Accomplice
Accomplice is a person who in fact participates in crime--Informer is one who catches bribe taker-- no corroborations of the statement of the informer is necessary as is required for an accomplice. Zafar Ali Vs. State (1962) 14 DLR (SC) 174 1962 PLD (SC) 320.
Accomplice's evidence--Corroboration of-- caution against nasty interference. A Quader Vs. State (1956) 8 DLR (SC) 165.
Corroboration of an interested witness is not necessarily of same probative value as in the case of an accomplice. Nazir Vs. State (1962) 14 DLR (SC) 159
Accomplice is a person who in fact participates in crime-Informer is one who catches bribe-taker-No corroboration of the statement of the 'informer is necessary as is required for an 'accomplice'. Zafar Ali Vs. State (1962) 14 DLR (SC) 174: 1962 PLD (SC) 320.
Accomplice's evidence-corroboration.
Corroboration of the evidence of an accomplice in material particulars does not mean that the independent evidence by itself must be sufficient, both as to the corpus delicti and as to the identity of the accused, for the purpose of establishing his guilt.
All that is required is that the corroborative evidence should indicate that the story given out by the approver is substantially true. The main evidence is that of the approver's-the corroborative evidence lends support to it by showing that it is not untrue, Nur Alt Gazi Vs. State (1961) 13 DLR 740: 1962 PLD (Dac) 249
Accomplices- Confession of a co-accused under section 30 stands on the same footing as that of an accomplice' under section 133. State Vs. Bad- sha Khan (1958) 10 DLR 580.
Mere acceptance of a business deal brought about by another person does not make the acceptor an accomplice. Abdul Monsur Ahmed Vs. State (1961) 13 DLR 353: 1960 PLD (Dac) 753.
Evidence of accomplice or bribe-giver.
It is true that corroboration is not required in every minute detail or particulars of the evidence of an accomplice or bribe-giver, but it is certain that on two broad points such corroboration is absolutely essential, namely, (1) as to the implication of the accused and (2) as to the offence itself. Osimuddin Sarkar Vs. State (1961) 13 DLR 197: 1961 PLD (Dac.) 798.
Conviction on the evidence of an accomplice-Principles to follow.
Though a conviction founded upon the evidence of an accomplice supported by the confession of a co-accused is justifiable in law under section 133, nevertheless the Courts should be slow to depart from the rule of prudence, which required some indo- pendent evidence implicating the particular accused, Bhubani Shahu Vs. King (1950) 2 DLR (PC) 39.
If the view was ever taken that corroborative evidence must, apart from the testimony of the accomplice, prove that the accused committed or was connected with the crime, it must be deemed to run counter to the principle governing the corroboration of accomplice's testimony, Ishaq Vs. Crown (1955) 7 DLR (FC) 37
An accomplice cannot corroborate himself.
The statement made by an approver under sec- Lion 164 plainly does not amount to the corroboration in material particulars which the Court requires in relation to the evidence of accomplice. An accomplice cannot corroborate himself; tainted evidence does not lose its taint by repetition. (1950) 2 DLR (PC) 39
