Accused confessed to killing ex-Army employee. Here’s why Patna High Court still denied his wife death certificate

Noting that the man’s death was neither confirmed nor registered within one year of the purported death, the court said that under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, a death certificate issued after one year requires verification and an order from the competent authority.

“More than two years having passed since the disappearance of the petitioner’s husband and the death neither having been confirmed nor having been registered within one year, the court finds no error in the decision of the respondents communicated to the petitioner that in light of section 13(3) of the Act, the death would be registered only on an order made by the court after verifying the correctness of the death and on payment of the prescribed fee,” the May 14 order noted.

Justice Partha Sarthy observed that two years had passed since the disappearance of the petitioner’s husband.

The petition was filed seeking direction to the authorities to issue the death certificate of the petitioner’s husband, and to set aside the order passed by the District Registrar, Vaishali.

The issue before the Patna High Court was that the petitioner’s husband was a retired Army employee receiving a pension from the government of India, which was stopped after his disappearance, leaving the wife without any source of income.

The Patna High Court found no error in the respondents’ decision under section 13(3) of the Act, 1969, that the death would be registered only after the court had verified the death and the payment of the prescribed fee.

The court also observed that, according to the FIR, the petitioner’s husband had been missing since May 4, 2024, while the FIR was registered on May 12, 2024.

Section 13(3) of Act

Any birth or death for which delayed information is given to the registrar after one year of its occurrence, shall be registered only on an order made by a district magistrate or sub-divisional magistrate or by an executive magistrate authorised by the district magistrate, having jurisdiction over the area where the birth or death has taken place, after verifying the correctness of the birth or death and on payment of such fee as may be prescribed

‘Accused claimed murdering retired Army employee’

• Advocate Manish Kumar, for the petitioner, submitted that after the petitioner’s husband went missing for about a week, a complaint was lodged with the police station, leading to the registration of the case.
• It was contended that during the police investigation, one of the accused had confessed to murdering the petitioner’s husband, and accordingly, a death certificate should have been issued by the district registrar, District Vaishali, but the petitioner’s request for issuance of the same was rejected by the respondents.
  
• Kumar also referred to the letter dated August 14, 2025, issued by the Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Mahnar, stating that under Section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, a death certificate for a missing person can be issued only after an order from a competent court.
• The counsel on behalf of the petitioner argued that the accused had confessed to murdering the petitioner’s husband, and the respondents should be directed to issue the death certificate.