is a rule of law: accomplice is competent.
• Section 119 Illustration (b) BSA is a rule of caution: it is unsafe to convict on accomplice testimony alone.

(ii) Nature of Corroboration

• Corroboration must:
  • Connect the accused with the crime.
  • Be in material particulars.
• It may be:
  • Direct or circumstantial.
• Corroboration must come from an independent source.
• One accomplice cannot corroborate another accomplice.

(iii) Double Test for Approver’s EvidenceThe evidence of an approver must satisfy a double test:

1. The approver must be a reliable and trustworthy witness.
2. His testimony must receive sufficient independent corroboration.

(iv) Caution in Accepting Approver’s Evidence

• An approver is a tainted witness, having bargained for immunity.
• His testimony must:
  • Appear natural and probable.
  • Involve himself in the crime.
  • Implicate the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Accomplice in Rape and Sexual Offence CasesIn sexual offences:

• A woman may or may not be an accomplice depending on the circumstances.

Case Law: S. Ramakrishna v. State

• The Supreme Court held that:
  • The victim of rape is not an accomplice.
  • She cannot be equated with a partner in crime.
  • Her testimony is akin to that of an injured witness.
  • Corroboration is not mandatory if her evidence is reliable.

State of U.P. v. Chhoteylal

• The prosecutrix’s evidence cannot be treated with the suspicion applicable to a participant criminis.
• Her reliable testimony alone can sustain conviction.

Types of Accomplices
Accomplices are classified based on their degree of involvement:
(i) Principal Offender – First Degree

• Person who directly commits the offence.
• If several persons jointly commit a crime, each is a principal offender.

(ii) Principal Offender – Second Degree

• Person who:
  • Aids, abets, or assists in committing the offence.
  • Is present at the crime scene.

(iii) Accessory Before the Fact

• Person who:
  • Encourages, incites, or plans the offence.
  • Is not present during its commission.

(iv) Accessory After the Fact

• Person who:
  • Assists the offender after the crime.
  • Helps in escape, concealment, or evasion of law.

Accomplice vs Co-Accused

• Accomplice:
  • A guilty associate in crime.
  • May become an approver if pardoned under Section 343 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
  • Corroboration is mandatory.
• Co-Accused:
  • A person jointly accused of the offence.
  • His confession is weak evidence.
  • Under Section 24 BSA, it may be used only for corroboration, not as the sole basis of conviction.

Critical Analysis
Strengths

1. Recognizes the necessity of accomplice evidence
2. Converts judicial caution into statutory mandate
3. Protects accused from false implication
4. Strengthens fairness in criminal trials
5. Aligns with constitutional safeguards

Limitations

1. Heavy reliance on judicial assessment of corroboration
2. Approver testimony may still be motivated
3. Risk of weak corroboration being overvalued

ConclusionSection 138 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 strikes a careful balance between practical necessity and judicial caution. While it recognizes that accomplices are often indispensable witnesses in complex crimes, it firmly mandates corroboration as a rule of law.
By elevating the rule of prudence to a statutory requirement, the Adhiniyam strengthens safeguards against wrongful conviction while ensuring that serious offenders do not escape justice merely due to lack of direct evidence.