Section 138 Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Accomplice

Section 138 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Accomplice

Official Bare Act Text

Override / Mandate Mens Rea (Intent) Actus Reus (Conduct) Punishment Limitation Monetary

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.

Statutory Defined Terms in this Section: (Click any term for official legal definition)

Court Sec 2(1)(a) Evidence Sec 2(1)(c) Fact Sec 2(1)(d)

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 138

Section 138 establishes that an Accomplice is a competent witness against an accused person, regulating the legal weight of accomplice testimony.

Operational Statutory Mechanism: However, this provision must be read strictly in juxtaposition with Section 114 Illustration (b), which establishes the rule of practice and prudence: that an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless corroborated in material particulars.
Core Legal Standard: The corroboration must be independent and connect the accused directly with the crime.

Prudent trial judges demand independent material corroboration before accepting approver depositions.

Key Landmark Precedents:

Bhuboni Sahu v. The King (1949) LR 76 IA 10: The Privy Council established the canonical standard: accomplice evidence is tainted evidence; the court should not convict on the sole testimony of an approver without independent corroboration in material particulars connecting the accused with the crime.
K. Hashim v. State of Tamil Nadu (2005) 1 SCC 237: Reaffirmed that while conviction on uncorroborated accomplice testimony is legally valid under Section 133, judicial prudence dictates that corroboration is almost universally required.
Ravinder Singh v. State of Haryana (1975) 3 SCC 742: Held that approver testimony must be independently evaluated for inherent reliability before searching for corroborative evidence.

Legal Commentary:

Section 138 handles the paradox of the turncoat witness. An approver who trades testimony for a pardon is inherently suspect, as they may falsely implicate enemies to save their own skin. Prudent trial judges demand independent material corroboration before accepting approver depositions.