2011 Act. In this case, the Apex Court held that since an Accomplice himself is a Suspect Witness, which fact itself requires corroboration of his testimony, it is not for the Trial Judge to pick and choose which part of his evidence could be believed and which part requires Corroboration. Thus, though the Court can convict once it is satisfied that the Accomplice’s Evidence is reliable without corroboration, if the Court is in doubt as to the truth of the evidence of an Accomplice, it is unsafe to convict based on any part of that evidence, for once lie in his evidence makes the whole of his evidence suspect. SARKAR ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW on the Gist of Law Relating to Corroboration of Accomplice Evidence, stated as Settled Law that Accomplice Evidence must be corroborated in Material Particulars although such evidence need not be sufficient by itself to prove the Guilt of the Defendant. See the Case of AMBIKA VS R; ABDUL MAJID VS R; BISHNUPADA VS R; DESMINATHAN VS S, A 1957 SC 340. The result of the Decisions appears to be that – 1. There must be corroboration as to – (a) the Commission (corpus delicti) and Circumstances of the Crime; (b) the Identity of each of the one of the Defendant; and (c) Actual Participation of each of the Defendant in the Crime, i.e., “the confirmation should be as to some matter which goes to connect the Prisoner with the transaction [per GURNEY B. in R VS DYKE, 8 C & P 261]. Evidence necessary for Corroboration must proceed from an 2. independent and reliable source and therefore evidence of one Accomplice is not available as corroboration of another. 3. Corroboration need not be Direct Evidence of Commission of Crime it may be Circumstantial. 4. Corroboration must be in regard to Material Particulars i.e., it is not enough if it shows that the Accomplice told the truth in matters unconnected with the Guilt of the Defendant. 5. The Evidence of an Accessory after the Fact must be corroborated in the same way as the Evidence of an Accomplice [MAHADEO VS. R, A 1936 PC 242]. 55