Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Statement of accused outside Court - Refreshing memory. Normally, a police officer should reproduce the contents of the statement made by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act in Court by refreshing his memory under s. 159 of the Evidence Act from the memo earlier prepared thereof by him at the time the statement had been made to him or in his presence and which was recorded at the same time or soon after the making of it. Where the police officer swears that he does not remember the exact words used by the accused from lapse of time or a like caused or even where he does not positively say so but it is reasonably established from the surrounding circumstances, that it could hardly be expected in the natural course of human conduct that he could or would have a precise or dependable recollection of the same, then under Section 160 of the Evidence Act, it would be open to the witness to rely on the document itself and swear that the contents thereof are correct. Statements and reports prepared outside the Court cannot by themselves be accepted as pri- mary or substantive evidence of the facts stated therein Section 159 then permits a witness, while under examination, to refresh his memory by referring to any writing made by himself at the time of the transaction concerning which he is questioned, or so soon afterwards that the court considers it likely that the transaction was at that time fresh in the memory. Again, with the permission of the Court, the witness may refresh his memory by referring to a copy of such document. And the witness may even refer to any such writing made by any other person but which was read by him at the time the transaction was fresh in his memory and when he read it he knew it to be correct. Section 160 then provides for cases where the witness has no independent recollection say, from laps of memory of the transaction to which he wants to testify by looking at the document and states that although he has no such recollection he is sure that the contents of the document were correctly recorded at the time they were. Where a case of this character arises and the document itself has been tendered in evidence, the document becomes primary evidence in the case. The fundamental distinction between the two sections is that while under Section 159 it is the witness's memory or recollection which is evidence, the document itself not having been tendered in evidence; under Section 160, it is the document which is evidence of the facts contained in it. However in order to bring a case under s. 160, though the witness should ordinarily affirm on oath that he does not recollect the facts mentioned in the documents the mere omission to say so will not make the document inadmissible provided the witness swears that he is sure that the facts are correctly recorded in the document itself. Section 160 of the Act applies equally when the witness states in so many words that he has no independent recollection of the precise words used, or when it should stand established beyond doubt that should1be so as a matter of natural and necessary conclusion from the surrounding circumstances.