Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"At this stage witness narrated that as he is performing his all acts by left hand which are normally performed by right hand,he is still in confused stated of mind about the pant pocket where the amount was kept by accused.
He further submitted that in order to refresh his memory he be permitted to read his previous writing. Ld. Adv. Juvekar, holding for Adv.Kulkarni, strongly objected for permitting the witness to refresh his memory.
Considering that as it is explained by the witness he is lefty such sort of confusion can be there, therefore there is no harm in permitting the witness to Tilak 46/67 APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc go through his previous writing to refresh his memory. The defence has right to cross examined the witness on this point. The supplementary statement of complainant is provided to the complainant for reading".
This is indeed shocking. In the first place, the view of the learned Special Judge that since the witness is lefty, that sort of confusion could be there, is baseless without any scientific data or research.
Further, allowing a witness to read his supplementary statement recorded by the police in the course of investigation, for refreshing his memory, is in express violation of the provisions of section 162 of the Code. Apart from this, there was no question of 'refreshing memory', as memory can be refreshed only in the circumstances mentioned in section 159 of the Evidence Act, and there was no evidence that the conditions requisite for permitting the complainant to refer to his supplementary statement recorded by the police had been fulfilled. This is apart from the express bar created by section 162 of the Code, which would over-ride the provisions of section 159 of the Evidence Act. The learned Special Judge, thereafter, recorded the evidence of the complainant as to the happenings, whereupon the complainant stated that the appellant was holding one register in his left hand, he kept the Tilak 47/67 APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc said register in his right arm-pit, then accepted the said amount by his left hand, and transferred the same in his right hand, and then by his right hand, kept the said amount in his right pant pocket.
However, surprisingly, this version, which he advanced supposedly after refreshing his memory on reading his supplementary statement, is not in consonance with his supplementary statement.

56 According to the complainant, as soon as the tainted amount was delivered to the appellant, he gave the pre-

determined signal to the raiding party. He has specifically used the word 'immediately' in describing the happening. However, Shringare states that after the amount was handed over, conversation took place between the complainant and the appellant. Shringare has even stated as to what the conversation was viz. that the complainant enquired with the appellant as to whether the appellant would keep the amount of Rs.1,000/- for himself, or whether he would be giving it to some other persons;