LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

The State of Meghalaya v. Melvin Sohlangpiaw

Special Leave Petition (Criminal) · 2020 INSC 171Decided 11 Feb 2020
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1218 of 2018
Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar · Justice R. Subhash Reddy

Background

The respondent, a member of the Khasi Scheduled Tribe, was facing trial for murder before a regular Sessions Court in Meghalaya, after being accused of killing another Khasi tribal woman. He argued that since both he and the victim belonged to the Khasi tribe, and the area was a notified tribal area under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, the case could only be tried by the special District Council Court set up for tribal areas, not an ordinary criminal court. The Meghalaya High Court agreed and transferred the case; the State challenged this before the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court examined paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Sixth Schedule, which allow autonomous District Councils to set up courts with exclusive jurisdiction over "cases between parties who are all Scheduled Tribes." The State argued a criminal case can never be "between" tribals alone because the State is technically the prosecutor. The Court rejected this, holding that the term "case" under the Sixth Schedule includes criminal matters, and what matters is whether the accused and the victim both belong to the same Scheduled Tribe: the State's formal role as prosecutor doesn't change that. Since the Governor had specifically empowered the District Council Court at Shillong to try such offences, the Supreme Court upheld the transfer and directed the tribal court to complete the trial within one year.

Lesson Learnt

In India's constitutionally recognised tribal areas, criminal cases between members of the same Scheduled Tribe can fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of special tribal courts rather than the ordinary criminal court system, even though the State formally brings the prosecution.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case