Explanation:

An accomplice is allowed to give evidence. As per Section 133, he is a competent witness against the accused and a conviction based on his evidence is not illegal merely because his evidence has not been corroborated. At the same time, Section 114 (1) contains a provision that allows the Court to presume that an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he iscorroborated in materialparticular. The idea is that since such a witness is not very reliable, his. statementsshould be or verified by someindependent witness This is interpreted as a.rule ofcaution to avoid mindless usage of evidence of accomplice for producing a conviction.In the case of R v.Baskerville, it was held that: .

1. It is not necessary thahere should be at  independent confirmation every detail of the crim related by the accomplice. It is sufficient if there is confirmation as to material circumstance of the crime.

2. There must at least be confirmation of someparticulars which show that he accused committed the crime

3. The corroboration must bean independent testimony. i.e one accomplice cannotcorroborate other.

4. The corroboration need not be by direct evidence maybe through circumstantia.evidence.[This rule has been confirmeaby the Supreme Courdin Rameshwar v. State oi Rajasthan, 1952.