The Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently held that a birth certificate issued by the Corporation or Municipal Authority has to be given eminence, however, it would be inherent in such an order that such certificate should not be shrouded by suspicious circumstances and is duly proved.
Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj, while deciding a revision petition assailing the lower court’s order dismissing the plea of juvenility taken by the petitioner, held that there would be no dispute with respect to the proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court that a birth certificate issued by the Corporation or Municipal Authority has to be given eminence. However, the bench added,
“... it would be inherent in such an order that such certificate should not be shrouded by suspicious circumstances and is duly proved.”
The instant revision petition was filed for setting aside the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, whereby the application submitted by the petitioner for declaring him as a juvenile on the date of occurrence had been dismissed in the case arising out of FIR under Sections 148, 149, 323, 302, 307, 216 IPC and Section 25/54/59 of the Arms Act.
The counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently argued that the documents issued by the authorities at Sri Ganganagar clearly established that the date of birth of the petitioner is 03.09.1998 and that he was thus a minor as on the date of commission of offence on 30.12.2014. He has further relied upon the affidavit sworn by his mother in support of his date of birth. It is also claimed that the father of the petitioner has appeared in the witness box and has reiterated the date of birth of the petitioner in his deposition i.e. 03.09.1998.
He has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court to contend that the birth certificate issued by a Municipal Authority or Panchayat is a relevant document to prove the juvenility of an accused in preference to the school leaving a record. He has argued that the reliance of the prosecution on the school certificate showing his date of birth as 03.09.1994 is thus liable to be disregarded. He has thus vehemently argued that the application of the petitioner for declaring him juvenile has been dismissed wrongly and in disregard to the law laid down by the Court and the said order thus deserves to be set aside.
The Court noted that there was a delay of more than ten years in the registration and issuance of birth certificate, as the same was done after the petitioner was arrayed as an accused in the matter and this, according to the Court created room for doubting the credibility of the witness and the documents submitted by them.
Also, the person examined by the prosecution to prove the entry in the birth register was not found to be of much substance by the Court and in the absence of material corroborating evidence, proper examination of witnesses, and original record of Birth Register, the Court did not agree to accept the entry in the record of Municipal Council qua the date of birth of the petitioner as genuine. Rather, the entry made in the school certificate was found to be reliable by the Court.
Also, the Court perused the evidence of the petitioner’s father stating that he lived in Ganganagar owing to his work for some time while his entire family lived somewhere else, thus, considering this factor coupled with the fact that the birth entry in the register was made few months prior to the case occurrence, the Court found,
“The case of the petitioner does not seem probable and fails to inspire confidence.”
Thus, Court concluded that there is no undisputed, reliable and uncontroverted evidence that would prove and establish the date of birth of the petitioner as 03.09.1998 and in the absence of any such convincing and undisputed evidence and the evidence led by the petitioner being suspicious, unreliable and having not been proved by cogent, convincing and reliable evidence, no illegality or infirmity was found in the impugned order.
Picture Source :
