Use Of Case Diary In Investigation

Introduction
Under the provision of Section 172 Cr.P.C. every Police Officer conducting
investigation shall maintain a record of investigation done on each day in a Case Diary in the
prescribed Form. Case Diaries are important record of investigation carried out by
an Investigating Officer. Any Court may send for the Case Diaries of a case under
inquiry or trial in such Court and may use such diaries, not as evidence in the case, but to
aid it in such inquiry or trial.
Facts to be incorporated in Case Diaries:
The Case Diary, which is a
contain details of the time
Officer, time at which the
places visited by him and
through investigation.

record of day by day investigation of a case, shall

at which the information reached the Investigating
investigation began and was closed, the place or
a statement of the facts and circumstances ascertained

Case Diaries should contain only particulars of actual steps taken or progress made in the
investigation and such details of investigation which have bearing on the case.
Addresses, both present and permanent of the witnesses and all other relevant
details should be invariably recorded in the Case Diaries. The following shall not be
incorporated in the Case Diaries:

Opinion of Investigating Officer, opinion of the Supervisory Officers and Law Officers
Any conflict of opinion between I.O., Law Officers, SP, DIG and Head Office.
Recommendations made in concluding report of the O., comments of Law Officer(s)
and Supervisory Officers.
Any other facts/circumstances not relating to investigation of the case.

Every Investigating Officer, to whom part investigation of a case is entrusted,

will also maintain a Case Diary for the investigation made by him. This may be called
Supplementary Case Diary (SCD). SCDs will be taken on record by the Chief
I.O., who may incorporate the gist of important facts disclosed in such
investigation in his own CD for the date when the SCD is received by him. It is
important that SCD must be submitted without any delay. A copy of the CD submitted by
I.O./Chief I.O. to the Superintendent of Police would invariably enclose the SCDs
received by him.[i]
CONCEPT OF CASE DIARY
Section 172 Cr.P.C. lays down that every police officer making an investigation should maintain
a diary of his investigation. Each State has its own police regulations or otherwise known as
police standing orders and some of them provide as to the manner in which such diaries are to be

maintained. These diaries are called case diaries or special diaries. Like in Uttar Pradesh, the
diary under section 172 is known as special diary or case diary and in some other States like
Andhra Pradesh and Tamilnadu, it is known as case diary. The Section itself indicates as to the
nature of the entries that have to be made and what is intended to be recorded is what the police
officer did, the places where he went and the places which he visited etc. and in general it should
contain a statement of the circumstances ascertained through his investigation. Sub-section (2) is
to the effect that a criminal court may send for the diaries and may use them not as evidence but
only to aid in such inquiry or trial. The aid which the court can receive from the entries in such a
diary usually is confined to utilizing the information given therein as foundation for questions to
be put to the witnesses particularly the police witnesses and the court may, if necessary, in its
discretion use the entries to contradict the police officer who made them. Coming to their use by
the accused, Sub-section (3) 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 courts. But in case the police officer uses the entries to refresh his memory
or if the court uses them for the purpose of contradicting such police officer then provisions of
Section 161 or Section 145, 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 is intended to contradict him by the
writing, his attention must be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of
contradiction. Section 161 deals with the adverse partys rights as to the production, inspection
and cross-examination when a document is used to refresh the memory of the witness. It can
therefore be seen that the right of accused to cross-examine the police officer with reference to
the entries in the General Diary is very much limited in extent and even that limited scope arises
only when the court uses the entries to contradict the police officer or when the police officer
uses it for refreshing his memory and that again is subject to the limitations of Sections 145 and
161 of the Evidence Act and for that limited purpose only the accused in the discretion of the
court may be permitted to peruse the particular entry and 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 accused getting any right to use the entries
even to that limited extent does not arise.[ii]

As per section 172 deals with in three clauses:

(1). Every police officer making an investigation under this chapter shall day by day enter his
proceedings in the investigation in a diary, setting forth the time his investigation, the place or
places visited by him, and a statement of the circumstances ascertained through his investigation.
(2). Any criminal court may send for the police diaries of case under inquiry or trial in such
court, and may use such court, and may use such diaries, not as evidence in the case, but to aid it
in such inquiry or trial.
(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 Indian Evidence Act, 1872, shall apply.
It means this section deals with or shows that what a special diary of a police-officer making
an investigation should contain. Every police-officer making an investigation shall enter his
proceedings in a diary which may be used at the trial or inquiry, not as evidence in the case but
to aid the court in such inquiry or an investigation started under section-174 of the code[iii]
The object of recording case diaries under this section is to enable courts to check the method
of investigation by the police.[iv] The entries in a police diary should be made with promptness
in sufficient details mentioning all significant facts on careful chronological order and with
complete objectivity. The haphazard maintenance of a police case diary not only does no credit
to those responsible for maintaining it but defeats the very purpose for which it required to be
maintained.[v] So we can say that this section does not deal with the recording of any statement
made by witnesses. Oral statements of witnesses should not be recorded in the diary.[vi]
Similarly the court should not while recording the evidence of investigating office record
anything which came to the knowledge of such an officer during the investigation of the other
case.[vii]
A diary kept under this section cannot be used as evidence of any data,[viii] fact or statement
contained therein, but it can be used for the purpose of assisting the court in inquiry or trial by
enabling it to discover means for further elucidation of points which need clearing up before
justice can be done.[ix]

USE OF CASE DIARY

In case of other purposes (Trial)
In case Shamushul Kanwar vs State of U.P
Held:
It is manifest from its bare reading without subjecting to detailed and critical analysis that the
case diary is only a record of day-to-day investigation of the investigating officer to ascertain the
statement of circumstances ascertained through the investigation. Under sub-section (2) of
Section 172, the Court is entitled at the trial or enquiry to use the diary not as evidence in the
case, but as aid to it in the inquiry or trial. Neither the accused, nor his agent, by operation of
sub-section(3), shall be entitled to call for the diary, not shall he be entitled to use it as evidence
merely because the Court referred to it. Only right given there under is that if the Police Officer
who made the entries in the diary uses it to refresh his memory or if the Court uses it for the
purpose of contradicting such witness, by operation of Section 145 of the Evidence Act, it shall
be used for the purpose of contradicting such witness i.e., Investigation officer or the Court. It is,
therefore, clear that unless the investigating Officer or the Court uses it either to refresh the
memory or contradicting the investigating Officer as previous statement under Section 161 that

too after drawing his attention thereto as is enjoined under Section 145 of the Evidence Act, the
entries cannot be used by the accused as evidence.[x]
But the Gujarat high court has confirmed the order of special CBI court, which refused an
accused in the Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case, access to the case diary.
Additional chief judicial magistrate AY Dave declined accused IPS officer Rajkumar Pandians
plea seeking the case diary. The suspended officer had demanded that CBI place a certified copy
of the full case diary in court in a sealed cover. But the magistrate observed that pending
investigation, the probe agency cant be expected to submit it in court. Pandian later approached
the high court, but Justice AS Dave refused to interfere in the CBI courts order. The high court
noted that according to Section 172 of CrPC, an accused is not entitled to a copy of the case
diary. The trial courts may use such diaries prepared by the investigating officer, but these
documents cant be used as evidence. Sub-section (3) of section 172 of CrPC mandates that
neither the accused nor his agents shall be entitled to call for such diaries, nor he or they shall be
entitled to see them merely because such diaries are referred to by the court. However, if such
diaries or extracts therein are used by the police officer for refreshing the memory or if the court
uses them for the purpose of contradicting such police officers, provisions of Evidence Act will
apply, the high court observed.[xi]
The Supreme Court has ruled that no court should rely on a case diary as evidence and acquit or
convict an accused on the basis of that. The judgment could protect the interests of witnesses in
criminal cases while keeping under wraps the investigation done by police.
The judgment comes in a case in which the court set free 77 accused who had been convicted
with sentences ranging from life term to smaller imprisonment by the Andhra Pradesh high court
for killing six people.
The victims were suspected of doing black magic on animals and causing their death nine years
ago. The accused hired an exorcist to hunt down the culprits. The trial court acquitted them
saying the prosecution couldnt substantiate the charges, and the high court called for the case
diary that records the investigation.
It drew corroboration from the case diary, which is otherwise excluded from trial except when an
investigation officer wants to consult it to refresh his memory or the court wants to examine it to
find out whether the investigation had been conducted in accordance with the Criminal
Procedure Code (CrPC).
A bench of Justices DK Jain and RM Lodha ruled that a criminal court can use the case diary
to help an inquiry or trial but not as evidence. This position is made clear by Section 172(2) of
the Code.[xii]
In the case of investigation

A police officer, who investigated a criminal case either fully or partly, is entitled to look into the
case diary containing the details of the investigation and refresh his memory while deposing as
a witness before the trial court, the Madras High Court has said.
However, the accused is also equally entitled to cross examine the police officer under Section
161 of the Indian Evidence Act whenever the investigating officer of the case looks in to the case
diary and deposes from its contents, Justice G.M. Akbar Ali clarified.
The judge said that a combined reading of Section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and
Sections 145,159 and 161 of the Indian Evidence Act made it clear a trial court too was
empowered to call for the case diary to aid it in trying the criminal case.
The court could use the case diary, not as evidence, but only for the purpose of contradicting the
police officer with regard to details such as dates, time and venue of the investigations conducted
by him if there were disparities between the written records and the oral evidence adduced by
him.
Further, no individual other than the police officer and the trial court judge could be allowed to
look into the case diary. The role of the accused was limited to the extent of cross examining the
officer when he happened to refresh his memory from the contents of the diary, the judge added.
Mr. Justice Akbar Ali also recalled a 113-year-old English judgement passed in Queen Empress
Vs. Mannu (1897) wherein a Full Bench of the High Court dealt with, in detail, the importance
of the case diary, its purpose and how it must be used by the trial courts.
It is the absolute duty of judges and Magistrates to entirely disregard all statements and entries
in special diaries as being in any sense legal evidence for any purpose, except for one solitary
purpose of contradicting the police officer who made the special diary when they do afford such
a contradiction.
Even in that case they are not evidence of anything except that such police officer made the
particular entry which is at variance with his subsequently given evidence. They are not evidence
that what is stated in the entry was true or correctly represents what was said or done, the ageold judgment read. In the present case, a person caught red handed while accepting bribe had
moved the High Court challenging an attempt made by a Central Bureau of Investigation officer
to depose from the case diary during the trial of the corruption case before the Special Court for
CBI cases in Chennai.[xiii]
A diary kept under this section cannot be used as evidence of any date, fact or statement
contained therein, but it can be used for the purpose of assisting the court in the inquiry or trial
by enabling it to discover means for further elucidation of points which need clearing up before
justice can be done. It can be used as aid in framing a charge though not for founding the charge.
The magistrate cannot take cognizance or issue process against accused on the materials
contained in the case diary alone, unless facts contained in the report under section 173
constitutes an offence.

The Supreme Court has held that the police diaries of a case under inquiry or trial can be made
use of by a criminal court only for aiding it, in such inquiry or trial. The court would be acting
improperly if it uses them in its judgement or seek confirmation of its opinion on the question of
appreciation of evidence from statements contained in such diaries.[xiv]entries in police diaries
cannot be used as evidence against the accused. They cannot, therefore, used to explain any
contradiction in the evidence of a prosecution witness which the defence has brought forth for
using any portion of his statement under section 161.
Personal diary of non-investigating officer excluded.- Entries made in a personal diary by a
police officer who did not investigate into a case do not fall within section 172..

Diaries to be properly kept. Though police diaries are not evidence against the accused, it is
very essential for criminal trials that they should be properly kept in the manner provided by the
Code. But the failure of the police witnesses to keep a diary as required by section 172(1) does
not have the effect of making their evidence inadmissible although it lays it open to adverse
criticism and may diminish its value.14
Non-compliance with the provisions. Failure on the part of the investigating officer to comply
with the provisions of section 172 is a serious lapse which diminishes the value and credibility of
the investigation. But it will not affect the finding of guilt unless prejudice to the accused is
shown.15
Diaries how to be maintained and entries how to be made?- The haphazard maintenance of a
document of the status of a case diary not only does no credit to those responsible for
maintaining it but defeats the very purpose for which it is required to be maintained. Courts
think it to be of the utmost importance that entries in a police case diary should be made with
promptness, in sufficient detail, mentioning all significant facts in careful chronological order
and with complete objectivity. Entries in case diaries must be made with scrupulous
completeness and efficiency.
Making false entries in diaries-Offence.- Where a public servant makes a false entry in a diary
kept and sent to his superior in pursuance of a departmental order which that public servant is
bound to obey, he is guilty of an offence under section 177, I.P.C..
Power of criminal court to send for diaries and use thereof [Sub-section (2)].- Prosecution is
not expected to produce daily diary in courts as a matter of course. Such production would
seriously impair the working of the police. If required for defence they can be summoned on the
application of defence.
No general order by Sessions Judge. Sessions Judges should not issue general orders that
police diaries should be sent to them along with the Magistrates records in all cases committed
for trial, and in all criminal appeals. They can only order for diaries of cases under trial before
them, if they think it necessary to peruse them.
Court may send for diary of counter-case.- Section 172 relates to the police diary made in
respect of a case under enquiry or trial by the court which calls for it and, therefore, does not in
terms apply where the diary relates to the counter-case, but the principles apply. There is no
provision in the Code which would prevent the court from looking into the diary of the countercase, or from using it in the way laid down in section 172(2).

No use of police diaries as evidence. -Police diaries are not original evidence of the matters
contained in them.21 But they can be put in evidence, if the persons who wrote them are called
as witnesses to prove the facts contained in such reports. A Judge should not take judicial notice

of police papers, and he should not consult them in order to test evidence in the case. The diary
kept under section 172, cannot be used as containing entries which can by themselves be taken to
be evidence of any date, fact or statement contained in it. Under section 172 the police diary
cannot be used by any court as a substantive evidence but is intended to be used only for the
purpose of assisting the court in the appreciation of the evidence and to clear up any doubtful
point arising in the course of the case. A Judge is in error in making use of the police diaries at
all in his judgment and in seeking confirmation of his opinion on the question of appreciation of
evidence from statements contained in those diaries. To disbelieve the story of the defence only
because it is nowhere mentioned in the Zimnis, amounts to making use of the Zimnis in such a
way as to strengthen the case for the prosecution and to show that the rival story told by the
defence is untrue, a course forbidden by the provisions of the Cr.P.C. The court should not draw
any inference from an inspection of the police papers. If any use is to be made of them, they
should be brought on the record and an opportunity given to the party against whom they are to
be used of meeting them. The case diary cannot be used as evidence as that is not the evidence.
The police case diary can be used within the limits of section 172. If there is no proof in the case,
the police diary cannot take the place of proof. Any fact mentioned in the police diary cannot be
used as evidence in the case. Entries in the diary can utmost be said secondary evidence and are
neither substantive evidence nor corroborative evidence. The court is not justified in reading the
confession and other statements from the police diary and to disbelieve the prosecution or the
defence case on that ground.
Use only as aid to court . -The power of court under section 172 to look into case diaries should
be sparingly exercised and it is necessary for the court to be astute to avoid using it otherwise
than as provided by law. Under section 172, any criminal court may send for the special police
diary of a case under inquiry or trial in such court, and may use the diary not as evidence, but to
aid it in such inquiry or trial. It may, for instance, be of importance in case that the court should
know when a witness first made a statement in connection with the case, or whether any
particular person made or did not make a statement. In Khatri, the Supreme Court observes that
sub-section (2) of section 172, empowers a criminal court holding an inquiry or trial of a case to
send for the police diary of the case and the criminal court can use such diary not as evidence in
the case, but to aid in such inquiry or trial.
The meaning of the phrase to aid the court in an enquiry or a trial in this section is that the
court may see from the police diaries what is the general trend of evidence to be given and what
witnesses are important and what not, and whether witnesses produced give evidence as to all the
facts which they formerly professed to know.
As pointed out by the Supreme Court in Shamsul Kanwar , where neither the prosecution
witnesses nor the court uses the case diary, the free use thereof for contradicting the prosecution
evidence is obviously illegal and it is inadmissible in evidence. Thereby the defence cannot place
reliance thereon.
Permissible use of police diary -The police diary may be used by the court for the following
purposes :

The court is entitled to use the special diary to ascertain the sources and lines of enquiry and the
names of persons that may be in a position to give material evidence. The special diary may be
used by the court in inquiries or trials as suggesting means of further elucidating points which
need clearing up and which are material for doing justice between the prosecution and the
accused.
The object of police diary is to enable the court to see the information recorded from day to day
and the lines of investigation of a particular case.The main purpose of the police diary is to aid
the court in trial. That shows when investigation began, when closed places visited and the
circumstances ascertained in the investigation. Any other use of the entries in case diary is not
undesirable.
Though the entries in a case diary are not substantive evidence, but the court may look into it
for aid in the inquiry or trial. They are only to be used as is pointed out by the section, not as
evidence, but to aid a court on the trial, so as to enable it to make thorough enquiry on all
material points by eliciting in the examination of the witness-and expecially of police witnessesthe real facts of the case.
The court should discover out of the diary any matter which is important, and then call for the
necessary witnesses or documents to prove that matter. The court should then deal with the
case on all the evidence.
The court may use the diaries for the purpose of clearing up obscurities in the evidence so as to
bring out relevant facts in the interests of a fair trial. The aid which a court can receive from the
entries in such a diary is usually confined to utilizing the information given therein as a
foundation for questions to be put to the witness and in using the diary the court should always
employ very great caution. Where after the verdict was given, the Judge stated that he would
look at the police diaries before deciding whether he would refer the case under section 307,
and having done so, he accepted the verdict and convicted the accused, the reference to the
police diaries was permitted, under section 172, and there was nothing illegal in the course
adopted.
Power of High Court under section 482 to look into police diaries.- When an application under
section 482 of the Code for quashing proceedings of the lower court is made to the High Court
at an early stage of the proceedings, the High Court is entitled to look into the police diaries for
determining whether any case has been made out or not, and that in order to determine the
correctness of affidavits on record it is necessary to look into them.
Use of recorded statement not forbidden.- Section 172 does not forbid a recorded statement to
be used at a trial for an offence not under investigation when it was made.
Comparing with Confession recorded by Magistrate.- The confession recorded by a Magistrate
cannot be compared with the record of it in the case diary to determine its value.
Production of daily diary.- Prosecution cannot be expected to produce daily diaries as a matter
of course in every prosecution case. Production of these diaries will impair the functioning of
police. It is neither desirable nor feasible to produce them. If needed they can be summoned.

Police diaries can be used to contradict police officer.- The special diary may be used by the
court to contradict the police officer who made it, and the police officer who made it may refresh
his memory by referring to it. The object of section 172(3) is to enable the court to direct the
police officer who is giving his evidence to refresh his memory from the notes made by him or to
question him as to contradictions which may appear between statements so recorded and the
evidence he is giving in court. The words 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 shall apply used in section 172(3) are important and they regulate the
procedure and the power which can be exercised about the matter. Without confronting the
police officer who had prepared the diary in terms of section 161 of the Evidence Act, the diary
cannot be used.
In Mukand Lal, the Supreme Court has pointed out that the court is empowered to call for
relevant case diary if there is any inconsistency or contradiction arising in the context of the case
diary and the court can use the entries for the purpose of contradicting the police officer as
provided in sub-section (3) of section 172.

No use by or against any witness other than police officer.- A special diary cannot be used by
any other witness than the police officer who made it for the purpose of refreshing his memory,
nor can it be used to contradict any witness other than such police officer.
No use of police diary as corroborative evidence. -The Code permits the court to use the diary
for the limited purpose of contradicting the police officer and not for the purpose of
corroborating him. Police diaries cannot be admitted as corroborative evidence against the
accused in the case. Statements of witnesses made to the police and recorded in the special
diary, can be used as corroborative evidence in the trial, only if the police officer who took them
down, is called upon to give evidence of their purport, and of the time when and the
circumstances in which, they were made, refreshing his memory from the diary if he desires to
do so. Any fact mentioned in the police diary cannot be used to corroborate any evidence in the
case.
No use to prejudice of accused. Judge should not use the police diary to the prejudice of the
accused. Even if the defence requests the Judge of examine the police diary, that would not
justify him in using it to the prejudice of the accused.
Police officer whether can be compelled to refresh memory? -An accused person is not entitled
to require a police officer to refresh his memory during his examination in court, by referring to
his diary. The use of the diary for refreshing memory is at the discretion of the witness and the
Judge. It may be within the rights of the police officers not to refer to a diary, but the accused is
entitled to the benefit of their refusal to refer to the diary and to disclose the source of their
information.

The court is, no doubt, not bound to compel a witness to look at the diary in order to refresh his
memory. But if it invites him to refresh his memory with reference to the diary, the witness is
under an obligation to do so, it being his duty to lay the whole truth before the court to the best of
his ability. Should the police officer refuse to assist the court in this way, he would not only be
failing in his duty both as a witness and as an officer or public servant, but would also be liable
to exactly the same penalty as any other witness who refuses to give evidence which is within his
knowledge and is not affected by any particular claim of privilege. It is not open to witness to
decide for himself whether or not he should disclose a material fact which might turn the scale in
deciding whether an accused person was guilty or innocent, when he is in a position to clear up a
point by reference to his diary.
Where the investigating officer in his cross-examination was asked to state various dates on
which he had examined prosecution witnesses in course of investigation but he stated that it was
not necessary to refer to diary, the court should have compelled him to refer to the diary and on
account of such conduct of investigating officer accused were somewhat prejudiced.

Right of accused to call for and inspect police diaries.- It is the court alone which is entitled to
use the special diary. Neither the accused nor his agent is entitled under section 172 to see the
special diary for any purpose unless it has been used by the court for enabling the police officer
who made it to refresh his memory or for the purpose of contradicting him. A party having a
right to look into a document before or at the moment it is used by a witness to refresh his
memory, and not exercising it at the proper moment, does not continue to retain it throughout the
subsequent examination of the witness. In an Oudh case, it has been held that an accused had no
right to inspect the original paper by which the police was refreshing his memory. It has been
held that there is nothing in the law which entitles the defence to an inspection of anything more
than that portion of the diary from which the witness refreshed his memory. In Khatri, the
Supreme Court clarifies that by reason of sub-section (3) of section 172, Cr.P.C. merely because
the case diary is referred to by the criminal court, neither the accused nor his agents are entitled
to call for such diary nor are they entitled to see it.
The accused can see the entries relating to the case made by the police officer in the case diary
only when the police officer uses it for refreshing memory or when the court uses it to contradict
the police officer. When the police diary is used for refreshing memory by the police officer or
the court uses it for contradicting the police officer, then the provisions of sections 161 and 145
of the Evidence Act apply. In Mukand Lal, the Supreme Court categorically states that 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 to the case diary, the court can use the entries for the purpose
of contradiction. Ultimately there can be no better custodian or guardian of the interest of the
justice than the court trying the case. No court will deny to itself the power to make use of 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 the safeguard the charge of unreasonableness or
arbitrariness cannot stand scrutiny. If the accused claims an unfettered right to make roving
inspection of the entries in the case diary regardless of whether the entries are used by the police
officer to refresh his memory or regardless of the fact whether the court has used these entries for
the purpose of contradicting such police officer, he cannot base his claim on sub-section (3) of
the section. The accused can claim this right but only when the police officer uses the case diary
for refreshing his memory or the court uses it for contradicting the police officer.
In Malkiat Singh, the Supreme Court points out that where the evidence on record clearly shows
that the defence has freely used the entries in the case diary as evidence and marked some
portions of the diary for contradictions or omissions in the prosecution case, it is clearly in
negation of and in the teeth of section 173(3). To conclude, therefore, the accused can only see
the diary if it is used by the police officer to refresh his memory or if the court uses it to
contradict the police officer. If there is no special diary, there can be no case of refreshing
memory or contradicting the police officer by the diary. The absence of the diary, therefore,
cannot prejudice the accused.
Permitting defence counsel to see portions of police diary for use in defence of case-Courts
discretion.- Though an accused person is not entitled as of right to see the case diary and his
statement to the police recorded in it, there is no prohibition contained in section 172(3) against
the court permitting in its discretion defending counsel to see any portion of the case diary,

which the court considers in the interests of justice he should see and use in the defence of the
case. There is no legal impediment to the committing court permitting in its discretion and in
appropriate cases defending counsel at his request to look into a case diary to verify what the
accused told the police as recorded there, before formulating his defence. Under the law as it
now stands, such a permission cannot be claimed by the accused as a matter of right. It is
comparatively of little use for defending counsel being permitted to look at the diary by the
Sessions Judge at a belated stage of the trial. Defending counsel should know what the accused
told the police in the first instance. There is a heavy responsibility on the courts in the user of
case diaries under section 172(3) and on public prosecutors to bring to the notice of the trial
Judge anything in the case diary favourable to the accused. In Khatri, the Supreme Court has laid
down that if the case diary is used by the police officer who has made it to refresh his memory or
if the criminal court uses it for the purpose of contradicting such police officer in inquiry or trial,
the provisions of sections 161 and 145, as the case may be, of Indian Evidence Act would apply
and the accused would be entitled to see the particular entry in the case diary which has been
referred to for either of these purposes and so much of the diary as in the opinion of the court is
necessary to a full understanding of the particular entry so used.
Statements of witnesses recorded in special diary not covered by section 172.- Where a
police officer records in the special diary statements of witnesses, taken under section 161, the
privilege given by this section does not extend to those statements.80 Such statements can be
used for the purposes of section 162. A police diary is normally meant for a police officer
investigating a criminal case for recording therein his day to day noting regarding the
investigation, but he is not debarred from recording the statement of any witness therein and so
the privilege in the matter of calling a police diary by an accused person or his agent
contemplated under section 172 of the Code extends only to the notings recorded by a police
officer therein and not to the supply of copies of the statements of the witnesses recorded therein
as those statements will be covered by sub-section (3) of section 161 of the Code.
Right to copy of statements in police diaries.- Section 172 does not forbid a recorded
statement to be used at a trial for an offence not under investigation when it was made. There is,
however, no doubt that the record of a statement heard by a police officer in exercise of the
power conferred by section 161 of the Code and recorded either in the diary or separately in the
course of investigation proceedings is an unpublished official record relating to an affair of State,
evidence derived from which cannot be produced in a case to which the first proviso to section
162 is not applicable, except with the permission of the officer at the head of the police
department. It cannot in any sense be termed a deposition and it is not evidence. It is not a
document a copy of which must be given on demand under the provision of section 76, Evidence
Act. Where the investigating agency has recorded the statement of a witness more than once, in
that case copies of every statement must be supplied to the accused, because there may be
material contradictions in the same.84 But in AIR 1940 Lah 217 (224) , the diary of a foot
constable who was shadowing the movements of a suspect was held not an affair of the State.
Evidentiary value of entries in police diary. A police diary may be an official document, and
the entries therein are worth what they are, but they cannot surely be accepted to be absolutely
correct for all purposes, in the absence of any definite proof. There may be circumstances which
might seriously challenge their correctness. An entry in a record or a document made by a person

for his own benefit even if admissible should not always be taken without scanning; other
circumstances have to be considered along with the entry. Entry as to time of F.I.R. must be
presumed to be true. Entries of the police diary are neither substantive nor corroborative
evidence.
CASE LAWS
There are several cases which are discussing regarding the case diary and use of case diary:
In Shamshul Kanwar vs State Of U.P. on 4 May, 1995 case also the High Court took the view
that he was in a commanding position and he could have stopped the entire massacre and that he
behaved with least reasonableness and therefore the death sentence has to be maintained.
Shri Rajendra Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for A-1 submitted that all the eyewitnesses are interested and they have not come forward with the real version and that there was
only a fight between two parties and as to how it originated, the prosecution is silent and that no
independent witness has been examined. Learned counsel mainly relied on the
general diary entry.[xv]
In the case of Manoj Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 5 August, 2010
This view to find favour in decisions reported in A.I.R. 1959 S.C., 1012(Tahsildar Singh & Anr.
Vrs. State of U.P.) and 1989 Cr.L.J., 1876 (Md. Badruddin Vrs. State of Assam) and A.I.R.
1926 Pat, 20 (Badri Chaudhary & Ors. Vrs. King Emperor). 29. However, neither the attention
of P.W. 8 has not been drawn by the accused or defence during the evidence of the witness with
regard to his earlier statement made before police under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure
Code which are to be used for contradicting the evidence in Court nor the investigating officer in
his evidence stated that this witness stated in his earlier statement under Section 161 of the
Criminal Procedure Code recorded during investigation. Hence, what is needed to take the
statement of police recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code as it is to
establish contradiction between that stated as evidence in Court to see whether there is
inconsistency between the two statements and also giving opportunity to accused to explain the
inconsistency, but, to do otherwise to take contradiction between what is stated by the witness to
have stated stated by this witness in his statement before police. The investigating officer, P.W.
14, has only stated in his evidence that this witness has not stated before him that he identified
Manoj Singh, Jogindra Singh, Lathi Singh and Arvind Singh, however, Section 162 of the
Criminal Procedure Code read with Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, does not
permit that the police officer be asked what witness said to him during investigation, but, what
was recorded by the investigating officer, during investigation in the case diary, and not what
witness actually made before the investigating officer and statement under Section 161 of the
Criminal Procedure Code cannot be used for any purpose other than contradiction and that also
in the manner as specified under Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code read with Section
145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. However, nothing.
In Jairajsinh Temubha Jadeja vs. State of Gujarat case also deals with the Production of
case diary Petitioner called in question order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, on the
application Exhibit 505, filed by Petitioner seeking production of case diary for purpose of

effectively cross-examining prosecution witness 44 Held, entries of police diary are neither
substantive nor corroborating evidence and they cannot be used by or against any other witness
than the police officer and can only be used to limited extent On a plain reading of Sub-section
(3) of Section 172 of CrPC, it was amply clear that provisions of Section 161 or Section 145, as
case may be, of Evidence Act, would be applicable to contents of case diary only in the
contingencies laid down there under Hence, unless police officer who made entries in case
diary uses them to refresh his memory or Court uses them for purpose of contradicting such
police officer, provisions of Section 161 or Section 145 of Evidence Act would not be applicable
Section 159 of Evidence Act which provides for refreshing memory interalia lays down that 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 Hence, it could not be
said that right of Petitioner-accused under Section 145 or Section 155(3) of Evidence Act was in
any manner adversely affected by non-supply of extract of the case dairy Petitioners claim an
unfettered right to make roving inspection of tentries in case diary -It could not be said that
unless such unfettered right was conferred and recognized, embargo engrafted in Sub-section (3)
of Section 172 of CrPC would fail to meet test of reasonableness Proceeding taken by said
witness as narrated in deposition could clearly be said to be during course of investigation and all
proceedings taken by him had been noted down in case diary During course of his crossexamination, he had stated that prior to recording his testimony, he had not referred to case diary
and did not want to call for case diary to refer to same Application made by accused not being
in consonance with provisions of law, it was not possible to grant the same No infirmity could
be found in view taken by Trial Court Petition dismissed.[xvi]
CONCLUSION
We have seen that use of case diary in which purpose and in which manner case diary is used.
We have also seen that the provision related to case diary basically discussed in section 172 of
code of criminal proceeding. Which talk about case diary and try to defined and also deals the
how can used the case diary. The diary referred to in this section is the special diary known as
station-house report. All police-officers in charge served on another person mr. Y, and it was
held that the informant Mr. G was entitled to be served with the notice and notice on another
person was not sufficient.[xvii] Where the magistrate accepted the final report submitted by the
investigating agency under this section and passed an order dropping the proceedings. Without
issuing any notice to the informant, it was held by the Supreme Court that the order was illegal.
So we can say that as per section 172 casts duty on every investigating officer to maintain diary
of his investigation known as case diary or special diary or police diary or station- house
report. So basic object behind the case diary is to enable the court to check the method of
investigation adopted by the police.[xviii]