Indian evidence act,1872
aparna garg
(Querist) 11 June 2014
This query is : Resolved
What is the basic point of difference between the term "accomplice" used under section 133 r/w 114 ii(b)and the term "co-accused" used under section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 ?
Or are they one of the same things.
Why Indian Evidence Act has used the word "accomplice", instead it could have used the word "approver" because if we go into depth of section 133 r/w 114 ill(b) it appears as if it is the accomplice ( or I have a doubt that ,can I use the word co-accused here ) who has turned approver, the evidentiary value of whom is actually in question .
Please help me in clarifying this concept through an example on these two terms.
Thanks in advance to our panel of experts.
aparna garg
(Querist) 11 June 2014
Does accomplice also mean that one who (if compared from co-accused u/s 30 of the Act )need not be charged under the same offence and need not have been jointly tried with his other co-accused ? My biggest confusion is that both (i.e; accomplice as well as accomplice) are the participators in the commission of crime ,then why the Act used different terminologies ?
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 15 June 2014
academic query, you may have discussion with fellow advocates in the bar room to clarify such issues.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 17 June 2014
This is not a fit query to be posted in this section of LCI.
