While admitting public document in evidence its probative value has to be checked #indianlaws

A public document may be admissible, but as to whether the entry contained therein has any probative value may still be required to be examined in the facts and circumstances of a particular case. Even if the entry was made in an official record by the concerned official in the discharge of his official duty, it may have weight but still may require corroboration by the person on whose information the entry has been made and as to whether the entry so made has been exhibited and proved.  So far as the entries made in the official record by an official or person authorised in performance of official duties are concerned, they may be admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act but the court has a right to examine their probative value.

Supreme Court in the matter namely Madan Mohan Singh & Ors. vs. Rajni Kant & Anr., decided on 13.08.2010 (Civil Appeal No. 6466 of 2004) and reported as MANU/SC/0596/2010:AIR2010SC2933, dealt with the issue of admissibility of documents in evidence in view of the provisions of Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Court referred to the decision arrived at in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Radha Krishna Singh & Ors. (MANU/SC/0303/1983: AIR 1983 SC 684) wherein it was held that admissibility of a document is one thing and its probative value, quite another and these two aspects cannot be combined. A document may be admissible and yet may not carry any conviction and weight of its probative value may be nil. Where a report is given by a responsible officer, which is based on evidence of witnesses and documents and has a statutory flavour in that, it is given not merely by an administrative officer but under the authority of a Statute, its probative value would indeed be very high so as to be entitled to great weight. The probative value of documents which, however ancient they may be, do not disclose sources of their information or have not achieved sufficient notoriety is precious little.

Accordingly, a document may be admissible, but as to whether the entry contained therein has any probative value may still be required to be examined in the facts and circumstances of a particular case. Even if the entry was made in an official record by the concerned official in the discharge of his official duty, it may have weight but still may require corroboration by the person on whose information the entry has been made and as to whether the entry so made has been exhibited and proved. The standard of proof required herein is the same as in other civil and criminal cases. Such entries may be in any public document, i.e. school register, voter list or family register prepared under the Rules and Regulations etc. in force, and may be admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act. So far as the entries made in the official record by an official or person authorised in performance of official duties are concerned, they may be admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act but the court has a right to examine their probative value. The authenticity of the entries would depend on whose information such entries stood recorded and what was his source of information. The entry in School Register/School Leaving Certificate require to be proved in accordance with law and the standard of proof required in such cases remained the same as in any other civil or criminal cases.

Like for determining the age of a person, the best evidence is of his/her parents, if it is supported by un-impeachable documents. In case the date of birth depicted in the school register/certificate stands belied by the un-impeachcable evidence of reliable persons and contemporaneous documents like the date of birth register of the Municipal Corporation, Government Hospital/Nursing Home etc, the entry in the school register is to be discarded. If a person wants to rely on a particular date of birth and wants to press a document in service, he has to prove its authenticity in terms of Section 32(5) or Sections 50, 51, 59, 60 & 61 etc. of the Evidence Act by examining the person having special means of knowledge, authenticity of date, time etc. mentioned therein.