Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The accused Vimal Singh, Dharmendra Shrivas and Jagdish Garg were absconding and therefore, charge sheet under Section 299 of Cr.P.C. was filed against the above mentioned accused persons.

4. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present appeal in short are that the Registry of the High Court, Gwalior Bench, suspected that some stamp papers which have been filed by way of Court fee appears to be counterfeited. Therefore, the Treasury Office, was requested to verify the same. On verification, the said stamp papers were found to be counterfeited. Therefore, a request was made CRA-6426/17, 124/18, 181/18 & 259/18 to the Collector, Gwalior to look into the matter. The Add. Collector, Gwalior, in its turn wrote a letter to the Superintendent of Police for investigation, and the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior, forwarded the matter to the Police Station University, which was received by the S.H.O., on 19-3-2007, containing the allegations that it appears that Vinod Singh Yadav, the Stamp Vendor, is most probably involved in making of forged stamp papers. Therefore, the police was directed to look into the matter and if so required, to lodge the F.I.R. and inform the Principal Registrar of this High Court.

30. The appellant Vinod Verma, has examined himself as Defence Witness No.1 and has stated that he is an Advocate by profession and is a practicising lawyer. He was called by the police personals at Police Station University. N.K. Upadhayaya (P.W.30) had never CRA-6426/17, 124/18, 181/18 & 259/18 visited his house nor any stamp paper was seized from his possession at his house and the entire proceedings against him is forged. However, in his evidence, this witness has not stated that no stamp paper was ever seized from his possession. The seizure memo Ex. P.11 bears the signature of this witness which has not been explained by him. Once, an accused has appeared as a witness, then he is required to explain each and every circumstance. When an accused examines himself as a defence witness, then he has to be treated like any other prosecution or defence witness and any admission made by the accused as a defence witness would certainly amount to an admission of incriminating material and his evidence may go against him. It can be safely said that by filing an application under Section 315 of Cr.P.C. to appear as a defence witness, the accused, impliedly waives his rights as an accused and he is liable to suffer the consequences of his action if the statements in his evidence are found to be self-criminative. Once, an accused decides to appear as defence witness, then he enjoys the status of like any other witness and in view of Section 132 of Evidence, he cannot claim any immunity to answer a question. Even leading questions tending to implicate him can also be put in the cross examination. Thus, after having appeared as a defence witness, the entire burden was on the appellant Vinod Verma, to explain all the incriminating circumstances against him. Vinod Verma (D.W.1) has merely stated that the Stamp Papers were not CRA-6426/17, 124/18, 181/18 & 259/18 seized at his house, however, he has not stated that no Stamp paper was seized from him at all. He has merely stated that he was called in the Police Station University but has not stated that he was forced to sign the seizure memo. It is further submitted by the Counsel for the appellant Vinod Verma, that since, the signatures of the appellant Vinod Verma were obtained on the seizure memo Ex. P.11, therefore, it is hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C., and even if the appellant as defence witness has not explained his signatures on the seizure memo, Ex. P.11, it cannot be said that the appellant has failed to explain an incriminating circumstance. Considered the submission made by the Counsel for the appellant Vinod Verma.