1. A person concerned in the commission of crime, a partner in crime and associate in guilt is an accomplice. He takes part in the crime  and is privy to the criminal intent. A witness forced to pay on promise of doing or forbearing to do any official act by a public servant, is not a partner in crime and associate in guilt and therefore cannot be said to be an accomplice. It has long been the rule of practice, which has become equivalent to the rule of law, that the evidence of an accomplice is admissible but to be acted upon, ordinarily requires corroboration. The contractor who gave bribe, therefor, cannot be said to be an accomplice as the same was extorted from him. C. M. Sharma v. State of A.P (2010 15 SCC 1.2. An accomplice is a person who participates in the commission of the actual crime charged against an accused. He is to be  a particeps criminis. There are two cases, however, in which a person has been held to be an accomplice even if he is not a particeps criminis. Receivers of stolen property are taken to be accomplice of the thieves form whom they receive goods, on a trial for theft. Accomplices in previous similar offences committed by the accused on trial are deemed to be accomplices in the offence for which the accused having committed crimes of identical types on other occasions be admissible to prove the system and intent of the accused in committing the offence charged. R.K Dalmia  v. Delhi Admn., AIR 1962 SC 1821: (1963) 1 SCR 253: (1962) 2 Cri LJ 805: (1962) 32 Comp Cas 699.3 . It is generally understood that an accompplice  means a guilty associate  or partner in crime. An accomplice by becoming approver becomes a prosecution witness. Shankar v. State of T.N., (1994) 4 SCC 478: 1994 SCC (Cri) 1252. 

Accomplice and corrboration- The primary meaning of accomplice is any party to the crime charged and some one who aids and abets the commission of crime. The nature of corroboration is that  it is confirmatory evidence and it may consist of the evidence of second witness or of the person against whom it is required. Corroboration must connect or tend to connect the accused with the crime. when it is said that the corroborative evidence must implicate the it is not enough that particulars it means that is not enough that a price of evidence tends to confirm the truth of a part of the testimony to be corroborated. That evidence must confirm that part of the testimony which suggests that the crime was committed by the accused. If a witness says that the accused and he stole the sheep and he put the skins in that place would not corroborate the evidence of the witness as against the accused. But if the skins were found in the accused's house, this would corroborate because it would tend to confirm the statement that the accused had some hand in the theft. Sheshanna  Bhumanna Yadav v. State of Maharashtra, (1970) 2 SCC 122,125.