Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11] The above quoted portion clearly shows that before deposing in the Court, the shadow witness (PW-2) had carried copies of his statement and the panchanama, part of which were underlined in red ink. This clearly shows that said witness refreshed his memory before standing in the witness box for deposing in support of the prosecution case.

12] In the case of Suresh Ashtankar (supra), a Division Bench of this Court, in this context, held as follows :-

32. In para 10 of the said reported Judgment, the learned Single Judge found that Pundlik (PW1) has admitted that the police had read over his statement to him and also told him to tender the evidence as per his statement. The learned Single Judge has observed thus :

::: Uploaded on - 23/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2018 00:42:05 :::
10 170718 apeal 116.04. judg..odt "There would indeed be nothing wrong in the witness refreshing his memory, but that ought to be done before the Court and not outside the Court. In order to test the veracity of a witness, he would be required to recollect the incident out of his own memory and should he falter on some material aspect, he could be allowed to refresh his memory with reference to the contemporaneous records of the incident created by the police.

It would not be permissible for such witness to stealthily refresh his memory before entering the Court and deposing about the entire evidence giving minute details as if he was reeling them out from his memory.

Therefore, the objection to the reliability of evidence of PW 2 Prabhakar taken by learned Counsel for the appellant is valid."