Accomplice evidence:

Accomplice evidence:

Introduction: an accomplice is a person who takes part in the commission of an offence. An accomplice is always an unreliable person for he is betraying his associates. But his evidence is nevertheless admissible on the principle that the greatest offender would go unpunished if accomplice evidence were to be rejected.

Meaning: is a person supposed to have directly or indirectly concerned in the offence or accomplice is guilty associate in the crime

Relevant provision; 16 and 129

Competency as witness; accomplice is a competent witness against co accused. Exception: evidence of accomplice is in admissible in hudood cases.

Presumption u/a 129b: though competent the court may presume that he is not worthy of credit unless he is corroborated in material particulars.

Combined effect of art 16 and 129: both these articles is that these are explanatory to each other, since art 16 declares the testimony of accomplice to be admissible and a conviction based on the uncorroborated testimony, not to be illegal. But art 129 advises the court to bear in mind the presumption that an accomplice is not worthy of credit unless he is corroborated in material particulars.

Art 16 laid down rule of law and illustration b of art129 lays down rule of prudence.

Asif ali zardari vs state 1992: held that it is not illegal to act upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice but it is a rule of prudence so universally followed as to amount almost to a rule of law that it is unsafe to act upon the evidence of an accomplice unless it is corroborated in material respects so as to implicate the accused.

Reason for corroboration of the testimony of accused: 

a) accomplice may swear falsely in order to shift the guilt from himself 

B) An accomplice, as a participant in crime an immoral person is likely to disregard the sanction of an oath 

c) Accomplice gives his evidence under pardon or under such hope, this will lead him to favor the prosecution.

Test: accomplice evidence has to satisfy double test

a) His evidence must show that he is reliable witness 

b) It must receive sufficient corroboration

Nature of corroboration: the corroborating evidence is some additional evidence showing that it is more probale that the story of accomplice is true and it is reasonably safe to act upon it.

Extent of corroboration: evidence of at least one material fact pointing to the guilt of the accused.

Value of evidence of accomplice: legally conviction of an accused can be based solely on the evidence of accomplice, but on factual plane corroboration of testimony of accomplice is required.

 Though an accomplice is a competent witness to testify against the accused but the court should not overlook the position in which the accomplice may stand and the motives which he may have for stating what is false, so his evidence must be corroborated with other evidence .