STATE OF PUNJAB versus MOHINDER SINGH

Citation: [2005] 2 S.C.R. 758 · Decided: 14-03-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

_,,,..,. 
A 
ST A TE OF PUNJAB 
v. 
MOHINDER SINGH 
MARCH 14, 2-005 
B 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Evidence Act, 1872-Section 32 Clause (5)-Date of birth-Proof of-
Horoscope-Evidentiary value of-Held : Horoscope is a weak piece of 
evidence to prove age of a person and cannot be relied upon unless its 
C authenticity is proved by cogent evidence-Cannot be given primacy over the 
school leaving certificate-Service Law. 
At the time of appointment as Patwari, respondent disclosed his 
date of birth to be 1.10.34. On a complaint, an enquiry was conducted 
and it was found that his actual date of birth wa~ 25.11.31. Thereupon, 
D Deputy Commissioner dismissed him from service. He unsuccessfully 
preferred appeal before Commissioner. Thereafter, Respondent filed suit 
for declaration that the correct date of birth is the one recorded in 
service book i.e. 1.10.34 and in support submitted his horoscope. Trial 
Court dismissed the suit holding that there was . no ground to interfere 
E with the orders of Deputy Commissioner. First appellate court allowed 
the appeal accepting the date of birth as mentioned in the horoscope. 
High Court dismissed the Second appeal on the ground that no substantial 
question of law was involved. 
In appeal to this court, appellant contended that school register and 
F the connected records were produced which showed that the date of 
birth was 25.11.1931. The evidentiary value of these documents was 
discarded by the first appellate court primarily on the ground that a 
horoscope was produced according to which the date of birth was 
1.10.1934. 
G 
H 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. The school records have more probative value than a 
horoscope. Where no other material is available, the horoscope may be 
considered but subject to its authenticity being established. These aspects 
758 
1-
• 
ST ATE OF PUNJAB v. M. SINGH 
759 
were not considered by the first appellate court and the High Court. The A 
High Court was, therefore, not justified in dismissing the Second Appea,I 
by observing that there was no substantial question of law involved. 
(764-D-E) 
2. Respondent claimed that both school leaving certificate and the 
horoscope were produced and the date of birth was recorded by relying B 
on the horoscope. It has not been explained as to how varying dates 
remained and why no steps were taken to get the school records corrected. 
On enquiry, the school leaving certificate was found to be forged one. 
There was no effort to reconcile the discrepancy in the so-called horoscope 
and the school record as taken note of by the Trial Court. The first C 
Appellate Court took a different view without any plausible reason. 
(762-G-H; 763-B) 
3. Horoscope is a very weak piece of material to prove age of a 
person. In most cases, the maker of it may not be available to prove that 
it was made immediately after the birth. A heavy onus lies on the person D 
who wants to press it into service to prove its authenticity. In fact, a 
horoscope to be treated as evidence in terms of Section 32 Clause (5), 
Evidence Act, 1872, must be proved to have been made by a person 
having special means of knowledge as regards authenticity of a date, 
time etc. mentioned therein. No evidence was led by the respondent to 
prove authenticity of the same. In any event the same was not to be given E 
primacy over the school leaving certificate. It was not shown as to how 
the entry therein was wrong. The onus was on the respondent to prove 
that the same was not correct, which was not discharged. (763-E-F, C-D) 
Ram Narain Vallia v. Monee Bibi, ILR 9 Cal. 613; Mst. Biro v. Atma 
Ram, AIR (1937) PC 101 and Salish Chandra Mukhopadhya v. Mohendra F 
Lal Pathak, ILR 97 Cal. 849, relied on. 
4. The statement contained in the admission register of the school 
as to the age of an individual on information supplied to the school 
authorities by the father, guardian or a close relative, is more authentic 
evidence under Section 32 Clause (5) unless it is established that it is G 
inherently improbable. The time of one's birth relates to the 
commencement of one's relationship by blood and a statement therefore 
of one' age made by a person having special means of knowledge, relates 
to the existence of such relationship as that referred to in Section 32 
Clause (5). Oral evidence may have utility if no documentary evidence is B 
/. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2005] 2 S.C.R. 
A forthcoming. Even the horoscope cannot

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.