Case Law Details
Ravi alias Rabbu son of Radhey Shyam Vs State of Haryana (Punjab & Haryana High Court)
Even though there would be no dispute with respect to the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and relied upon by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner 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. However, facts of the instant case render issuance of the certificate by the authorities suspicious and unreliable in the light of circumstances noticed above. The delay in registration and issuance of birth certificate and that too after the petitioner was already nominated as an accused in the FIR leaves enough room for doubting the credibility of the witness and the documents submitted by them. The supporting evidence and the witnesses who were required to prove due issuance of the documents pertaining to the registration certificate have not been examined. The original record of the register of Births has also not been produced before the Court. Hence, the entry in the record of Municipal Council cannot be accepted as genuine, valid, legal and a primary and proved document.
Per contra, the entry in the school certificate which reflects the date of birth of the petitioner as 03.09.1994 is a more contemporaneous evidence and is corroborated by the circumstances including the admission of the father of the petitioner himself that the children used to stay at Mahendergarh.
In addition thereto, it is also evident from perusal of the evidence of father of the petitioner that even earlier an application seeking declaration of the petitioner as juvenile was also filed, but the same was either dismissed or was withdrawn. There is also no reference by the petitioner to the said order and no valid reason has been given as to why the petitioner did not prefer to raise a challenge to the said order. The challenge to the impugned order has also been raised after a delay of more than 21/2 years.
All the facts have been duly taken into consideration by the Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul. There is no undisputed, reliable and uncontroverted evidence that would prove and establish the date of birth of the petitioner as 03.09.1998. 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, I find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 26.10.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
