Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which of the

Solution

Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act expressly provides that an accomplice shall be a competent witness against an accused person. The section further states that a conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. However, courts ordinarily apply a rule of prudence drawn from Illustration (b) to Section 114 and generally look for material corroboration before relying on accomplice evidence. So, the evidence is legally admissible and can sustain a conviction, but judicial practice treats it with caution because an accomplice may have motives to shift blame or secure personal advantage. This distinction between legal competence under Section 133 and prudential caution under Section 114 is a classic exam point under the Evidence Act.