Birth certificate produced after registration of FIR to prove juvenile status of accused is valid unless it is found to be forged: Punjab & Haryana HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has clarified that a birth certificate prepared to prove youthfulness is valid after FIR registration unless it is proved to be forged.

The Court annulled the decision of the Court of First Instance, It was held that the birth certificate was issued after the registration of the FIR and, therefore, it falls within the scope of relevant conduct under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Judge Harpreet Singh Brar said, “Although the certificate was created after the registration of the FIR, nothing has been brought to the record to prove that the contents of the certificate are forged or tampered with..”

The court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ashwani Kumar Saxena vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2012) It clarified that the court or the JJ Board need not conduct a comprehensive investigation and verify the veracity of the documents or certificates unless they are found to be forged or tampered with and, therefore, the court should have given the benefit of doubt to the applicant.

The court heard an appeal against the impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge in Rohtak, Haryana in 2019 dismissing the petitioner's application for declaration of his juvenile sentence in a case of rape and POCSO Act.

Facts at a glance

During the hearing, the complainant filed an application for declaration of minor on the basis of various documents, including a birth certificate issued by the ADO, Panchayat Raj Department, Swar Rampur, Uttar Pradesh.

However, the court dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the birth certificate was issued after the registration of the FIR and could therefore have an impact on the course of the proceedings.

The applicant’s lawyer argued that The birth certificate was prepared in accordance with public records and held by the authorities, therefore the applicant could not have falsified the contents of the certificate or exerted undue influence on the issuance of the certificate.

“Furthermore, the date of birth of the plaintiff is also confirmed by the school certificate… which was prepared on the basis of an affidavit of the plaintiff’s father filed much before the registration of the FIR.“, added the lawyer.

After examining the pleadings, the Court concluded that the applicant’s arguments were sound.

The court stated: “There is no dispute that juvenility is determined on the date of commission of the offence… Section 7-A of the Act, 2000 provides that whenever a claim of juvenility is made before a court, the court shall conduct an inquiry and collect all necessary evidence.”

The decision of the Supreme Court in Ashwani Kumar Saxena vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2012), Venue:

“Section 7-A merely requires the Court to conduct 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 significant importance and reference to them is necessary to understand the true scope and content of these provisions. Section 7-A uses the expressions “the Court shall conduct an inquiry”, “collect necessary evidence” and “but not an affidavit”.”.”

In the present case, the judge found that the birth certificate issued by the Panchayat Raj Department The complainant has given a date of birth as 10.10.2001 under Sections 12 and 17 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and Rule 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Births and Deaths Registration Rules, 2003.

The court said that the birth certificate would not be rejected as it was issued after the FIR registration and it was not proved that it was fake.

Justice Brar also noted that the plaintiff's father had given the same date of birth in an affidavit made at school in 2010.

Consequently, the Court considered thatThe plaintiff succeeded in proving his youth.

Dr. Kirandeep Kaur, Attorney-at-Law for Mr. Afzal Hussain, Attorney-at-Law for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana.

Title: XXXX v. XXXX

Quote: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 234