Accomplice
The accomplice rule. An accomplice is a competent witness against the accused; and a conviction is not illegal merely because it rests on his uncorroborated testimony — though prudence usually calls for corroboration.
How to read Section 138
An accomplice can testify against the accused, and a conviction on his evidence alone is legally valid — even so, courts ordinarily look for corroboration.
An accomplice — a participant in the crime — is a competent witness against the accused.
A conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds on his uncorroborated testimony — corroboration is not a rule of law.
Yet, as a rule of prudence (§ 119), the court may treat an accomplice as unworthy of credit unless corroborated in material particulars.
The bare Act
The section in its own words — two short propositions.
Competency. An accomplice shall be a competent witness against an accused person;
Legality of conviction. and a conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice.
In short: an accomplice — someone who took part in the very offence — is not shut out as a witness; he is competent to give evidence against the person he was in it with. And the law goes a step further: a conviction founded on such evidence is not illegal merely because the accomplice’s testimony stands uncorroborated. In other words, corroboration is not a legal requirement — that is the rule of law. But it must be read with the rule of prudence in § 119 (Court may presume facts, illustration on the accomplice): the court may presume an accomplice unworthy of credit unless he is corroborated in material particulars. Taken together, the settled position is that while a conviction on an accomplice’s uncorroborated word is legally valid, courts ordinarily look for corroboration before acting on it — corroboration is the rule of practice, not of law.
⚠ Text note: the source pasted read ‘not illegal if it proceeds upon the corroborated testimony’. That reverses the provision. The correct and long-settled text — restored here — is ‘not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice’.
→ This carries forward IEA 1872 § 133 — the accomplice is a competent witness; corroboration is not required by law.
Glossary
A person who took part in the crime for which the accused is tried.
One the law allows to be called and to give evidence.
The conviction is not void as a matter of law.
Corroboration is not a legal precondition to a valid conviction.
Evidence not supported by independent confirmation.
§ 138 (legality — no corroboration needed) read with § 119 (prudence — corroboration ordinarily sought).
The picture
Competent to testify, a valid basis for conviction — yet, by prudence, ordinarily looked at for corroboration.
The section, part by part
Tap a part — the picture-story tells it first; the word-by-word text and example follow.
the ruleCompetent to testify — and a valid basis for conviction
law vs prudence§ 138 (rule of law) meets § 119 (rule of prudence)
Connected provisions
Court may presume facts
Its illustration — an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless corroborated — is the rule of prudence beside this rule of law.
Witness not excused on self-incrimination
Often the accomplice-witness answers under compulsion — with use immunity for the compelled answer.
Number of witnesses
No particular number of witnesses is required to prove any fact — evidence is weighed, not counted.
IEA 1872, § 133
Carried forward — the accomplice is a competent witness; corroboration is not required by law.