STATE OF MEGHALAYA Vs. MELVIN SOHLANGPIAW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Respondent herein, a member of the Khasi Scheduled Tribe, was being tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC') before the Sessions Judge, Nongstoin, West Khasi Hills District. Briefly, the case set up by the prosecution is that a dead body was found lying on the Nondein river bank on 26.03.2017, pursuant to which the Officer in Charge of Police Station, Nongstoin ('Complainant') was informed and an FIR was registered by him. Upon investigation, the identity of the deceased person was known, who was also found to be a member of the Khasi Scheduled Tribe. With the use of a SIM card recovered from her body, the last calls made using her number were traced to the Respondent herein (accused). Consequently, the accused was arrested and he voluntarily lead the police to the spot where he had buried the dead body. On 31.08.2017, a chargesheet was filed against him under Sections 302 and 201, IPC. On 08.11.2017, the case was committed for trial to the Court of the Sessions Judge, Nongstoin, West Khasi Hills District and the accused was summoned to appear before it.

(2.) At the very outset, it is important to note that the area where the alleged offence is said to have occurred, West Khasi Hills District, is a notified autonomous district included in the table appended to paragraph 20 of the 6 th Schedule to the Constitution of India ('the Constitution'), which deals with the administration of tribal areas in the States of Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram, and Tripura. Specifically, the aspect of judicial dispensation in such areas is dealt with under paragraphs 4 and 5 of the 6th Schedule to the Constitution as follows:

(3.) Relying on these provisions, learned Counsel for the Petitioner urged that under paragraph 4 of the 6 th Schedule to the Constitution, all of the parties to a suit or case must necessarily belong to Scheduled Tribes within such areas, for the District Council Court to have exclusive jurisdiction over such suits or cases. Given that a criminal case is always prosecuted by the State, he submitted that the instant case against the Respondent cannot be said to be a dispute between two tribals, as the deceased is not and cannot be a party to such a case. He also urged that the Complainant, i.e. the Officer in Charge at the Police Station, can also not be considered a party to the case, as he was acting in his official capacity and thus forms part of the State machinery.