Keterangan yang dikemukakan oleh rakan sejenayah di Mahkamah adalah boleh diterima pakai untuk mensabitkan tertuduh. Seksyen 133 Akta Keterangan 1950 memperuntukkan bahawa:
“133. 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”.
Namun, ianya bergantung kepada fakta setiap kes. Di dalam kes Chong Chee Lion v. PP  2 MLJ 797, Hakim Mahkamah Rayun telah merujuk Sarkar on Evidence (14th Ed) m/s 1924 terdapat beberapa prinsip untuk membolehkan mahkamah menolak keterangan rakan sejenayah iaitu:
1) Because an accomplice is likely to swear falsely in order to shift the guilt from himself
2) Because an accomplice being a participator in crime, and consequently an immoral person, is likely to disregard the sanction of an oath
3) Because an accomplice gives his evidence under the promise of a pardon, or in the expectation of an implied pardon; if he discloses all he knows against those whom he acted criminally and this hope would lead him to favour the prosecution.
Kes Ferose bin Tamure Mohamad Khan v. PP  6 MLJ 277 telah menyatakan bahawa:
“ As a starting point, s 133 of the Evidence Act 1950 provides that an accomplice is a competent witness against an accused person, and that a conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. Illustration (b) of s 114 of the same Act provides that the court may presume that an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless he is corroborated in material particulars. In respect of the nature and extent of the corroboration, Raja Azlan Shah CJM (as His Majesty then was) in Yap Ee Kong & Anor v Public Prosecutor  1 MLJ 144 (at p 146) formulated the rules as follows:
(1) There should be some independent confirmation tending to connect the accused with the offence although it is not necessary that there should be independent confirmation of every material circumstance;
(2) The independent evidence must not only make it safe to believe that a crime was committed but must in some way reasonably connect or tend to connect the accused with it by confirming in some material particulars the testimony of the accomplice; and
(3) The corroboration must come from independent sources, thus bringing out the rule that ordinarily the testimony of an accomplice would not be sufficient to corroborate that of another.”
Oleh itu, jelas bahawa keterangan yang diberikan oleh rakan sejenayah boleh diterima pakai namun tertakluk kepada fakta kes dan prinsip perundangan sedia ada. Mahkamah juga perlu berhati-hati dalam menerima keterangan rakan sejenayah dan mempertimbangkan keperluan keterangan sokongan.
Subang Jaya, Selangor