Rajan Sinha vs State Of Bihar And Another
- SCC1991 Supp (2) SCC 145
- AIRAIR 1991 SC 1377
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a school register records a student's date of birth at the time of admission to a particular standard, and the Head Master testifies that he personally admitted the student to that standard on a specific date, the entry in the school register constitutes reliable evidence of the correct date of birth. Where acceptance of an alleged alternative date of birth would render the recorded admission to a particular standard logically impossible (as admission to Sixth Standard at age 6 years), the school register entry should be preferred as evidence of the true date of birth.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
2. We have heard counsel for both sides.The short question which we are required to consider is regarding the date of birth of respondent No. 2, Shiv Prakash Sharma. According to him, on the date of occurrence, i.e. 21st December, 1980, he was under 16 years of age, his birth date being 22-10-1965 and not 22-10-1963 as recorded in the School Register. The learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that his birth date was 22nd October, 1963 and not 1965, and he was, therefore, above 16 years of age on the date of the incident. The High Court, however, reversed the order of the Sessions Court holding that the entry in the School Register regarding the birth date of Shiv Prakash Sharma could not be considered as evidence regarding the correct date of birth. We find it difficult to accept this conclusion reached by the High Court. The Head Master of the School, D.W. 2, Umesh Narayan Singh stated in his evidence that Shiv Prakash Sharma was admitted to the School on 12-1-1972 in the Sixth Standard and his birth date was recorded as 22nd October, 1963. Even though one may assume that the Head Master of the School could have no personal knowledge regarding the correct date of birth of the student, the conclusion is inescapable that the student was admitted to the Sixth Standard on 12-1-1972. In so far as that part of the evidence is concerned, it is clearly based on personal knowledge of the Head Master because he himself had admitted the student to the Sixth Standard on 12-1-1972.
3. Mr. Srinivasan, the learned Advocate for the appellant, was, therefore, right in pointing out that if the correct date of birth was 22nd October, 1965 as alleged by Shiv Prakash Sharma it follows that on 12th of January, 1972 he could hardly have crossed the age of 6 years and it is impossible to believe that at that age he would be admitted to the Sixth Standard. That is a glaring fact which has escaped the attention of the High Court. It is, therefore, difficult to come to the conclusion that the correct date of birth of Shiv Prakash Sharma was 22nd October, 1965 as claimed by him. He cannot, therefore, be held to be below 16 years of age at the date of the commission of the crime. In that view of the matter, we cannot allow the judgment of the High Court to stand.
4. In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore the judgment of the Sessions Court. Having regard to the passage of time, we do hope that the matter will receive prompt attention.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free