Section 133 IEA: Accomplice

Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 133 IEA at a Glance

Section 133 IEA deals with accomplice. From 1 July 2024 it is replaced by Section 138 BSA.

Now BSA

Section 133 IEA Bare Act Text

133. Accomplice
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.

Source: Section 133, Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 133 IEA in Simple Words

Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 lets an accomplice (a co-participant in the wrongdoing) give evidence against an accused person. It also says that a conviction based on such testimony alone is not illegal.

Under the Act, an accomplice is a competent witness (a person allowed by law to testify) against an accused person. Taking part in the same act does not disqualify the accomplice from testifying in court.

The Act also addresses uncorroborated (not supported by other evidence) testimony from an accomplice. A conviction is not unlawful simply because the decision rests on an accomplice giving uncorroborated testimony.

When Section 133 IEA Applies

Applies when an accomplice gives evidence in court as a witness against an accused person.
Applies when a conviction against the accused person rests on uncorroborated evidence given by an accomplice.

Example of Section 133 IEA

In 2021, a criminal trial in Bhopal examines a warehouse theft in which Priya is the accused person. Farhan, who acted as an accomplice in the theft, gives testimony in court describing how Priya carried out the theft. No other witness or record corroborates the testimony given by Farhan. Under Section 133 IEA, Farhan is a competent witness, and the conviction of Priya for the warehouse theft is not illegal solely because the finding rests on that uncorroborated testimony.

Section 133 IEA in the BSA

Section 133 IEA is now covered under Section 138 BSA.

Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 became Section 138 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 on 1 July 2024. The accomplice rule was reworded. The IEA said a conviction is "not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony" of an accomplice. The BSA says it is "not illegal if it proceeds upon the corroborated testimony" of an accomplice. Section 119 keeps the illustration that an accomplice "is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in material particulars".

View detailed comparison (IEA 133 vs BSA 138) →

FAQs on Section 133 IEA

What is Section 133 IEA?▼

Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states that an accomplice is a competent witness to testify against an accused person. It also provides that a conviction is not unlawful solely because the conviction rests on uncorroborated testimony given by an accomplice.

Can an accomplice give evidence against an accused person under Section 133 IEA?▼

Yes. Section 133 IEA makes an accomplice a competent witness to give evidence against an accused person in court.

Is a conviction illegal under Section 133 IEA if the testimony of the accomplice has no corroboration?▼

No. Section 133 IEA states that a conviction is not unlawful solely because the court relies on uncorroborated testimony given by an accomplice.

What is Section 133 IEA in BSA?▼

Section 138 BSA. From 1 July 2024, Section 138 BSA replaced Section 133 IEA and reworded the rule so that a conviction is not unlawful when the conviction rests on corroborated testimony from an accomplice.

Have questions about Section 133 IEA?

Ask NyayGuru for a plain language explanation, or how it applies to your situation.

Ask NyayGuru →

Disclaimer: This is for informational purposes only. Always consult a qualified advocate for legal advice.

Sources: Bare Act Text, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ·