Section 114 illustration (b) of the Evidence Act provides that “the court may presume that an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless he is corroborated in material particulars”. But Section 133 of the same Act provides that “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”. How would you reconcile these two provisions.   (5 marks)