Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Hence this petition.
Mr. Kamlakar Sharma, Senior Advocate appearing with Mr.S.S. Hasan for the petitioner submitted that the finding of the trial court with regard to RC having fathered a third son, Krishna on 21-10- 2007 is wholly perverse and vitiated by the failure of the trial court to reckon for the evidence to the contrary produced by the RC before it. He submitted that in any event the Yogya Dampati Vivran Register (Ex.19) purportedly drawn by employees of Medical Health and Family Welfare department reflecting three children having been born to Sanjay Singh, the RC were mere photo copies which were not admissible in evidence before the trial court. The trial court also committed, Mr. Kamlakar Sharma submitted, a palpable perversity in treating Ex.27 the Delivery Registration Register at the Zanana Hospital Alwar recording the birth of a son to RC's wife Meenu on 21-10-2007, inasmuch as the name of father of the newly born child in the said register was not Sanjay Singh but Sanjay Thakur and of his mother Monu not Meenu, the RC's wife. Mr. Kamlakar Sharma submitted that the birth certificate (Ex.14) issued by the Registrar, Births and Deaths, Nagar Parishad Alwar on 10-2-2015 was an improperly procured document as it purportedly was issued on an application moved by RC, when in fact no such application was moved by him. It could thus not have been read in evidence or in any event had little probative worth. It was submitted that in fact the RC had lodged a complaint with the Registrar, Births and Deaths Certificate with regard to the birth certificate of Krishna having been issued on a forged application under his alleged signatures. Mr. Kamlakar Sharma submitted that the trial court on the basis of inadmissible and suspect evidence of this kind ought not to have set aside the election of a public representative, reflective of the democratic will. The impugned judgment setting aside the RC's election thus be set aside, he submitted.

In Toral Mahto Vs. Chandeshwar Mahto [AIR 1972 Patna 13] the Division Bench held that a public document can be admitted in evidence without calling as a witness the officer who prepared it.

In the case of Smt. Vanajakshamma Vs. P.Gopala Krishna [AIR 1970 Mysore 305] it was held that the register of birth and death maintained by the Municipality is a public document and certified copy of its extract is admissible to prove contents of such documents.

As far as the alleged improper procurement of Ex.14, i.e. the birth certificate of Krishna is concerned, as long as the evidence is relevant to determination of the issue before the court the manner in which it was obtained, is of no event. In Pushpa Devi Jatia Vs. M.L. Wadhawan [(1987)3 SCC 367] the Apex Court has held that if the evidence is relevant, the court is not concerned with the method by which it was obtained. The court noted with approval the view of the Judicial Committee of the Privy council in Kuruma Vs. Reginam [(1955)1 All ER 236, 239] where it was held that the test to apply (both in civl and criminal cases) in considering which evidence is admissible is whether it is relevant to the matter in issue. If it is, the court is not concerned with how it was obtained. The court also approved R.V. Sang [(1979)2 All ER 1222, 1230-31] where it was held that the court has no discretion to refuse to admit relevant evidence on the ground that it was obtained by improper or unfair means. The court is not concerned with how it was obtained as long as the evidence is relevant to the adjudication of the dispute before it.