The single judge bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan of the Punjab and Haryana High court in the case of Sita Raman V. Ram Kishan and others held that the accused could not only be convicted on the basis of confessional statement recorded by the police.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that the FIR was registered by the petitioner.it was further stated that the respondent and the petitioner entered into an agreement after which the sale consideration was paid and possession was handed over. By obtaining a loan from the Bank, the petitioner built a structure on the plot. Ram Kishan completed a sale deed in Sonu and Narinder's favor. Om Parkash and Kashmiri are accused of stealing the cooler, chair, and table, as well as damaging the petitioner's structure with a JCB.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the trial court commit a grave error by not taking into consideration the evidence of two neighbors who disposed of that there was an agreement to sell and the possession of the plot in dispute. Further, the suit for specific performance was allowed. However, in appeal decree was modified and alternative relief was granted. The court was also informed that the matter is pending before this court in a regular second appeal. it was further contended that the trial court has not considered the confessional statement of Kashmiri recorded by the police with regard to the stolen cooler.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The hon'ble court stated that the prosecution failed to prove that the petitioner was the owner and in possession of the plot in dispute. It is rightly held that an agreement to sell is not a document of title. The deposition of the neighbors will not bestow a valid title of the ownership on the petitioner. The filing of the suit for specific performance only shows that no registered sale deed was executed in favor of the petitioner. During the course of arguments, it has not been pointed out that the finding was recorded in proceedings for specific performance that the petitioner was in possession of the land. Further, it was stated that The reliance upon the confessional statement of Kashmiri recorded by the police is misplaced as the accused could not only be convicted on the basis of the confessional statement recorded by the police.
The court relied on the apex court judgment titled, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Krishna Kumar Pandey in which it was held that
“The scope of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court (or Sessions Court) under Section 397 Cr.P.C,, 1973 is limited to the extent of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality, or propriety of any finding, sentence, or order passed by an inferior Court. The revisional Court is entitled to look into the regularity of any proceeding before an inferior Court. As reiterated by this Court in a number of cases, the purpose of this revisional power is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law.”
Thereafter the court dismissed the revision petition and stated there is no reason to interfere.
CASE NAME- Sita Raman V. Ram Kishan and others
CITATION- CRR-3491-2018 (O&M)
DATED- 18th August, 2022
CORUM- Justice Avneesh Jhingan
Picture Source :
