Whether court should rely on birth certificate even if its authenticity is not proved?

In these cases, it has been held that even if the entry was made in an official record by the concerned official in the discharge of his official duty, it may have weight but still may require corroboration by the person on whose information the entry has been made and as to whether the entry so made has been exhibited and proved. The standard of proof required herein is the same as in other civil and criminal cases.

15. Such entries may be in any public document, i.e. school register, voter list or family register prepared under the Rules and Regulations etc. in force, and may be admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act as held in Mohd. Ikram Hussain Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 1964 SC 1625; and Santenu Mitra Vs. State of West Bengal AIR 1999 SC 1587.

16. So far as the entries made in the official record by an official or person authorised in performance of official duties are concerned, they may be admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act but the court has a right to examine their probative value. The authenticity of the entries would depend on whose information such entries stood recorded and what was his source of information. The entry in School Register/School Leaving Certificate require to be proved in accordance with law and the standard of proof required in such cases remained the same as in any other civil or criminal cases.

17. For determining the age of a person, the best evidence is of his/her parents, if it is supported by un-impeachable documents. In case the date of birth depicted in the school register/certificate stands belied by the un- impeachcable evidence of reliable persons and contemporaneous documents like the date of birth register of the Municipal Corporation, Government Hospital/Nursing Home etc, the entry in the school register is to be discarded. (Vide: Brij Mohan Singh Vs. Priya Brat Narain Sinha & Ors. AIR 1965 SC 282; Birad Mal Singhvi Vs. Anand Purohit AIR 1988 SC 1796; Vishnu Vs. State of Maharashtra (2006) 1 SCC 283; and Satpal Singh Vs. State of Haryana JT 2010 (7) SC 500).

18. If a person wants to rely on a particular date of birth and wants to press a document in service, he has to prove its authenticity in terms of Section 32(5) of the Evidence Act by examining the person having special means of knowledge, authenticity of date, time etc. mentioned therein. (Vide: Updesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. Prithvi Singh & Ors., (2001) 2 SCC 524; and State of Punjab Vs. Mohinder Singh, AIR 2005 SC 1868)."

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Rameshchandra & Ors. vs Kailash & Ors. on 14 September, 2017

Print Page

Whether evidence of handwriting expert can be relied on if he compared disputed signature with genuine signature of doubtful authenticity?

 The prosecution called evidence with a view to showing that this permit was not signed by W. Bennet. Whether Mr. Bennet was available to disprove his own signature is not stated. Of course he may have left the country. The evidence called to prove that the signature was not genuine was that of Ananta Kumar Purkait, P. W. 5 who was a clerk in Mr. Bennet's office and claimed to know Mr. Bennet's signature. In his examination-in-chief he stated that the signature on Ex. 3 appeared to be like that of Mr. Bennet though he was not sure whether it was Mr. Bennet's signature. In cross-examination he stated that he was very familiar with Mr. Bennet's handwriting and that the signature on Ex. 3 appeared to be similar to that of Mr. Bennet. Later he said that he had no doubt in his mind that the signature on Ex. 3 was the signature of Mr. Bennet. I£ the evidence be true then the prosecution was bound to fail. The prosecution, however, tried to suggest that their own evidence should be disbelieved and they called a handwriting expert. According to that witness the signature purporting to be that of Mr. Bennet on Ex. 3 was not his genuine signature. A handwriting expert's evidence is of very little value and as the learned Sessions Judge points out, the genuine signature with which the handwriting expert compared the disputed signature was merely regarded as genuine because Ananta Kumar Purkait said it was genuine. This witness had stated that the signature on Ex. 3 was also genuine. It Seems to me that the evidence of Ananta Kumar Purkait is much more valuable than that of the handwriting expert. But in any event the evidence failed to establish that the permit was not genuine and as I have said, if there was any doubt in the matter the accused was entitled to the benefit of the doubt and to be acquitted.

Calcutta High Court

Ramanlal Rathi vs The State on 13 June, 1950

Equivalent citations: AIR 1951 Cal 305;1952 CRLJ1951 Cal

Bench: Harries, Lahiri

Print Page