Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

However, for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter the said resiling is frail and is required to be rejected

15. Firstly, on the ground that Baghel Singh, does not deny his authoring Ex.PK, therebys in terms of Section 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, thus barring and estopping him from leading oral evidence contrary to the recitals carried in Ex.PK, which admittedly became signatured by him, but makes the said denial to be idly and perfunctorily made.

16. Secondly, for the reason that when Ex.PK was tendered into evidence by Baghel Singh before the learned trial Judge concerned, whereafters it was also made a part of his examination-in-chief. Moreover, when subsequently he appended his signatures on his testification recorded on 28.04.1999. Therefore, he was required to be adhering to the contents of the provenly authored by him affidavit Ex.PK, rather than his resiling from the contents thereof. Primarily for the reason that Ex.PK was an affidavit sworn by him, whereupon the said affidavit, but was not an unsigned statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., before the police officer concerned. Therefore, the validly signatured statement on oath occurring in affidavit Ex.PK, especially when authorship thereof is not denied by him, did reiteratedly attract thereto the statutory bar envisaged in the provisions (supra), as carried in Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, whereupons he became estopped from renegings from the contents of his affidavit Ex.PK, authorship whereof remains undenied by him.