Birth Certificate Issued By Municipal Authority Must Be Given Eminence If Not Shrouded By Suspicious Circumstances: 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.

The division bench comprising Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj while dismissing the petition finding it sans merit held that facts of the instant case render issuance of the birth certificate suspicious and unreliable.

However, facts of the instant case render issuance of the certificate by the authorities suspicious and unreliable in the light of circumstances noticed above.

Court further stated that the delay in registration and issuance of birth certificate after the petitioner being nominated as an accused leaves enough room for doubting the credibility of the witness and the documents submitted by them.

In the absence of supporting evidence, examination of witnesses, and original record of Birth Register produced before the court, the High court refused to accept entry in the record of Municipal Council as genuine, valid, legal, and a primary and proved document. Per Contra, the court considered the entry in the school certificate more contemporaneous evidence corroborated by the circumstances.

After considering the statement of the petitioner's father, along with the birth certificate appended with the petition which provides that the application for registration of the birth certificate was submitted merely five months after the commission of the offense, the court held that the petitioner's case does not seem probable and fails to inspire confidence.

Court further stated that the affidavit which is the foundation of the birth certificate is suspicious since it lacks identification by any competent person. The original register was also not produced for verification.

Even the said affidavit is suspicious because of lack of identification by any competent person. Besides, Manju Devi who was author of the said affidavit has also not stepped into the witness box to support the same. The original register was not produced to verify the condition of the same or to ascertain the genuineness of the entry.

In addition, thereto, the court stated that evidence of the petitioner's father that an earlier application seeking a declaration of the petitioner as a juvenile was also filed but was either dismissed or was withdrawn cannot be sustained because no valid reason is put forth as to why the petitioner did not prefer to raise a challenge to the said order.

The court rejected the instant revision petition after holding that in absence of any convincing and undisputed evidence, it finds no illegality or infirmity in Trial Court's order dismissing the application of the petitioner for declaring him as a juvenile on the date of occurrence 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.

Case Title : Ravi alias Rabbu son of Radhey Shyam v. State of Haryana

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 87

Click Here To Read/Download Order