Birth Certificate Prepared After Registration Of FIR To Prove Juvenility Of Accused Valid If Not Proved To Be Fabricated: Punjab & Haryana HC

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that a birth certificate prepared to prove juvenility after the registration of FIR is valid if the same is not proven to be fabricated.

The Court set aside the order of the Trial Court, wherein it observed that since the birth certificate was issued after registration of the FIR, it will fall under the purview of relevant conduct as provided in Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar said, “Although the certificate was prepared after registration of the FIR, however, nothing has been brought on record to demonstrate that the contents of the same are fabricated or manipulated.”

The Court relied on Apex Court's decision in Ashwani Kumar Saxena Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2012) which clearly stated that unless the documents or certificates are found to be fabricated or manipulated, the Court or the JJ Board is not expected to conduct a roving enquiry and go to the extent of examining the correctness of the same. As such, the trial Court should have extended the benefit of the doubt to the petitioner.

The Court was hearing a revision plea against the impugned order passed by  Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge in 2019, in Haryana's Rohtak, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for declaring him a juvenile, in a rape and POCSO Act case was dismissed.

Facts In Brief

During the pendency of the trial, the petitioner filed an application to declare him a juvenile on the basis of various documents, including a birth certificate issued by the ADO, Panchayat Raj Department, Swar Rampur, Uttar Pradesh. 

However, the Court rejected the plea, observing that the birth certificate was prepared after the registration of FIR, hence it may influence the adjudication of trial.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that the birth certificate was prepared as per public records and maintained by the public authorities and as such, the petitioner could not have possibly fabricated the contents of the certificate or exercised undue influence in getting the same issued. 

“Moreover, date of birth of the petitioner is also corroborated by the school certificate…, which was prepared on the basis of affidavit submitted by father of the petitioner, much prior to registration of the FIR,” added the counsel.

 After examining the submissions, the Court found substance in the argument made by the petitioner.

The Court noted that “There is no dispute that juvenility is to be determined on the date of commission of offence...Section 7-A of the Act of 2000 contemplated that whenever a claim of juvenility is raised before any Court, the Court shall make an inquiry and take such evidence, as may be necessary.”

Reliance was placed on Apex Court's decision in Ashwani Kumar Saxena Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2012), where it was held:

“Section 7-A, obliges the court only to make an inquiry, not an investigation or a trial, an inquiry not under the Code of Criminal Procedure, but under the JJ Act...Few of the expressions used in Section 7 A and Rule 12 are of considerable importance and a reference to them is necessary to understand the true scope and content of those provisions. Section 7-A has used the expressions “court shall make an inquiry”, “take such evidence as may be necessary” and “but not an affidavit”.”

In the present case, the judge noted that the Birth Certificate which was issued by the Panchayat Raj Department under Sections 12 & 17 of the Birth and Death Registration Act, 1969 and Rule 8 of Uttar Pradesh Birth and Death Rules, 2003 had been adduced by the petitioner, which reflects his date of birth to be 10.10.2001.

 The Court said the birth certificate would not be rejected because it was prepared after registration of FIR when the same was not proved fabricated.

Justice Brar also took note that the father of the petitioner had tendered the same date of birth on an affidavit in the school back in 2010.

Consequently, the Court opined that the petitioner had successfully managed to establish his juvenility.

Dr. Kirandeep Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Afzal Hussain, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana.

Title: XXXX v. XXXX 

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 234