Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

State vs Bhupender Singh on 28 March, 2007 1 IN THE COURT OF SH V

deposed on his own volition but he had deposed only after refreshing his memory from the judicial file. 28. Section 159 of Indian Evidence ... permits a witness while under examination to refresh his memory by referring to any writing made by himself at the time of transaction concerning which

that recovery was effected from the police station but after he refreshed his memory which he has the right under law he stated that recovery ... concerned that has been clarified by APP that IO after refreshing memory fully supported the prosecution story and corroborated other witnesses. Non joining of public

that recovery was effected from the police station but after he refreshed his memory which he has the right under law he stated that recovery ... concerned that has been clarified by APP that IO after refreshing memory fully supported the prosecution story and corroborated other witnesses. Non joining of public

evidence of the recorded transaction by seeing it so as to refresh their memory under Section 159 of the Evidence Act. 356.1. All the necessary

investigation to him. After going through the police file and refreshing his memory, he had deposed that statement of Pawan Kumar and Dinesh Kumar were

court. TIP is conducted only to channelize the investigation and to refresh the memory of the victim. 25) In the matter of Sidhartha Vashisht

accused namely Sushil Kumar. During the course of his testimony, after refreshing his memory, PW7 deposed that on 05.10.2005, he had received call vide

State Vs Mohd. Daud & Others 13 of 17 permission to refresh his memory by the Court. In the DD entry it is written that

this backdrop, it was quite natural for any witness to refresh his memory and thus, nothing material illegality has been found in the said action