Accomplice
Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with accomplice. An accomplice shall be a competent witness against an accused person; The Act came into force on 01 Sep 1872. Repealed by section 170 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
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 133, The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872).
Now in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
BSA 138 Accomplice Close, with changes 84%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Mrinal Das v. State of Tripura
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-7.pdf 2011-09-05. Crl A 2008. IEA 133: an accomplice is a competent witness and a conviction may rest on uncorroborated accomplice evidence if it is reliable; illustration (b) to s.114 only advises caution, it does not enact a rule of law requiring corroboration. Map iea 133 and successor bsa 138.
On this section: s.133: an accomplice is a competent witness and a conviction may rest on uncorroborated accomplice evidence if it is otherwise reliable. Illustration (b) to s.114 only advises caution; it is not a rule of law requiring corroboration.
-
Khokan Giri @ Madhab vs State of West Bengal
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Although Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act permits conviction based on uncorroborated accomplice testimony and such conviction is not illegal per se, as a matter of judicial practice it is almost always unsafe to convict based on accomplice evidence alone. Section 114 Illustration (b) requires that an accomplice be corroborated in material particulars. Such corroboration must: (a) come from independent sources, (b) not be from another accomplice, and (c) connect the accused with the crime. In the present case, the High Court correctly examined extensive independent corroborative evidence - including eyewitness accounts, physical evidence (fingerprints, recovered stolen goods, property of appellant), forensic and medical reports, and expert opinions - that collectively established the appellant's participation in the murder beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the conviction was safe and legally sound despite primary reliance on approver's evidence.
On this section: Establishes that an accomplice is a competent witness and conviction on uncorroborated accomplice testimony is not ipso facto illegal; central to admissibility of approver Raju Rao's evidence
-
D. Velayutham vs State Rep. by Inspector of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In Anti-Corruption Prosecutions Involving Trap Cases Where Co-Accused Are Jointly Charged And One Successfully Avoids Direct Entrapment While The Other Is Caught Red-Handed, The Accused Who Evaded The Trap Can Still Be Convicted Through A Combination Of Accomplice Testimony (With Proper Corroboration), Circumstantial Evidence, And The Doctrine Of Constructive Receipt Of Bribes. The Absence Of An Accused From The Physical Location Of Bribe-Taking Does Not Shield Him From Conviction If The Totality Of Evidence Demonstrates His Role As The Mastermind And Beneficiary Of The Illegal Gratification. Courts Are Not To Presume That Trap/Decoy Witnesses Are Inherently Interested Or Partisan; Rather, The Burden Lies On The Defence To Establish Motive And Interest Through Specific Evidence. The Corroboration Of Accomplice Evidence Is A Matter Of Prudential Discretion Varying With Case Facts, Not An Absolute Legal Requirement.
On this section: Applied Regarding Accomplice Testimony; Court Noted That Conviction Based On Uncorroborated Accomplice Evidence Is Not Illegal But Prudential Corroboration Is Required In Material Aspects
-
Chandra Prakash vs State of Rajasthan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases of criminal conspiracy, the prosecution need not prove express agreement between conspirators; the agreement may be proved by necessary implication from circumstances. When assessing approver evidence, courts must first apply a reliability test to determine if the approver is a trustworthy witness on the evidence itself, independent of corroboration. Only if the approver passes the reliability test does the second test apply, requiring corroboration in material particulars that connects the accused with the offense. Such corroboration must come from independent sources and may be direct or circumstantial in nature. Under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, discovery of facts in consequence of information from an accused in custody is admissible if the information is credible and material discovery is effected; formal arrest is not necessary, only that the person be accused of an offense and in custody of a police officer. The broad definition of 'explosive substance' under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and 'explosive' under the Explosive Act, 1884 encompasses materials for making explosives; when such materials are possessed in conjunction with other explosive articles and components in large quantities, possession constitutes a criminal offense even without direct evidence of criminal intent if the circumstances demonstrate conscious possession for use in explosions. Sanction under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 requires only 'consent' for subjective appreciation and can be granted by District Magistrate pursuant to delegation from Central Government; the sanctioning authority need not be examined as a witness if the sanction document is properly proven and shows application of mind.
On this section: Accomplice is competent witness and conviction is not illegal merely because based on accomplice testimony alone
-
Bomb Selvam @ Selvam vs The State of Tamil Nadu State Rep. by Deputy Commissioner of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The ratio decidendi of the majority opinion (Justice V. Gopala Gowda) is that accomplice evidence, even if the witnesses are not formally designated as accomplices, must be corroborated in material particulars by independent evidence before an accused can be convicted. When the prosecution fails to provide such independent corroboration and the accused has been acquitted of the conspiracy charge, the conviction under abetment cannot be sustained. The burden is on the prosecution to establish the involvement of each accused individually in each offence charged, and mere presence at meetings or involvement in preparatory acts without direct evidence of participation in the crime is insufficient for conviction.
On this section: Accomplice is competent witness; conviction not illegal merely because based on uncorroborated accomplice testimony; but corroboration required as matter of prudence
-
Manickam @ Poonga Manickam vs The State Rep. by the Deputy Commissioner of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The case resulted in divergent opinions. Justice V. Gopala Gowda's ratio: Accomplice evidence requires corroboration from independent sources in material particulars connecting accused with crime. One accomplice cannot corroborate another. When accomplice evidence is the sole link between accused and crime and lacks independent corroboration, conviction cannot be sustained. Acquittal under Section 120-B IPC precludes conviction under Section 109 IPC as the latter requires proof of overt act in pursuance of conspiracy. Justice Arun Mishra's ratio: Accomplice evidence can sustain conviction when corroborated by confessional statements, vehicle recoveries, and circumstantial evidence. Acquittal under Section 120-B does not affect conviction under Section 109 as these are separate offences with different ingredients. Presumption under Section 106 Evidence Act applies when abduction is proved and victim murdered soon thereafter.
On this section: Accomplice competent witness but conviction not illegal merely because on uncorroborated testimony - requires corroboration as matter of prudence
-
Munna vs State of M. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While the testimony of a prosecutrix in a sexual assault case deserves significant weight and can be the basis for conviction even without corroboration, such conviction cannot be sustained when the prosecutrix's statement has inherent infirmities and the totality of circumstances creates doubt about the veracity of the prosecution version. The presence of major discrepancies between initial allegations and trial version, the victim's own subsequent retraction, complete absence of medical or physical corroborative evidence, internal contradictions in the victim's testimony, and evidence of motive for false accusation collectively create a situation where the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.
On this section: Competency of accomplice; cited to support that conviction can theoretically rest on single witness testimony though corroboration is generally sought
-
Somasundaram @ Somu vs The State Rep. by the Deputy Commissioner of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The case presents a divergent opinion on the reliability of accomplice evidence and the legal distinction between criminal conspiracy and abetment. Justice V. Gopala Gowda's ratio is that accomplice evidence requires independent corroboration in material particulars connecting the accused with the crime, and absent such corroboration, conviction cannot be sustained. Furthermore, acquittal under Section 120-B IPC is fatal to conviction under Section 109 IPC as the latter requires proof of specific overt acts in pursuance of conspiracy. Justice Arun Mishra's ratio is that accomplice evidence, when corroborated by multiple independent sources including eyewitness testimony, confessional statements, and recovery of articles, can sustain conviction even without formal designation as accomplice. Additionally, acquittal under Section 120-B does not affect conviction under Section 109 as these are separate offences with distinct ingredients, and the presumption under Section 106 Evidence Act applies when abductors cannot explain the fate of the abducted person.
On this section: Accomplice is competent witness; conviction not illegal merely because based on uncorroborated accomplice testimony; requires corroboration as matter of prudence
-
Shankar Ganesh @ Shankar vs State Rep by the Dy Commisssioner of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The case presents a split decision with no single ratio decidendi. Justice V. Gopala Gowda's ratio is that accomplice evidence requires independent corroboration in material particulars connecting the accused with the crime, and when such corroboration is absent and the accused are acquitted of conspiracy, conviction under abetment provisions cannot be sustained. Justice Arun Mishra's ratio is that accomplice evidence can be relied upon when sufficiently corroborated by confessional statements and recovery of articles, and acquittal under Section 120-B does not preclude conviction under Section 109 as these are separate offences with distinct legal requirements.
On this section: Accomplice is competent witness; conviction not illegal merely because based on uncorroborated accomplice testimony; but rule of prudence requires corroboration
-
Shankar Ganesh @ Shankar vs State Rep by the Dy Commisssioner of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The case presents a split verdict with two divergent ratios: (1) Per Justice Gopala Gowda: Acquittal under Section 120-B IPC (criminal conspiracy) is fatal to conviction under Section 109 IPC (abetment by conspiracy) because the latter requires proof of conspiracy as a prerequisite. Accomplice evidence, even if corroborated, cannot sustain conviction when independent evidence fails to place accused at scene of crime or establish their specific role. (2) Per Justice Arun Mishra: Acquittal under Section 120-B does not affect conviction under Section 109 as these are separate and distinct offences with different ingredients. Accomplice evidence, when corroborated by multiple independent sources including confessions, recoveries, and circumstantial evidence, can sustain conviction. The presumption under Section 106 Evidence Act applies to abductors regarding victim's fate.
On this section: Competency of accomplice witness; legal admissibility of accomplice testimony
-
Iruthayaraj@iruthi& ORS. vs Home Ministry State Rep. by the Deputy Commissioner of Police Cbcid Metro Wing Chennai
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The ratio decidendi is split between the two judges. Justice Gopala Gowda's ratio: Accomplice evidence, even if corroborated by other accomplices, cannot sustain conviction without independent corroboration in material particulars connecting the accused to the crime. When the charge under Section 120-B (criminal conspiracy) is not proved, conviction under Section 109 (abetment by conspiracy) cannot be sustained as it requires proof of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. The burden remains on the prosecution to prove each accused's individual involvement in the crime beyond reasonable doubt through independent evidence, not merely through accomplice testimony. Justice Arun Mishra's ratio: Accomplice evidence, when corroborated by confessions of co-accused, recovery of material objects, and circumstantial evidence, can sustain conviction even without direct evidence of the accused's presence at the scene of crime. Acquittal under Section 120-B does not affect conviction under Section 109 as these are separate and distinct offences with different ingredients. The presumption that an abductor is a murderer when the victim is found dead soon after abduction can be applied to sustain conviction when circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.
On this section: Accomplice competent witness; conviction not illegal merely because based on uncorroborated accomplice testimony; but rule of prudence requires corroboration
-
Balamurugan @ Bala and Anr. Etc vs The State of Tamil Nadu Home Department Deputy Commissioner of Police Cbcid Metro Wing
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The case resulted in divergent opinions. Justice V. Gopala Gowda held that accomplice evidence requires independent corroboration in material particulars connecting the accused with the crime, and absent such corroboration, conviction cannot be sustained even if the accomplice evidence is otherwise reliable. Justice Arun Mishra held that accomplice evidence can be relied upon if corroborated by confessional statements of other accused, recovery of articles, and circumstantial evidence, and that acquittal under Section 120-B does not preclude conviction under Section 109 when the ingredients of abetment are satisfied.
On this section: Accomplice competent witness; conviction not illegal merely on uncorroborated accomplice testimony
-
K. Hashim vs State of Tamil Nadu
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal conspiracy cases involving counterfeiting of currency notes, the evidence of accomplices (approvers) is admissible under Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act and can form basis of conviction if credible and cogent, provided it is corroborated in material particulars as required by Section 114(b) Evidence Act as a matter of prudence. Such corroboration need not be direct evidence of the crime but can be circumstantial evidence of the accused's connection with the crime. The definition of 'counterfeiting' under Section 28 IPC is wide and covers causing one thing to resemble another with intention or knowledge of deception without requiring exact reproduction, and Explanation 2 creates rebuttable presumption of counterfeiting intent when resemblance is such that person might be deceived. Sections 489A, 489C and 489D IPC apply to foreign currency including US dollars and cover possession of materials and instruments for counterfeiting process.
On this section: Accomplice as competent witness - accomplice is competent witness and conviction not illegal merely because based on uncorroborated testimony; but corroboration in material particulars required as matter of prudence
-
Rameshbhai Chanabhai Jesadiya vs State of Gujarat
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An approver's evidence must satisfy a double test: first, the witness must be reliable in his own right, and second, his testimony must receive sufficient corroboration. If the witness is found unreliable, his testimony must be discarded without even looking for corroboration.
On this section: Competency of accomplice and rules of prudence regarding corroboration.
-
Aaftab Unnisa Begum vs State of Telangana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the stage of framing charges or considering discharge applications, the court should consider the allegations on face value based on victim statements and prima facie material without conducting a roving enquiry. Confessional statements of co-accused, while not substantive evidence, can serve as corroborative material to establish prima facie case for continuation of trial. The court's power to amend or add charges under Section 216 CrPC after framing charges is valid and does not prejudice the accused's right to fair trial, provided Section 217 CrPC is complied with for recall of witnesses.
On this section: Admissibility of evidence in relation to confessional statements and their corroborative value
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… It is also clear that the case of the prosecution heavily rests on their evidence. Before we proceed to examine the culpability of A-3 and A-4, it is important for us to examine the reliability of the evidence of the above accomplices. Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which deals with the testimony of accomplice witness, reads as under: "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." 56. The High Court, in …
-
… It is also clear that the case of the prosecution heavily rests on their evidence. Before we proceed to examine the culpability of A-3 and A-4, it is important for us to examine the reliability of the evidence of the above accomplices. Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which deals with the testimony of accomplice witness, reads as under: "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." 56. The High Court, in …
-
… It is also clear that the case of the prosecution heavily rests on their evidence. Before we proceed to examine the culpability of A-3 and A-4, it is important for us to examine the reliability of the evidence of the above accomplices. Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which deals with the testimony of accomplice witness, reads as under: "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." 56. The High Court, in …
Questions about Section 133
What have the courts held on Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act?
Mrinal Das v. State of Tripura (05 Sep 2011) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.133: an accomplice is a competent witness and a conviction may rest on uncorroborated accomplice evidence if it is otherwise reliable. Illustration (b) to s.114 only advises caution; it is not a rule of law requiring corroboration. Another 14 judgments on this section are set out below, 13 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2004 to 2020.
How do I find court cases under Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: IEA 133, section 133 IEA, section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 15 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Mrinal Das v. State of Tripura (05 Sep 2011).
What should I read with Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act, and has it changed?
For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BSA 138 (Accomplice), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act come into force?
Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act, cited as IEA 133, came into force on 01 Sep 1872, having been enacted on 15 Mar 1872. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 32. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant1207 words
- 14. Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body of bodily feeling1080 words
- 92. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement809 words
- 8. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct773 words
- 65B. Admissibility of electronic records743 words
- 3. Interpretation-clause667 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item e51341fa-7528-4327-9a57-5d194e16db6f). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.