Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
It is generally accepted that denying a party the opportunity to refer to such documents for memory refreshment would cause prejudice, and the law favors allowing such references with proper court approval ["Kondapally Srinivasa Reddy vs State of Telangana - Telangana"], ["Harchanda VS State of Rajasthan - Rajasthan"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
In summary: Yes, it is permissible for a de facto complainant or witness to refer to FIS or similar documents for memory refreshment during court examination, subject to court approval and the principles established under Indian Evidence Law.
In high-stakes criminal trials, witnesses often struggle to recall precise details months or years after events. A common question arises: Whether it is permissible to refer to FIS for the purpose of refreshing memory of the de facto complainant during examination before the Court? This issue touches on balancing fair trial principles with practical needs of testimony. Generally, courts in India permit such references under specific conditions, drawing from the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and CrPC provisions. This post delves into the legal framework, key judgments, and safeguards to ensure fairness. Note: This is general information, not specific legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
FIS, or First Information Statement (often akin to FIR or initial complaint), captures early accounts of incidents. Under Section 159 of the Indian Evidence Act, a witness may refresh their memory by referring to documents made at the time of the transaction or soon after, when facts were fresh. Courts consider this likely if the record was contemporaneous. . VS . - 2003 Supreme(Raj) 579
Refreshing memory.--A witness may while under examination, refresh his memory by time of the transaction concerning which he is questioned, or so soon afterwards that the Court considers it likely that the transaction was at that time fresh in his memory. . VS . - 2003 Supreme(Raj) 579
This provision extends to de facto complainants, allowing testimony based on document facts even without independent recollection, per Sections 159 and 160. In one case, an Investigation Officer was permitted to refer to the case file during examination-in-chief without legal violation. . VS . - 2003 Supreme(Raj) 579
It is generally permissible for courts to refer to FIS to refresh the de facto complainant's memory during examination, provided judicial discretion is exercised judiciously. This prevents trials from becoming memory tests and ensures justice. State of Karnataka VS K. Yarappa Reddy - 1999 8 Supreme 496
Key judicial finding: Evidence giving process should not bog down to memory tests of witnesses. An investigating officer must answer the questions in Court, as far as possible, only with reference to what he had recorded during investigation. Such records are the contemporaneous entries made by him and hence for refreshing his memory it is always advisable that he looks into those records before answering any question. State of Karnataka VS K. Yarappa Reddy - 1999 8 Supreme 496
This principle applies to witnesses, including complainants. Courts acknowledge FIS utility in aiding recall, a standard practice if done transparently. Ahammed Nizar C. H. VS State Of Kerala Rep. By Public Prosecutor - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 1113State of Karnataka VS K. Yarappa Reddy - 1999 8 Supreme 496
CrPC Section 311 empowers courts to summon, recall, or re-examine witnesses to avoid justice failure: The object of the Section 311 is to prevent failure of justice on account of a mistake of either party to bring on record valuable evidence or leaving an ambiguity in the statements of the witnesses. State of Karnataka VS K. Yarappa Reddy - 1999 8 Supreme 496
Courts hold broad discretion (may in first part of Section 311, shall in second), but must apply it fairly. References to FIS are allowed if they don't unduly influence or lead the witness. Objections are often unfounded if transparent. 00100004375
In practice:- Witnesses, especially Investigating Officers, routinely use records like police diaries or FIS.- For de facto complainants, courts permit FIS reference to clarify ambiguities, maintaining credibility.
However, stealthy refreshing outside court is impermissible. One ruling stressed: Refreshing the memory has to be done before the Court and not stealthily. Jivandhar VS State of Maharashtra - 2015 Supreme(Bom) 2149Vikram Jija Gite VS State of Maharashtra - 2015 Supreme(Bom) 993
In a corruption case, a witness reading panchanama xerox copies privately before testifying was criticized, as it must occur in court presence. Vikram Jija Gite VS State of Maharashtra - 2015 Supreme(Bom) 993
While permissible, strict safeguards apply:- No undue influence: Process shouldn't lead the witness or compromise independence. State of Karnataka VS K. Yarappa Reddy - 1999 8 Supreme 496- Transparency: Witness confirms/denies record contents openly.- Credibility protection: Witness retains right to own memory; no compulsion to adopt FIS verbatim.- Court permission: Required for document reference. . VS . - 2003 Supreme(Raj) 579
Exceptions include:- Accused can't insist on police notes for officer's refreshment if statutorily barred (e.g., Section 172 CrPC). Empress VS Kali Churn Chunari - 1881 Supreme(Cal) 87- The accused had no right to insist that the Police diary... be sent for or referred to for the purpose of refreshing the Police officer's memory. Empress VS Kali Churn Chunari - 1881 Supreme(Cal) 87
Police diaries under CrPC aren't evidence but aid memory judiciously. Usha R. Patwari, Wife of R. V. Patwari VS Karnataka Lokayuktha, Represented by its Deputy Superintendent of Police - 2016 Supreme(Kar) 511
In dowry cases, evidence mode compliance is key; omissions can prejudice defense. RAJESH JHA VS STATE OF U. P. - 2015 Supreme(All) 949
These rulings show consistent support for controlled FIS use.
Proper safeguards maintain trial integrity.
Referring to FIS to refresh a de facto complainant's memory is typically permissible and aids accurate testimony, rooted in Evidence Act Sections 159-160 and CrPC 311. However, it demands judicial caution to protect fairness, witness independence, and credibility. State of Karnataka VS K. Yarappa Reddy - 1999 8 Supreme 496. VS . - 2003 Supreme(Raj) 579
Key Takeaways:- Permissible with discretion: Yes, for memory refresh if contemporaneous and court-approved.- Safeguards essential: No leading, transparent process, in-court only.- Practice standard: Avoids memory test pitfalls.- Limitations: No stealthy use; accused rights respected.
This practice promotes justice but varies by facts. Always seek professional legal counsel. For more on evidence law, explore our blog.
#IndianEvidenceAct #CourtProcedure #LegalInsights
The petitioner, who is the de facto complainant, seeks the Court’s permission to refer to the documents on record for the purpose of refreshing his memory. It is undisputed that the transaction in question took place in the year 2008, and a considerable period of time has since elapsed. ... Refreshing memory. ... Learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly submits that the statutory provision itself permits a witness to peruse documents for the purpose#HL_EN....
The petitioner, who is the de facto complainant, seeks the Court’s permission to refer to the documents on record for the purpose of refreshing his memory. It is undisputed that the transaction in question took place in the year 2008, and a considerable period of time has since elapsed. ... Refreshing memory. ... Learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly submits that the statutory provision itself permits a witness to peruse documents for the purpose#HL_EN....
The petitioner, who is the de facto complainant, seeks the Court’s permission to refer to the documents on record for the purpose of refreshing his memory. It is undisputed that the transaction in question took place in the year 2008, and a considerable period of time has since elapsed. ... Refreshing memory. ... Learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly submits that the statutory provision itself permits a witness to peruse documents for the purpose#HL_EN....
recorded under sec. 164 Cr.P.C. for the purpose of refreshing the memory of the witness. ... It is, therefore, not possible for this Court to give any decision whether the particular statement which the prosecution wanted to put in the hands of the witness for the purpose of refreshing his memory was such as could be made use of under sec. 159 or 160 of the Indian Evidence Act. ... ... Whenever a witness may refresh his memory by r....
Refreshing memory. ... Such Criminal Court may permit the Police officer who made the special diary to look at it for the purpose of refreshing his memory or may use the special diary for the purpose of contradicting such police officer. ... ... iii) such criminal court may permit the police officer who made the case diary to look at it for the purpose of refreshing his memory or may use the case....
Refreshing memory.--A witness may while under examination, refresh his memory by time of the transaction concerning which he is questioned, or so soon afterwards that the Court considers it likely that the transaction was at that time fresh in his memory. ... ... When witness may use copy of document to refresh memory-Whenever a witness may refresh his memory by reference to any document, he may, with the permission of the Court, refer#HL_....
Refreshing memory.–A witness may while under examination, refresh his memory by time of the transaction concerning which he is questioned, or so soon afterwards that the Court considers it likely that the transaction was at that time fresh in his memory. ... ... When witness may use copy of document to refresh memory- Whenever a witness may refresh his memory by reference to any document, he may, with the permission of the Court, refer#HL_....
, if not in Court, shall be sent for, or if it be in Court shall be referred to for the purpose of refreshing the Police officer's memory. ... But the question now before us is not, whether the witness can be cross-examined as to his previous statement, nor whether the Police officer may be examined to contradict him, nor whether the officer may refer to his diary; but the question is, whether the prisoner has a ri....
his memory. ... his memory. ... his memory. ... does not use the same for refreshing his memory, then the question of contradicting such police officer, then the provisions p style="position:absolute;white-space
his memory. ... his memory. ... his memory. ... does not use the same for refreshing his memory, then the question of contradicting such police officer, then the provisions p style="position:absolute;white-space
It is further clear under Section 172(1) CrPC, that he shall make an entry in the diary only when he registers a case and begins the investigation. In Niranjan Singh and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1957 SC 142, it was urged that there was failure to comply with para 109 of Chapter 11 of U.P. Police Regulation, which lays down that when the investigation is closed for the day, a copy of the case diary should be sent to the superior police officer and such failure amounted to infraction of the rule of law. Section 172(3) further makes it clear that it is for the purpose of ....
In this background we propose to consider whether a witness is entitled for refreshing his memory before or during his examination or not. Section 159 of the Evidence Act, provides as under: The statement given on oath with the help of a note, prepared for the purpose appears to be contra indicated for the purpose.
Such is the view of learned single Judge of this court in Sharad v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2006 (2) Mh LJ (Cri) 1210 and in Criminal Appeal No. 408 of 2012 (Suresh v. State of Maharashtra) delivered by the Division Bench (Coram : B. R.Gawai and V. M. Deshpande, JJ.) In the present case, there is nothing available on record to show that Kashinath (PW 2) has refreshed his memory by going through the panchanama (Exh.29) in the presence of the court. Refreshing memory by the witness cannot have any objection, however, such reading of a document for refreshing the memory has ....
Such is the view of learned Single Judge of this court in Sharad vs State of Maharashtra, reported in 2006 (2) Mh.L.J.(Cri.) 1210 and in Criminal Appeal No. 408 of 2012 [Suresh vs State of Maharashtra] delivered by the Division Bench (Coram : B.R. Gawai and V.M. Deshpande, JJ.) Refreshing memory by the witness cannot have any objection, however, such reading of a document for refreshing the memory has to be done in the presence of the court. In the present case, there is nothing available on record to show that Kashinath (PW 2) has refreshed his memory by going through the ....
From the aforesaid version of P.W. 2 Vaijinath Kathar, it is clear that the xerox copies of the panchanamas were supplied to him which would mean that he has refreshed his memory stealthily. Refreshing the memory has to be done before the Court and not stealthily. Thus, it is also clear that he had read those three panchanamas stealthily and not in the presence of the Court. It is impermissible for a witness to stealthily refresh his memory before entering the Court and deposing about the entire evidence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
