Before Muhammad Jan and M. R. Kayani, JJ.
THE CROWN–Appellant
versus
GHULAM RASUL and others – Respondents

Criminal Appeal No. 356 of 1949, decided on 1st February 1950 from the order of Sessions Judge, Gujranwala at Gujrat.

Evidence Act (I of 1872). Ss. 114 (b), 133 – Accomplice – Who is – Witness present at crime but giving information only at arrival of police – Whether no better than.

An accomplice means a guilty associate or partner in a crime; a person who is connected with the offence, or who makes admissions of facts showing that he had a conscious hand in it.

Where a witness is not concerned with the commission of the crime he cannot be said to be an accomplice and his statement needs no corroboration. [p. 131].

The witness in this case was a woman, an inmate of the house where the murder was committed and the wife of one of the accused, the latter’s father and brothers being the co-accused. Some 15 days after the occurrence she made a statement regarding the crime on the arrival of the police, in the course of which she said that she had been warned by her husband and his brother that if she raised an alarm she would be done to death.

Vir Sen Sawhney, for Appellant.
Muhammad Shafi, for Respondent.