Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. It is submitted that the Court concerned failed to appreciate that the petitioner has merely asked the IO in his cross-examination that whether he wanted to refresh his memory by checking his case diary during the cross- examination, which is not in derogation of Section 172 of the Code. In light of the same, the petitioner has referred to certain questions i.e., Question Nos. 3,7,9 and 10 of the cross-examination of IO, which is annexed as Annexure P-6 to the instant petition.

9. It is submitted that the Court concerned has erred in appreciating Section 172 of the Code, wherein it does not disallow queries pertaining to the contents of the case diary, but merely prohibits the accused and its agents to call for the same or peruse its contents. It is submitted that the petitioner did not seek to peruse the contents of the case diary, but simply asked the IO whether he wishes to peruse the case diary to refresh his memory.

―10. Coming to the use of police diary by the accused, sub- section (3) of Section 172 clearly lays down that neither the accused nor his agents shall be entitled to call for such diaries nor he or they may be entitled to see them merely because they are referred to by the Court. But, in case the police officer uses the entries in the diaries to refresh his memory or if the Court uses them for the purpose of contradicting such police officer, then the provisions of Sections 145 and 161, as the case may be, of the Evidence Act would apply. Section 145 of the Evidence Act provides for cross-examination of a witness as to the previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing and if it was intended to contradict him in writing, his attention must be called to those portions which are to be used for the purpose of contradiction. Section 161 deals with the adverse party's right as to the writing used to refresh memory. It can, therefore, be seen that, the right of the accused to cross- examine the police officer with reference to the entries in the police diary is very much limited in extent and even that limited scope arises only when the Court uses the entries to contradict This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/03/2025 at 22:45:33 the police officer or when the police officer uses it for refreshing his memory.‖

17. Coming to the instant case, the perusal of Annexure P-6, wherein cross-examination of IO is recorded, reveals that the petitioner's counsel has repeatedly asked questions pertaining to the details of the case diary, thereby intending to know the contents of the same, which is contrary to the provision of Section 172 of the Code. It further reveals that the IO has not sought to examine the contents of the case diary to refresh his memory, however, it is the petitioner's counsel who has repeatedly asked questions pertaining to the contents of the case diary, with an intention to lead the IO to peruse the contents thereof, thereby attaining requisite information against the accused, which is opposed by Section 172 of the Code.