The rule of prudence ingrained in Section 114 Illustration (b) of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 (Hereafter referred as IEA) / Section 119 Illustration (b) of the BharatiyaSakshyaAdhiniyam (hereafter referred as BSA) becomes rule of law via section 138 of BSA by replacing section 133 of IEA. It is unequivocally a welcome change.
The law on the testimony of approver or accomplice is no longer res integra, nevertheless mere running of an eye, into section 114 Illustration (b) and section 133 of IEA gives a stark contradiction between the two provisions. However, plethora of judgements from the courts of law since English period, reverberates that the corroboration is sine quo nonwhilst appreciating the evidence of approver or accomplice.
ACCOMPLICE:
Accomplice can loosely be called as approver, a guilty partner, co-participator in crime and the associate in the crime. It is based upon a legal maxim that " particepscriminis".
Neither the Adjective law nor the substantive law nor any code defines the term of 'the accomplice'. However, in a criminal case, the appreciation of evidence of the approver plays a signal role in such a case where there are twists and turns to find out the actual crime doer.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the way back in the year of 1957 reinforced the law on the testimony of accomplice in the case of SARWAN SINNGH RATTAN SINGH VS STATE OF PUNJAB (AIR 1957 SC 637) and held a proposition of law by pointing out a 'Double test' to appreciate the evidence of approver.
DOUBLE TEST:
First, the evidence of an accomplice must show that he is a reliable witness.
Secondly, the approver’s evidence must receive adequate corroboration.
With this guiding judgement, the march of law on the testimony of approver had just walked in the field of law, till the enactment of BSA comes into surface on 01.07.2023. Thenceforth, the word of corroboration becomes “The Rule of Law” (statute) from “The Rule of Prudence” (Rule of practice), to put it otherwise, the rule of prudence becomes rule of law actually from virtually'.
SECTION 133 OF IEA IS EXTRACTED AND STATED HEREUNDER:
"An accomplice shall be a competent witness against an accused person; and a conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice".
SECTION 138 OF BSA IS EXTRACTED AND DENOTED INFRA:
"An accomplice shall be a competent witness against an accused person and a conviction is not illegal if it proceeds upon the corroborated testimony of an accomplice and Section 114 Illustration (b) of IEA and Section 119 Illustration (b) of BSA also states that,
"An accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in material particulars”
The head on clashes between Section 114 Illustration(b) and Section 133 of IEA has now been harmoniously reconciled via the new section 138 of BSA. The object behind Section138 of BSA is well intent considering the consistent and constant march of law towards the evidence of the approver in the realm of appreciation of evidence.
CONCLUSION :
My mind is redolent and reminiscent to hark back the famous saying " All great changes are preceded by chaos". The birth of Section 138 of BSA put a full-stop to the chaos appears to be on viewing the Section 133 and 114 Illustration (b). It is indeed a welcome change brought in Section 138 of BSA for the courts of law to march forward unambiguously in the event of appreciation of evidence in a case of approver’s evidence. Ergo, it is indeed, “a paradigm shift".