Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Section 159 of the Evidence Act, provides as under:
"159. Refreshing memory.--A witness may, while under examination, refresh his memory by referring to any writing made by himself at the 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. The witness may also refer to any such writing made by any other person, and read by the witness within the time aforesaid, if when he read it he knew it to be correct. 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 to a copy of such document: Provided the Court be satisfied that there is sufficient reason for the non-production of the original. An expert may refresh his memory by reference to professional treatises".

` Further, search about the refreshing of memory by a witness took us to the judgment given by Court of Appeal in R.v. Da Silva, (1990) 90 Cr App R 233, in the law of evidence by Ratan Lal and Dheeraj Lal, the observation of the Court of Appeal has been quoted as under:

"In our judgment, therefore, it should be open to the judge, in the exercise of his discretion and in the interests of justice, to permit a witness who has begun to give evidence to refresh his memory from a statement made near to the time of events in question, even though it does not come within the definition of contemporaneous, provided he is satisfied:
" A witness in criminal proceedings may be permitted to refresh his memory either in the course of his evidence or before going into the witness box. In practice, it would be almost impossible for a court to control the extent to which witnesses refresh their memories before testifying, the testimony would become more a test of memory than of truthfulness if witnesses were deprived of the opportunity of checking their recollection beforehand by reference to statements or notes made at a time closer to the events in question. Any rule purporting to deny witnesses prior access to their statements would tend to create difficulties for honest witnesses but do little to hamper dishonest witnesses.
A document used by a witness to refresh his memory need not have been made by the witness personally, provided it was verified by him while the facts were relatively fresh in his memory. Where a witness has dictated a note to, for example, a police officer, he need not verify the original by inspecting it; it is enough if the officer reads back to the witness what he has written. Documents may be used to refresh memory even if they would not otherwise be admissible if tendered in evidence, and there seems to be nothing to prevent copies of original documents being used for this purpose.