New Delhi, May 29

As the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) comes into force, legal experts and criminal law practitioners are closely examining whether the new evidence code alters the long-standing position on accomplice testimony, which has traditionally occupied a complex and cautious space in Indian criminal jurisprudence.

One key area of scrutiny is Section 25 of the BSA, which corresponds to Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, relating to the evidentiary value of an accomplice’s testimony.

What the Law Says – Then and Now

Under the Indian Evidence Act, Section 133 made it clear that an accomplice is a competent witness, and a conviction is not illegal merely because it is based on uncorroborated accomplice testimony. However, judicial practice, especially post-judgment norms laid down in cases like R. v. Baskerville and followed in State v. Chelliah, maintained that courts must look for material corroboration to ensure reliability.

In the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, Section 25 continues to treat the accomplice as a competent witness. The text remains materially unchanged:

“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.”

However, what’s being debated is whether the BSA’s overall focus on procedural simplification and technological evidence could impact how courts assess such testimony in practice.

 Judicial Interpretation Continues to Rule

Legal commentators agree that while the statutory provision is retained, the real shift lies in interpretation and emphasis. In a post-BSA landscape, courts may be more inclined to integrate electronic records, digital trails, and surveillance data as part of the corroborative matrix, especially in cases of organized crime or economic offences.

“While the wording of the section remains identical, the manner of evaluating corroboration may expand,” says a Delhi-based criminal lawyer. “Judges may increasingly rely on metadata, CDRs, or transactional logs to assess whether an accomplice’s claim is supported by facts.”

 Why This Matters

Accomplice evidence is often pivotal in conspiracy cases, terror trials, drug syndicate busts, and white-collar crime, where the inner workings of the offence are only known to those involved.

The question of how much weight to give uncorroborated testimony—especially when it comes from a witness seeking leniency or pardon—remains a tightrope walk for courts balancing fairness and justice.
 The Bottom Line

There is no textual shift in the treatment of accomplice testimony under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. However, the judicial environment around corroboration is evolving, with technology and forensic data becoming more central in validating such claims.

Courts are expected to continue the cautious, corroboration-first approach, but they now have a wider toolkit to test the credibility of accomplice witnesses in the digital era.