Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: memory refresh in Vijay Ravi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 March, 2025Matching Fragments
(3) Neither the accused nor his agents shall be entitled to call for such diaries, nor shall he or they be entitled to see them merely because they are referred to by the Court; but, if they are used by the police officer who made them to refresh his memory, or if the Court uses them for the purpose of contradicting such police officer, the provisions of section 161 or section 145, as the case may be, of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), shall apply."
36. Further, it is the responsibility and duty of the Investigating Officer to make due recording in the case diary but there is no corresponding right under sub-section (3) of Section 172 of CrPC for accused to seek production of such diaries, or to peruse them, except in a case where they are used by a police officer maintaining them to refresh his memory, or in a case where the court uses them for the purpose of contradicting the police officer. In such a case, the provision of Section 145 or Section 161, as the case may be, of the Evidence Act, shall apply.
39. In other words, in case if the Court does not use such entries for the purpose of contradicting the police officer or if the police officer does not use the same for refreshing his memory, then the question of the accused getting any right to use entries even to that limited extent does not arise. The accused persons cannot force the police officer to refresh his memory during his examination in the Court by referring to the entries in the police diary.
40. It needs to refer herein that Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act consists of two limbs. It is provided in the first limb of Section 145 that a witness may be cross-examined as to the previous statements made by him without such writing being shown to him. But the Second limb provides that, if it is intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention must before writing can be proved, be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him. Sections 155 (3) and 145 of Indian Evidence Act deal with the different aspects of the same matter and should, therefore, be read together.
"We are of the opinion that the provision embodied in sub- section (3) of Section 172 of the CrPC cannot be characterised as unreasonable or arbitrary. Under sub-section (2) of Section 172 CrPC the court itself has the unfettered power to examine the entries in the diaries. This is a very important safeguard. The legislature has reposed complete trust in the court which is conducting the inquiry or the trial. It has empowered the court to call for any such relevant case diary; if there is any inconsistency or contradiction arising in the context of the case diary the court can use the entries for the purpose of contradicting the police officer as provided in sub-section (3) of Section 172 of the CrPC. Ultimately there can be no better custodian or guardian of the interest of justice than the court trying the case. No court will deny to itself the power to make use of the entries in the diary to the advantage of the accused by contradicting the police officer with reference to the contents of the diaries. In view of this safeguard, the charge of unreasonableness or arbitrariness cannot stand scrutiny. The petitioners claim an unfettered right to make roving inspection of the entries in the case diary regardless of whether these entries are used by the police officer concerned to refresh his memory or regardless of the fact whether the court has used these entries for the purpose of contradicting such police officer. It cannot be said that unless such unfettered right is conferred and recognised, the embargo engrafted in sub-section (3) of Section 172 of the CrPC would fail to meet the test of reasonableness. For instance in the case diary there might be a note as regards the identity of the informant who gave some information which resulted in investigation into a particular aspect. Public interest demands that such an entry is not made available to the accused for it might endanger the safety of the informants and it might deter the informants from giving any information to assist the investigating agency, as observed in Mohinder Singh v. Emperor: