LexUNION OF INDIA & ANR versus JAI KISHUN SINGH (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 8 S.C.R. 1149 UNION OF INDIA & ANR. V. JAi KISHUN SINGH (D) THROUGH L.RS. & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 6651 of 2008) SEPTEMBER 10, 2014 [VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND ARUN MISHRA, JJ.) FREEDOM FIGHTER PENSION SCHEME, 1980: A 8 Determination of age - Cancellation of Freedom Fighter C Pension on the ground that respondent no. 1 did not participate in freedom struggle as he was child of 7-8 years in the year 1942 - Held: As per Voter List of 19!5, age of claimant was 42 years - Considering said document, age in 1942 would have been above 5 years and below 10 years - D At such an age, participation in the freedom fight is highly improbable, as such, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cancellation of the pension could not be said to be unwarranted at all. Freedom Fighter Pension is a form of gratitude extended E by an indebted nation in recognition of the sacrifice made by the freedom fighters to achieving independence - Liberal approach has to be adopted in such matters so that rightful persons are not deprived of deserving benefit for lack of evidence, after a lapse of long time - Such cases have to be F decided on preponderance of probabilities and standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt is not to be applied. EVIDENCE: G Documentary evidence - Held: Has to prevail over oral evidence. Determination of age by the Medical Board - Evidentiary 1149 1150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R. A value of - Held: Not reliable as it is based upon physical appearance only and not based upon any scientific medical test like ossification test and radiological examination - When it is based on such scientific tests, it is, of strong corroborative value - In the instant case, Medical Board opined on physical B appearance basis age of the claimant about 73 years - As it is not based on scientific tests it cannot be accepted. The original respondent no. 1 was recipient of the freedom fighter pension. The High Court directed suo C motu inquiry in rampant complaints, that large number of persons in the State of Bihar were availing such benefits inspite of not having participated in freedom struggle under the Swatantrata Sainak Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. The Deputy Collector who conducted inquiry into the matter found the claim of the deceased respondent D no. 1 not genuine and the competent authority ordered cancellation of the pension with effect from the date it was initially sanctioned and recovery of the amount of pension already drawn by him. The High Court quashed the said order of the authority. E In the instant appeal, issue related to determination of the approximate age of deceased respondent no. 1 on 15th August, 1942. His claim was that his age was 13 years when he went underground for a year w.e.f. 14th F August, 1942 to 15th August, 1943. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The enquiry officer recorded oral statement indicating that his age was much less. Such statement is G discarded as oral statement cannot be a safe criteria for arriving at conclusion. However, the documentary evidence of the years 1975 and 1977 in the form of Voter List and deposition-sheet clinched the issue and established that the claim was not genuine. Documentary H evidence has to prevail, more so as there was no such UNION OF INDIA v. JAi KISHUN SINGH (D) 1151 THROUGH L.RS. dispute as to age at the relevant time. As per deposition sheet of criminal case, age was approximately 40 years • in 1977. If the said date is taken as correct, the date of birth would come to the year 1937. As per Voter List of 1975, his age was 42 years. From said documents in consideration, age in 1942 would have been above 5 years and below 10 years. At such an age, participation in the incident in question is highly improbable as such cancellation of the pension in the facts and circumstances of the case, could not be said to be unwarranted at all. [Para 8] [1154-F-H; 1155-A] A B c 2. The freedom fighter pension is a form of gratitude extended by an indebted nation in recognition of the sacrifice made by the freedom fighters to achieving independence. Liberal approach has to be adopted in such matters so that rightful persons are not deprived of D deserving benefit for lack of evidence, after a lapse of long time. Such cases have to be decided on preponderance of probabilities and standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt is not to be applied. [Para 9] [1155-B, C
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.