Section 162 Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Refreshing memory

Section 162 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Refreshing memory

Official Bare Act Text

Override / Mandate Mens Rea (Intent) Actus Reus (Conduct) Punishment Limitation Monetary

(1) A witness may, while under examination, 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 his memory:

Provided that the witness may also refer to any such writing made by any other person, and read by the witness within the time aforesaid, if when he read it, he knew it to be correct.

(2) Whenever a witness may refresh his memory by reference to any document, he may, with the permission of the Court, refer to a copy of such document:

Provided that the Court be satisfied that there is sufficient reason for the non-production of the original:

Provided further that an expert may refresh his memory by reference to professional treatises.

Statutory Defined Terms in this Section: (Click any term for official legal definition)

Document Sec 2(1)(b) Proved Sec 2(1)(f)

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 162

Section 162 regulates the procedure under which a witness may Refresh Memory in court by referring to any writing made at the time of the transaction.

Evidentiary Proof & Admissibility: Section 162 (formerly Section 159 IEA) provides that a witness may.
Core Legal Standard: Under examination, refresh their memory by referring to any writing made by themselves at the time of the transaction concerning which they are questioned, or so soon afterwards that the transaction was at that time fresh in their memory.

This provision facilitates accurate testimonial recall during examination, allowing witnesses to refresh their memory from contemporaneous records under judicial supervision.

The witness may also refer to any such writing made by any other person, and read by the witness within the necessary time, if when they read it they knew it to be correct. An expert may refresh memory by reference to professional treatises.

Key Landmark Precedents:

State of A.P. v. Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao (1964) 3 SCR 297: Held that an investigating officer or doctor is entitled to refresh their memory in the witness box by referring to their contemporaneous case diary or post-mortem report.
K.V.R. Prasad v. State of A.P. (2011) 12 SCC 417: Affirmed that refreshing memory under Section 159 IEA / Section 162 BSA is legitimate and necessary in complex trials involving voluminous documents.

Legal Commentary:

Section 162 recognizes human cognitive limits. In trials taking place years after an incident, doctors, forensic officers, and investigating officers cannot be expected to remember exact injury measurements or serial numbers from memory, allowing them to refer to contemporaneous notes.