COMPETENCY OF AN ACCOMPLICE WITNESS:   EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF THE STATEMENT OF AN ACCOMPLICE:

PRELIMINARY NOTE:
In the law of evidence, the testimony of an accomplice is considered worthy of credit against his co-accused only if it is corroborated in material particulars. However, it cannot be declared illegal merely on the basis of being uncorroborated.

RELEVANT PROVISIONS AND LAW:

• Article 16 and Illustration (b) of Article 129 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984

• Sections 337–339 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898

MEANING OF AN ACCOMPLICE:
An accomplice means:

• A guilty associate or partner in crime

• A person believed to have participated in the offence

• A person who is in some way connected with the offence in question

• A person who has made admissions of facts showing that he had a conscious hand in the offence

COMPETENCY OF AN ACCOMPLICE WITNESS
(or: An Accomplice is Unworthy of Credit Unless Corroborated in Material Evidence)

Article 16 of the Q.S.O. 1984 provides the rule of necessity, which states:

"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."

Exception:
In the case of an offence punishable with Hadd:

• [1992 P.Cr.L.J. 171] – “Evidence of accomplice against co-accused is inadmissible only in cases of Hadd and Qisas, though it is admissible in cases relating to offences liable to Tazir.”

However, as a rule of prudence, Article 129 illustration (b) provides:

“An accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in material particulars.”

BASIS OF CORROBORATION:
The need and weight of corroboration depend upon:
a) The circumstances of the case
b) The nature of the offence
c) The character of the accomplice
d) The degree of suspicion attached to his testimony
e) The motive of the accomplice to falsely implicate the accused

EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF THE STATEMENT OF AN ACCOMPLICE:
The testimony of an accomplice is a weak piece of evidence if uncorroborated. It must be corroborated in material particulars to be relied upon with confidence, although the court may still base a conviction on such evidence.

CONCLUSION:
From the above legal framework, it is clear that:

• An accomplice is a competent witness, except in Hadd cases

• Conviction is not illegal merely because it is based on uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice

• However, as a rule of prudence, the courts seek corroboration in material particulars to support the accomplice's testimony

Relevant Case Law:

• [1993 SCMR 785] – “Conviction can be recorded on the basis of the evidence of an accomplice, but the court, as a rule of prudence, seeks corroboration in material particulars.”