Shri. Jewing Mynthliang vs . 1.State Of Meghalaya, Represented By on 4 March, 2025

Meghalaya High Court

Shri. Jewing Mynthliang vs . 1.State Of Meghalaya, Represented By on 4 March, 2025

                                                          2025:MLHC:136




Serial No.15
Regular List
                      HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
                          AT SHILLONG

Crl. Rev. P. No. 7 of 2024                    Date of Order: 04.03.2025
____________________________________________________________
Shri. Jewing Mynthliang           Vs. 1.State of Meghalaya, Represented by
S/o Lam Sungoh                         the Secretary to the Government of
R/o - Moobakhon Village,               Meghalaya, Home (Police)
Nartiang, West Jaintia Hills District, Department.
Meghalaya
                                       2. Mr. Nehlang Suting
                                       S/o Medrak Shylla
                                       R/o Thadmukoh, West Jaintia Hills
                                       District, Meghalaya.

.....Petitioner.                        .....Respondents.

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Bhattacharjee, Judge

Appearance:

For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. A. R. Passah, Adv.

For the Respondent(s)           : Mr. R. Gurung, GA. (R: 1)



ORAL:-

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 dated
05-06-2024 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
Section 120-B/302/201/34 IPC. The fact of the case is that an FIR dated 19-
Page 1 of 4
2025:MLHC:136

07-2023 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 16-07-
2022 and discovery of the dead body of said person on 18-07-2022 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 Section
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 dated 05-06-2024 rejected the prayer of
discharge made by the petitioner and directed for framing of charge against
him. Assailing the order dated 05-06-2024, the petitioner has preferred this
revision application before this Court.

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,

Page 2 of 4
2025:MLHC:136

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.

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.

Upon hearing the learned Counsels for the parties and perusal of the
materials on record reveal that the charge-sheet in the Session Case No. 1(T)
of 2024 has indeed been filed against the petitioner basing on the
circumstantial evidence collected from the CDR of different mobile
numbers. From the analysis of the CDR details indicated in the charge-
sheet, it appears that Smti Mercy Muruh, the wife of the petitioner, was
using a mobile phone, service of which was also utilized by the petitioner.
The call details of the said mobile phone indicate that calls were made to the
phone number of the prime accused before and after the incident alleged in
the FIR. Furthermore, the charge-sheet reveals that the statement of the wife
of the petitioner was also recorded during the course of investigation where
he stated that the petitioner had no mobile of his own and used to asked for
her mobile phone whenever he needed to contact somebody. She also stated
that on the day of occurrence the petitioner went out and did not return home
at night.

Page 3 of 4

2025:MLHC:136

Perusal of the impugned order dated 05-06-2024 indicates that the
learned Trial Court had taken into consideration the relevant part of the
charge-sheet while rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to discharge him
from the liability of the case. This Court also does not see any reason to
take a different view from other than what has been taken by the Trial Court,
specially in the light of the statement of the wife of the accused appearing in
the charge-sheet which indicate the petitioner had gone out with the main
accused at and around the time when the incident took place.

Taking into consideration the materials on record as discussed above
and the gravity of the crime involved in the matter, this Court finds no merit
in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. Resultantly, this criminal
petition stands dismissed.

It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the details of the
merits and demerits of the prosecution case alleged in the charge-sheet. The
view expressed hereinabove shall not prejudice any of the parties at the trial.

Judge

Meghalaya
04.03.2025
“Biswarup PS”

Page 4 of 4

Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by BISWARUP
BHATTACHARJEE
Date: 2025.03.04 18:17:20 IST