JEWING MYNTHLIANG Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A. R. Passah, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. R. Gurung, learned GA appearing for the State-respondent No.1. None appeared for the respondent No.2 despite service of due notice. By this revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dtd. 5/6/2024 passed in Sessions Case No.1 (T) of 2024 by which the learned Trial Court had directed for framing of charge against the petitioner under Sec. 120-B/302/201/34 IPC. The fact of the case is that an FIR dtd. 19/7/2023 was lodged by the respondent No.2 before the Officer-In-Charge, Sohryngkham Police Outpost, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya informing about the disappearance of one (L) Pyndaplang Suiting on 16/7/2022 and discovery of the dead body of said person on 18/7/2022 from a drain at Shillong Jowai Road Sohryngkham Mawkhlir. On the basis of the FIR, the Mawrynkneng PS Case No. 21 (7) of 2022 under Sec. 302/201/34 IPC was registered and investigated into. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was prepared and forwarded to the Trial Court by naming the petitioner as one of the accused persons in the case. At the trial, the petitioner had argued for his discharge on the ground that no case has been made out against him in the charge-sheet. However, the Trial Court vide impugned order dtd. 5/6/2024 rejected the prayer of discharge made by the petitioner and directed for framing of charge against him. Assailing the order dtd. 5/6/2024, the petitioner has preferred this revision application before this Court.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence mainly on the Call Details Record (CDR) which is not a substantive piece of evidence. He submitted that there is no statement by any independent witness to corroborate the CDR and hence, no case is made out requiring the petitioner to face the trial. The learned Counsel contended that the investigation has failed to link the petitioner to the commission of the offence by any admissible evidence and the mobile phone of the main accused from which CDR has been retrieved was never seized. He further submitted that though he was accused of using mobile phone of his wife in making contact with the prime accused in the matter, the statement of his wife was never recorded by the Investigating Officer and she is not named as a witness in the case. The learned Counsel, therefore, argued that there exists no sufficient material for proceeding against the petitioner and the petitioner may be discharge from the liability of the case.

(3.) Mr. R. Gurung, learned GA for the respondent No.1, on the other hand, has refuted the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and submitted that enough materials are provided in the charge-sheet to make a prima-facie case against the petitioner. He submitted that the learned Trial Court has taken into consideration all the relevant details of the allegations appearing against the petitioner in the charge-sheet and has correctly passed the impugned order, which requires no interference by this Court.