The Supreme Court has upheld a Meghalaya High Court judgment of transferring a criminal case from the court of the sessions judge to the court of the judge of Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council.

The apex court passed the judgment on February 11 after hearing a special leave petition filed by the Meghalaya government against the high court judgment.

According to the prosecution, a woman’s body was found on the bank of the Nondein on March 26, 2017. The deceased was identified as belonging to the Khasi tribe. With the use of a SIM card recovered from her possessions, the last calls from her number were traced to Melvin Sohlangpiaw, also belonging to the Khasi tribe. Sohlangpiaw was arrested and led the police to the spot where he had buried the body. The body had possibly surfaced from the site in the flow of water. Sohlangpiaw was subsequently tried by the sessions judge, Nongstoin, West Khasi Hills. However, he appealed for the transfer of the case to the court of the judge, Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council, Shillong, on the basis that the parties to the case were both tribals, and hence, the case should be exclusively tried by the district council court.

The high court allowed the transfer vide the impugned judgment of December 5, 2017.

The Supreme Court noted that the area where the alleged offence was said to have occurred, West Khasi Hills district, is a notified autonomous district included in the table appended to paragraph 20 of the Sixth Schedule, which deals with the administration of tribal areas in Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram and Tripura.

“In the instant case, it is an admitted position that both the victim and the respondent accused belong to the Khasi Scheduled Tribe. Thus, given that there is a specific notification dated 07.02.2017 that confers the district council court with powers under the CrPC to try certain criminal offences, we find that such conferral should be given effect. In fact, upon combined reading of paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Sixth Schedule, such district council court has the exclusive jurisdiction to entertain such a case,” the court stated.

It said it did not find any ground to interfere with the high court judgment, as it was “justified” in transferring the criminal case against the accused.

The court also directed the district council court to issue fresh summons to the accused, if he has not already appeared, and to proceed with the trial after framing of charges in accordance with law.

Given that the incident occurred in March 2017, the Supreme Court directed the district council to complete the trial and decide the matter on merits as early as possible but not later than one year from the date of its order.