Accomplice/Approver

      

   .            Accomplice/Approver.

In absentia of any definition by QSO, 1984 …or …CrPc, it has been used many times but not defined explicitly. 

1-Dictionary Parlance. 

   An accomplice is one who is associated, in any mode whatsoever, with another especially in  any wrongful act.

      The Federal Shariat Court, in its judgment titled Haider Hussain vs. Govt. of Pakistan, interprets the word accomplice in the following words:

     “An accomplice is a co-accused, an associate or partner who has such relation to the criminal act that he [or she] can be jointly charged with the other accused.”

    2-Relevent Law:-    

        QSO 1984. Article 16 &129 illustration(b) .

         S. 337 CrPc. Tender of Pardon.

3). Categories /Kinds of Accomplice.

      i) Principle Offender.

        A) Who actually commits the crime.

      B) A person who abets or aids the commission of crime

     ii) Accessories Before the Crime.

A provides facilities or gives financial aid to commit the crime.

     iii)  Accessories after the crime / Crime.

 Who  protect or comfort the person who committed the crime in any mode .

iii)  Accessories after the crime.

who actually commits the crime, while principal offender of second degree is a person who abets or aids the commission of crime.

 

 

 

Credibility.

 An Accomplice is also known as guilty associate or an approver (in urdu SULTANI GAWAH). An accomplice is a co-accused until he is granted pardon then his position turns to be an approver.

An Accomplice  is unworthy of credit and is an unreliable person who betrayed co-accused fellows.So deserves to be punished with the other accused persons.

Why his Statement is Admissible.

To extract solid evidence against the greater offenders, the evidence of an accomplice is admissible,therefore, tendered a pardon under section 337 of the CrPC 1898 because the culprit gives evidence under a promise of pardon to disclose all details against other co accused.

Articles 16 and 129, illustration(b) of QSO ,

 Paradoxical or not?

Article 16.

*  An accomplice shall be a competent witness.       (Article 16 QSO)

* “An accomplice shall be a competent witness against an accused person, except

* In the case of an offence punishable with hadd;

* a conviction is not illegal merely pivoting  uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice.”

 

  *    No credibility.  illustration(b) of Article 129.

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

*Statement of the accomplice is not exculpatory.

A.16 QSO and A,129,Not Paradoxical.

Art.16 QSO is germane to the rule of law whilst the Art.129 ills(b) is  the rule of prudence. Therefore,  both are supplementary to each other.

Harmonize the two provisions.

       “In such a case of apparent conflict, the court is required to place such construction which may harmonize the two provisions.”

      Rule of construction, an accomplice is a competent witness and conviction may lawfully rest upon the uncorroborated testimony.

  The court is entitled to presume that no reliance can be placed on the evidence of an accomplice, unless that evidence is corroborated in material particulars.

* Reason behind the corroboration is that the accomplice is likely to swear falsely in order to shift guilt to others.

 Test (AIR 1957 SC 673),  Rule of a double-test was introduced. As per this rule, the accomplice’s evidence must show that he or she is a reliable witness and his or her evidence must receive sufficient corroboration.

Tendering pardon to an accomplice. (Section 337 CrPc) provides procedure

1-pardon is tendered to an accomplice by the prosecution .

2-Producing before the magistrate during investigation (pre-trial), inquiry or trial stage.

3-  In cases of hurt or Qatl, the victim or heirs of victim shall give consent for tendering such pardon by the Prosecution.

4-The Magistrate  records his statement. At this eve the accused is required to give full and true disclosure of all the circumstances of the incident within his knowledge so as to reach the real culprits of the offence.

5-If An accomplice is in custody, he shall remain in custody till finalization of the trial. Where the accomplice is on bail he shall continue to be on bail.

Powers of Appellate Courts.

        (Section 338 CrPc) 

The High Court or Court of Sessions at any time before judgment passed during trial may tender pardon to an accomplice or order the prosecution to tender pardon to an accomplice on the same conditions as provided in section 337 of the Code read with section 16 and 129 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984.

CONCLUSION.   An accomplice is a competent witness in tazir offences, but cannot be granted pardon in hadd offences.

Ref:-PLD 2020  SC  456.1969 SCMR 907.PLJ 1989 Cr.C. (Lah.) 397.                (SC) 1969 P.Cr.L.J. 1209