Raju vs State of Rajasthan

S.S. Kothari, J.

To render a document admissible u/s 35, three conditions must be satisfied, firstly, entry that is relied on must be one in a public or other official book, register record, secondly, it must be an entry stating a fact in issue or relevant fact, and thirdly, it must be made by a public servant in discharge of his official duty, or any other person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by law. An entry relating to date of birth made in the school register is relevant and admissible u/s 35 of the Act, but entry regarding the age of a person in a school register is not of much evidentiary value to prove the age of the person in the absence of the material on which the age was recorded.

The appellant herein had produced a large number of documents to prove his age purported to be as on the date of commission of the crime. The genuineness of the school certificate and the horoscope had been questioned. The school certificate produced by the appellant as found to be forged and fabricated and as a matter of fact a criminal case was directed to be instituted against the Head of the Institution.

The Court, therefore, had no other option but to determine the age on the basis of the medical reports. Both the medical reports dated 24.4.2001 and 29.6.2001 opined the age of the appellant between 18 and 19 years. In terms of he first medical report, the age of the appellant came to be 18 years 5 months 8 days and in terms of the second medical report, it came to be between 18 and 19 years. The High Court opined that the appellant on 1.4.2001 was definitely above 18 years of age and not below 18 years of age.

The Courts have considered this aspect of the matter on earlier occasions also. If, thus, on the basis of several factors including the fact that school leaving certificate and the horoscope produced by the appellant were found to be forged and fabricated and having regard to the two medical reports the courts below have found the age of the appellant as on 1.4.2001 to be above 18 years, we are of the opinion that no exception thereto can be taken.

Thus, the law on the issue can be summarized that the entry made in the official record by an official or person authorised in performance of an official or person authorized in performance of an official duty is admissible u/s 35 of the Evidence Act but the party may still ask the Court/Authority to examine its probative value. The authenticity of the entry would depend on whose instruction/information such entry stood recorded and what was his source of information. Thus, entry in school register/certificate requires to be proved in accordance with law. Standard of proof for the same remains as in any other civil and criminal case.

In case, the issue is examined in the light of the aforesaid settled legal proposition, there is nothing on record to corroborate the date of birth of the prosecutrix recorded in the School Register. It is not possible to ascertain as to who was the person who had given her date of birth as 13.2.1975 at the time of initial admission in the primary school. More so, it cannot be ascertained as who was the person who had recorded her date of birth in the Primary School Register. More so, the entry in respect of the date of birth of the prosecutrix in the Primary School Register has not been produced and proved before the trial Court. Thus, in view of the above, it cannot be held with certainty that the prosecutrix was a major.