Page 1 of 22

HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA

AT SHILLONG

Crl.A.No.28/2024 with

Crl.A.No.66/2025

Reserved on: 08.07.2026

Pronouncement on: 15.07.2026

Belting Tyngkra ….. Appellant

Vs.

1. State of Meghalaya represented by the Secretary, Government

of Meghalaya, Home (Police) Department, West Jaintia Hills

District, Meghalaya.

2. Investigating Officer, Jowai Police Station, Jowai.

….. Respondents

Salbinal Nangbah

Vs.

1. State of Meghalaya, through Superintendent of Police, Jowai,

West Jaintia Hills, Meghalaya. ….. Respondent

Coram:

Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Chief Justice

Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge

Appearance in Crl.A.No.28/2024:

For the Appellant : Mr. K. Ch. Gautam, Adv with

Ms. C.B. Sawian, Adv

For the Respondent : Mr. S. Sengupta, Add.PP with

Mr. A.H. Kharwanlang, Addl.PP

Appearance in Crl.A.No.66/2025:

For the Appellant : Ms. S. Nongsiej, Adv

For the Respondent : Mrs. N.G. Shylla, PP with

Mrs. I. Lyngwa, GA

Serial No.03

Supplementary List 2026:MLHC:721-DB

Page 2 of 22

i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes

Law journals etc.:

ii) Whether approved for publication

in press: Yes

JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble, the Chief Justice)

The aforesaid appeals are being decided together, since the

challenge in both the appeals is to the judgment dated 28

th

March, 2024 and the order of sentence dated 3

rd April, 2024,

passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Jaintia Hills District,

Jowai, in Sessions Case No.53 of 2014, convicting both the

aforesaid appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302

read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentencing them to suffer

rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of ₹5000/- each.

The learned Judge also recommended compensation of

₹3,00,000/- to the family of the deceased-Prodis Nongbah. This

recommendation was forwarded to the District Legal Services

Authority, West Jaintia Hills District for consideration.

2. At the outset, we may note that three accused i.e., the

aforesaid appellants and one Chalbinal, were charged for the

offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of 2026:MLHC:721-DB

Page 3 of 22

the IPC. During the course of the trial, co-accused Chalbinal

expired and as such, the trial proceeded only qua the appellants-

Salbinal and Belting.

3. The prosecution case in brief is as under;

4. According to the prosecution, Prodis Nangbah (deceased)

was murdered by the appellants and co-accused Chalbinal on 6

th

May, 2014 at around 2:00 am. The FIR was lodged by the sister of

Prodis Nangbah, PW1-Smti. Pri Nangbah, with the Jowai Police

Station, vide Jowai P.S. Case No.120(5) 14, alleging offences

punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

Admittedly, PW1 is not an eyewitness to the incident. During the

course of investigation, the police recorded the statements of

PW2-Shri Agreementson Khynriem and PW3 -Miss Ihunlang

Khynriem, both eyewitnesses to the alleged incident of assault by

the accused on their father-brother. The statements of the

eyewitnesses were also recorded under Section 164 CrPC. The

police collected all evidence qua the accused and after

investigation filed charge sheet against the appellants and co-

accused Chalbinal in the Court of the learned Magistrate. Since

the offence was an offence triable by the Court of Sessions, the

case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. Charge was 2026:MLHC:721-DB

Page 4 of 22

framed against the appellants and co-accused Chalbinal on 5

th

February, 2015, alleging offence punishable under Section 302

read with Section 34 of the IPC. The appellants pleaded not guilty

and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution in support of its case, examined as many as

nine witnesses, who are as under;

(1) PW1-Smti. Pri Nangbah (first informant and sister of the

deceased)

(2) PW2-Shri Agreementson Khynriem (child eyewitness and

son of the deceased)

(3) PW3-Miss Ihunlang Khynriem (child eyewitne ss and

daughter of the deceased)

(4) Dr. Ebiangmi Challam (the doctor who conducted the

postmortem);

(5) PW5-Shri E.S. Nangbah (Panch to the inquest

panchanama)

(6) PW6-Shri Teiborlang Pale (resident of village, who took

Prodis to the hospital)

(7) PW7-Dr. Return Pohshna (attached to Nartiang PHC, who

examined Prodis and referred him to Civil Hospital, Jowai)

(8) PW8-Smti. Morka Khyriem (saw Prodis injured after the

incident)

(9) PW9-Shri Chwalangki Lamare (the investigating officer)

6. Thereafter, the appellants were examined under Section 313

CrPC on 17

th February, 2022. The appellant-Salbinal examined 2026:MLHC:721-DB

Page 5 of 22

two defence witnesses in support of his defence i.e., DW1-Jeneis

Pyrtuh and DW2-Bok Lakot. The learned Judge, thereafter, heard

all the learned counsel appearing for the respective sides and

passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, as

stated in paragraph 1 hereinabove. Hence, these appeals.

7. Mr. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-

Belting submits that there is no iota of evidence qua the

appellant-Belting. He submits that PW2-Shri Agreementson has

not named the appellant-Belting and PW3-Ihunlang, although

has named the appellant-Belting, has not identified him in court.

He submitted that thus the identity of the appellant-Belting has

not been proved by the prosecution, inasmuch no Test

Identification Parade (TIP) was held nor has appellant-Belting

been identified in the dock. He submits that neither any motive is

alleged qua the appellant-Belting. He also submits that apart

from the aforesaid, there is no other evidence qua the appellant-

Belting and as such, the appellant-Belting be acquitted of the

offence with which he is charged.

8. Ms. Nongsiej, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-

Salbinal submits that the prosecution had failed to show any 2026:MLHC:721-DB

Page 6 of 22

motive qua the appellant-Salbinal for him to commit the murder

of Prodis (deceased). She submits that the incident had taken

place in the night when admittedly, there were no lights in the

village. She submits that the witnesses have stated that they

identified the appellant-Salbinal in candlelight and as such, in

the absence of any other evidence, the same ought not to be

believed. She also submits that the ocular evidence of the

eyewitnesses is not supported by the medical evidence. She

further submits that both the eyewitnesses, being child

witnesses, and as such interested witnesses, their evidence needs

to be viewed with circumspection. She further submits that the

FIR lodged by the sister of the deceased (Prodis), reveals that the

same was lodged against unknown persons, and as such, if the

incident as alleged had taken place as deposed to by the child

witnesses, the name of the appellant-Salbinal, would certainly

have found place in the FIR. She further submits that the

evidence of the eyewitnesses is not supported by the evidence of

PW8. In this view of the matter, she prays that the appellant-

Salbinal be acquitted of the offence with which he is charged, for

want of adequate evidence qua him. 2026:MLHC:721-DB

Page 7 of 22

9. Mr. Sengupta, learned counsel appearing for the prosecution

in the appeal filed by the appellant-Belting, is unable to show any

material to connect the said appellant with the offence, in

particular the evidence of identification of the said appellant by

the witnesses, in court.

10. Mrs. Shylla, learned PP appearing for the State in the appeal

filed by the appellant-Salbinal states, that the prosecution has

proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant-

Salbinal and that the said evidence is in the form of two

eyewitnesses, which inspires confidence and is trustworthy. She

submits that the prosecution has also proved motive for the

appellant to commit the offence.

11. We have perused the evidence with the assistance of the

learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. At the

outset, we may note that, although initially there were three

accused facing prosecution under Section 302 read with Section

34 of the IPC, during course of the trial, since co -accused-

Chalbinal expired, the trial proceeded only qua the aforesaid

appellants. 2026:MLHC:721-DB

Page 8 of 22

12. The evidence qua the appellants is in the nature of ocular

evidence i.e., two witnesses, medical evidence and motive.

13. The two eyewitnesses are PW2 and PW3 . Both are child

witnesses and are the children of the deceased, who were present

in the house, when their father-Prodis was assaulted.

14. The law on appreciation of the child witness is no longer res

integra.

15. In Nivrutti Pandurang Kokate & ors v. State of

Maharashtra reported in (2008) 12 SCC 565 , the Court

observed;

“There is no rule of practice that in every case the evidence of

a child witness has to be corroborated before a conviction can

be allowed to stand. It will depend upon the circumstances of

the case.”

16. In Dattu Ramrao Sakhare v. State of Maharashtra

reported in (1997) 5 SCC 341, it was held as follows: (SCC p.343,

para 5);

“A child witness is found competent to depose to the facts and

reliable one such evidence could be the basis of conviction. In

other words, even in the absence of oath the evidence of a

child witness can be considered under Section 118 of the

Evidence Act provided that such witness is able to 2026:MLHC:721-DB

Page 9 of 22

understand the questions and able to give rational answers

thereof. The evidence of a child witness and credibility thereof

would depend upon the circumstances of each case. The only

precaution which the court should bear in mind while

assessing the evidence of a child witness is that the witness

must be a reliable one and his/her demeanor must be like

any other competent witness and there is no likelihood of

being tutored.”

17. In Alagupandi alias Alagupandian v. State of Tamil

Nadu reported in (2012) 10 SCC 451, it was held as follows;

“36. It is a settled principle of law that a child witness can be

a competent witness provided statement of such witness is

reliable, truthful and is corroborated by other prosecution

evidence. The Court in such circumstances can safely rely

upon the statement of a child witness and it can form the

basis for conviction as well. Further, the evidence of a child

witness and credibility thereof would depend upon the

circumstances of each case. The only precaution which the

court should bear in mind while assessing the evidence of a

child witness is that the witness must be reliable one and

his/her demeanour must be like any other competent witness

and that there exists no likelihood of being tutored. There is

no rule or practice that in every case the evidence of such a

witness be corroborated by other evidence before a conviction

can be allowed to stand but as a rule of prudence the Court

always finds it desirable to seek corroboration to such

evidence from other reliable evidence placed on record.

Further, it is not the law that if a witness is a child, his

evidence shall be rejected, even if it is found reliable. (Dattu

Ramrao Sakhare v. State of Maharashtra and Panchhi v.

State of U.P.).

18. It is, thus, evident that a conviction can be based on the sole

testimony of child witness, if it is found to be trustworthy, 2026:MLHC:721-DB

Page 10 of 22

credible and inspiring confidence. However, it is desirable to seek

corroboration. However, that would depend upon the facts and

circumstances of each case. Keeping this in mind, we proceed to

consider the evidence of the two eyewitnesses, as has come on

record. PW2-Shri Agreementson, aged 12 years was administered

oath as he was found to be intelligent and capable of deposing.

PW2 has deposed that the deceased-Prodis was his father and his

mother’s name was Mary; that he was the eldest child of his

parents and had two younger sisters and one younger brother.

PW2 has further deposed that his father was killed in an incident

that took place on 5

th May, 2014. He has stated that he along

with his one sister and brother were in the house with their

father, as the youngest sister was taken by his mother to Shillong

to purchase medicine for her; and they had a shop in which

cigarettes, kwai and other items were sold and that the shop was

in the house where they were staying. PW2 has further deposed

that at night time on the day of the incident after closing the

shop, accused-Chalbinal (expired) and appellant-Salbinal came

and asked for cigarettes, however, his father did not open the

door; that both the accused said that if he does not open the

door, they will kick the door, however, his father refused to open 2026:MLHC:721-DB

Page 11 of 22

the door pursuant to which, the accused kicked the door and

forcefully entered their house.

19. PW2 has deposed that the house had two rooms, one room

was used as a shop and the other room as a bedroom and that

the kitchen was outside the house. He has stated that when the

accused came and entered their house, he was lying in the bed

and was not yet asleep; that he saw the accused entering the

house; that appellant-Sal was holding ka wait kti (wait bnoh) and

accused Chal (expired) was holding a wait khukri; that his father

got up from his bed and apologized to the said accused, however,

they assaulted his father with their weapons; that accused-Sal

assaulted his father, first by hitting him with ka wait on his head

and accused Chal (expired) assaulted his father with a Khukhri

on the back of his thigh; that the accused dragged their father out

of the house and left his father outside the house and fled from

the place in a maruti car; that his father ran towards the road

and that the people from the village helped their father and took

him to Nartiang Hospital, where he was referred to Shillong Civil

hospital. However, since his father expired, he was brought home.

PW2 has categorically stated that he knew Chal and Sal, as they 2026:MLHC:721-DB

Page 12 of 22

were residing in the same village as theirs. He has identified both,

Chal and Sal, as being present in the dock. The court has

recorded that the witness has identified Chal and Sal. It is

pertinent to note, that PW2 has neither named appellant-Belting

nor identified him in dock.

20. A perusal of the cross-examination of PW2 would show that

there is no cross-examination with respect to the actual assault

as deposed by PW2 qua Chal and Sal and the manner in which

the incident took place. To the contrary, the tenor of cross-

examination supports the prosecution. The said cross reads thus:

“I was asked by my mother and aunty sister of my father to

speak the truth.

Prior to the incident, I know the accused persons as they used

to come to come and buy things from our shop. My father and

the Accused prior to the incident had no enmity. On that night

I was lying awake in my bed while my father was asleep. On

that night there was no lights in the village and we light up a

candle in our house. When I saw my father being assaulted

by the Accused I did not scream out. When my father was

dragged out of the house, I did not go and call for help from

the neighbours when my father was being dragged out. I was

on my bed. The colour of the maruti car in which the Accused

fled away was white in colour. I do not remember the colour

of the clothes the Accused was wearing as there was no light,

but both of them were wearing a normal sweat-shirt.”

2026:MLHC:721-DB

Page 13 of 22

21. Thus, from the aforesaid, it appears that having regard to

what is deposed by PW2, which fact has not been challenged in

cross by PW2, the evidence of PW2 inspires confidence and

appears to be trustworthy. There is nothing on record in the cross

of PW2 to discredit his testimony nor anything brought on record

to show that PW2 had any reason to falsely implicate the

accused.

22. The prosecution examined Miss Ihunlang daughter of the

deceased, aged 11 years as PW3. The trial court after interacting

with PW3 found her to be intelligent and capable of deposing.

PW3 has in her evidence stated that the deceased was her father

and she was studying in Class-IV at the relevant time. She has

stated that the incident took place on 6

th May, 2014; that when

two people (Chal and Sal) came in the night to their house, as

they were running a shop from the house; that they called out

and asked to give cigarettes, however, her father who was in the

house did not open the door, as the shop was closed; that those

people kicked the door open and entered the house; that when

the people entered the house, her father woke up from the bed

and apologized to them many times saying he did not do 2026:MLHC:721-DB

Page 14 of 22

anything; that her father tried to run away but he was assaulted

by those people and that they also broke his wrist; that the

persons who assaulted her father were Chal and Sal. PW3 has

categorically stated that as they were residents of the village, she

knew them and that Chal and Sal are brothers. PW3 has further

stated that Sal assaulted her father on the head, after which Chal

broke her father’s wrist and also twisted his neck; she has further

stated that after her father came out of the room trying to escape,

Belting (appellant) who was standing outside held her father and

pushed him and then, all the persons ran away from there

pursuant to which, her father was taken to the hospital with the

help of the villagers, where he succumbed to the injuries. Again,

there is no cross-examination of PW3 with respect to the actual

assault deposed to by PW3 in her examination-in-chief. To the

contrary, the tenor of the cross-examination, reflects that both

the accused were present in the house. There are no denials nor

any suggestions to the witness.

23. In the cross-examination, it has come that on that night,

she saw two people (Chal and Sal) entering the house; that she

knew the accused, as she has seen them earlier and knew their 2026:MLHC:721-DB

Page 15 of 22

surnames; that the accused surname was Nangbah; that their

father was dragged out of the house; that when the accused fled,

they had also come out of the house; that she saw the people

fleeing away; that accused-Sal and Chal entered their house and

that accused-Belting did not enter the house; that when accused-

Chal and Sal entered their house, she did not see accused-Belting

standing outside; and that when accused Chal and Sal entered

their house, she saw only one person carrying ka wait-bnoh and

that person who was holding ka wait-bnoh was Sal (appellant).

24. A perusal of the evidence of both the eyewitnesses, who were

child witnesses would show that there is no cross-examination,

with respect to the actual incident of assault by accused Chal and

Sal, as deposed to by these two witnesse s. There are no

suggestions, no denials and as such, the evidence of both these

witnesses with respect to the actual assault by accused Chal and

Sal has gone unchallenged. Their presence nor their identity

disputed. Infact, as noted above, the tenor of the cross -

examination of both the child witnesses shows an admission of

the presence of Chal and Sal, at the scene of occurrence. The

reason for entering the house being denial of cigarette and of 2026:MLHC:721-DB

Page 16 of 22

kicking and forcibly entering the house has also not been denied

or challenged by the accused. In this view of the matter, we find

both the child witnesses’ evidence to be credible, trustworthy and

without blemish and as such, inspiring confidence.

25. The said evidence is also duly corroborated by the evidence

of PW7-Dr. Return Pohsnem, who was posted at Nartiang PHC at

the relevant time. PW7 in his evidence has deposed that on 6

th

May, 2014, one patient-Prodis Nangbah from Mynkrem village

was brought to PHC at around 3 am. The patient was admitted

while in a state of shock i.e., blood pressure was 70/40 and pulse

was feeble. On local examination, he found that there was an

incised wound in the right hand, measuring 6cm in length, 2cm

in breath and 5cm in dept with excessive bleeding and an incised

injury on the forehead, 3cm in length, 1 cm in breath and 5cm in

depth. He has stated that since the patient was in a state of

shock, efforts were made to stabilize him and he was referred to

the Civil Hospital, Jowai at 3:30 am. He has stated that at 3:50

am, the patient was brough back to PHC, dead , pursuant to

which, he informed the police. 2026:MLHC:721-DB

Page 17 of 22

26. PW4-Dr. (Mrs.) Ebiangmi Challam, is the doctor who

conducted the postmortem examination on the deceased -Prodis

has in her evidence stated that on 6

th May, 2014, a dead body

was brought to the Civil Hospital, Jowai, for postmortem and that

she conducted the postmortem on the very same day i.e., 6

th May,

2014 at 11:45 am. PW4-Dr. Challam found the following injuries

on the dead body:

“Wound:- Laceration on the right hand at the

metacarpophalangeal (joint in the palm of the hand).

There is a fracture of the bone at the same

metacarophalangeal.

Injury in the scalp:- Laceration on the right frontal region.

Laceration on the occipital region

Skull:- Skull has a fracture of the occipital bone beneath the

injury.

Membrane:- there is fracture of a membrane and the right

side of fractures with the presence of blood clot and the brain

is intact.

The injuries found on the body of the deceased were ante

mortem ini nature.

In my opinion the course of death was due to intracranial

hemorrhage resulting from head injury caused by a hand

blunt object.

Exhibit 3 is the Post Mortem Report prepared by me and 3(1)

is my signature.”

2026:MLHC:721-DB

Page 18 of 22

27. The postmortem report is exhibited as Exhibit-3. Thus, from

the aforesaid medical evidence, we find that the said evidence

duly corroborates the ocular evidence of PW2 and PW3.

28. In view of the aforesaid evidence, we find that the

prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Salbinal

was one of the accused who assaulted deceased-Prodis and that

the same is borne out by the ocular evidence of PW2 and PW3,

duly corroborated by medical evidence.

29. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-

Salbinal that identification was first time in court ought not to be

accepted as proper identification as TIP was not held, needs to be

rejected for the following reasons:

(i) that the evidence on record shows that appellant-Salbinal

hails from the same village and as such, was known to both

the eyewitnesses and there is no challenge to the same, by

the appellant-Salbinal;

(ii) that if the accused are known to a witness, TIP is not

required. Accused-Salbinal was known to both the 2026:MLHC:721-DB

Page 19 of 22

eyewitnesses, as he hailed from the same village and PW2

has categorically identified accused-Salbinal in Court;

(iii) that no doubt there was no light in the village but the

evidence of both, PW2 and PW3 shows that the witnesses

saw the accused in candlelight. When the accused are

known, it is well possible to identify them even in candlelight

and;

(iv) that there is also no challenge to the fact, that there was

no candlelight in the house.

Thus, there is no merit in the said submission advanced by

learned counsel for the appellant-Salbinal.

30. As far as the submission of the learned counsel for the

appellant-Sabinal, that PW2 and PW3 are interested witnesses

and as such, the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled

out, we do not also find any merit in the said submission. At the

cost of repetition, we may note that the purpose for entering the

house appears to be not giving cigarettes, to the accused, and

that the same is not challenged by the appellant-Salbinal. There

is nothing brought on record in the cross-examination of PW2 2026:MLHC:721-DB

Page 20 of 22

and PW3, to even suggest that there was any animosity between

the deceased and the accused, for them to falsely implicate the

accused.

31. Considering the manner and where the incident took place,

both PW2 and PW3, were natural witnesses and merely because

they were present in the house, their evidence cannot be

discarded by saying that they were interested witnesses. Their

presence at the house was natural, considering the time and

place of the incident. Thus, we find the prosecution has proved its

case beyond reasonable doubt qua appellant-Salbinal.

32. As far as appellant-Belting is concerned, we find that the

prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt

qua appellant-Belting inasmuch as, he was not named by PW2 in

his evidence and was not identified in the dock either, by PW2 or

PW3. In this view of the matter, the appellant-Belting will have to

be acquitted of the offence for which he is convicted and

sentenced. Accordingly, we pass the following order;

ORDER

(i) The appeal filed by Salbinal, being Crl.A.No.66 of 2025, is

dismissed and as such, the judgment and order passed by 2026:MLHC:721-DB

Page 21 of 22

the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.53 of 2014

stands confirmed qua appellant-Salbinal.

(ii) As far as, appeal being Crl.A.No.28 of 2024, preferred by

appellant-Belting is concerned, the same is allowed and as

such, the judgment and order in as much, as it convict

appellant-Belting is concerned, the same stands quashed

and set aside qua him and as such, he is acquitted of the

offence for which he was charged. Appellant-Belting be

released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Fine, if

any, deposited to be refunded to appellant-Belting.

(iii) As far as the recommendation made to the Secretary,

DLSA, West Jaintia Hills District, Jowai by the trial court to

award compensation of ₹3 lakhs to the family of deceased-

Prodis is considered, the Secretary, DLSA, West Jaintia Hills

District, Jowai to submit a report whether any such

compensation has been awarded to the family of the

deceased-Prodis. The Secretary, DLSA to submit a report to

this Court within eight weeks from today.

2026:MLHC:721-DB

Page 22 of 22

(iv) Registry to forward/communicate this order to the

Secretary, DLSA, West Jaintia Hills District by e -

mail/Fax to enable the Secretary to submit its report.

33. Both, the appeals stand disposed of on the aforesaid terms.

34. List this appeal for recording compliance on 3

rd

September,

2026.

35. All parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

(W. Diengdoh) (Revati Mohite Dere)

Judge Chief Justice

Meghalaya

15.07.2026

“Lam DR-PS” 2026:MLHC:721-DB