Page 1 of 15

HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA

AT SHILLONG

Crl.A.No.8/2024

Reserved on: 28.07.2026

Pronouncement on:04.08.2026

Smti. Jenorin D. Sangma ..... Appellant

Vs.

The State of Meghalaya, through the Commissioner &

Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Department of

Home (Police), Civil Secretariat, Shillong. ..... Respondent

Coram:

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

Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge

Appearance:

For the Appellant : Ms. N.M. Kharshemlang, LAC

For the Respondent : Mr. R. Gurung, Addl.PP with

Mr. S. Sengupta, Addl.PP

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)

By this appeal, the appellant has impugned the

judgment of conviction dated 14

th February, 2020 and order of

sentence dated 20

th February, 2020, passed by the learned

Sessions Judge/Addl.DC, Ri-Bhoi District, Nongpoh, in

Session Case No.22 of 2017. The appellant has been convicted

Serial No.01

Supplementary List

2026:MLHC:814-DB

Page 2 of 15

for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and is

sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay

fine of ₹25,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further

undergo simple imprisonment for five months. The appellant

has also been convicted for the offence punishable under

Section 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC and is sentenced

to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine

of ₹10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo

simple imprisonment for one month. Both the sentences are

directed to run concurrently.

2. Co-accused-Prabhat came to be convicted for the offence

punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

However, it appears that soon after the judgment was

pronounced, he absconded and as such, we are concerned

only with the appeal filed by the appellant.

3. The prosecution case in brief is as under;

4. According to the prosecution, the appellant murdered

her husband in 2015 and thereafter, buried his body in

Chibra village on the hill side. It is further the prosecution 2026:MLHC:814-DB

Page 3 of 15

case that on 30

th January, 2017, the Pillangkatta Police

Outpost received telephonic information from Shri John D.

Sangma (PW1), headman of Iongkhuli village that the

appellant had admitted to him of killing her husband -

Dhantharu Mushahary (deceased) in 2015 and, that his dead

body was buried in Chibra village. On receipt of the said

information, the in-charge officer of Pillangkatta Police

Outpost informed the Superintendent of Police, Ri -Bhoi

District, Nongpoh, pursuant to which, the appellant came to

be arrested. During the course of investigation, the police

recorded the statements of witnesses, recorded 164 statement

of the co-accused-Prabhat (absconding), collected evidence

and thereafter, filed chargesheet against the appellant and co-

accused-Prabhat in the Court of the learned Magistrate First

Class.

5. Since one of the offences alleged i.e. Section 302 of the

IPC was triable by the Court of Sessions Court, the case was

committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. Thereafter, on

22

nd February, 2018, the learned Sessions Judge framed 2026:MLHC:814-DB

Page 4 of 15

charge against the appellant, to which, she pleaded not guilty

and claimed to be tried.

6. The prosecution in support of its case examined as

many as 15 witnesses, who are as under;

1. PW1-Shri John D. Sangma

2. PW2-Smti Kristina M. Sangma

3. PW3-Dr. D.M. Momin

4. PW4-Smti. Serin Ch. Marak

5. PW5-Shri Tim M. Sangma

6. PW6-Shri Chobin J. Sangma

7. PW7-Shri Bimol Sangma

8. PW8-Shri Myntoilang Kshiar

9. PW9-Shri Phelson Pyngrope

10. PW10-Shri Jengson B. Marak

11. PW11-Smti. Danida Dehlia Syngai

12. PW12-Smti. R.M. Kharsyntiew, CJM

13. PW13-Inspector J. Rabha

14. PW14-S.I. Kamal Thapa

15. PW15-Dr. P. Suiam

7. Thereafter, the statement of the appellant was recorded

under Section 313 CrPC. The appellant did not examine any

witness. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the learned

counsel appearing for the appellant and the prosecution, 2026:MLHC:814-DB

Page 5 of 15

convicted the appellant and co-accused as stated aforesaid in

paragraph 1.

8. Admittedly, the prosecution case rests on circumstantial

evidence. The law relating to circumstantial evidence is no

longer res integra. In the landmark case of Sharad

Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra reported in

(1984) 4 SCC 116, the Apex Court has laid down the five

golden principles to be followed in a case based on

circumstantial evidence. They are;

“(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of

guilt is to be drawn should be fully established,

(2) the facts so established should be consistent only

with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to

say, they should not be explainable on any other

hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,

(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature

and tendency,

(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except

the one to be proved, and

(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not

to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion

consistent with the innocence of the accused and must

show that in all human probability the act must have

been done by the accused.”

2026:MLHC:814-DB

Page 6 of 15

9. Keeping in mind the aforesaid principles, we now

proceed to consider the circumstances relied upon by the

prosecution to bring home the guilt of the appellant. The

circumstance on which reliance is placed are;

(i) extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the

appellant to some of the witnesses;

(ii) confession of co-accused-Prabhat recorded under

Section 164 CrPC; and

(iii) discovery of the dead body, at the behest of the

appellant, allegedly under Section 27 of the Evidence

Act, pursuant to which, the dead body was exhumed.

10. In order to prove the circumstance of extra -judicial

confession, the prosecution examined PW1 -Shri John D.

Sangma, PW2-Smti. Kristina M. Sangma, PW4-Smti. Serin Ch.

Marak and PW5 -Shri Tim M. Sangma . PW1-Shri John D.

Sangma is the first informant to whom the appellant allegedly

made an extra-judicial confession, pursuant to which, FIR was

lodged. The said witness was declared hostile right at the 2026:MLHC:814-DB

Page 7 of 15

outset, and as such, his testimony offers no assistance

whatsoever to the prosecution.

11. PW2-Smti. Kristina M. Sangma was also examined to

prove extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to her.

In her evidence i.e., the examination-in-chief, PW2 deposed

that the appellant had come to her house and told her to take

her to the police station, as she had murdered her husband

and thrown his body; that she told her that she wanted to

surrender before the police, and as such, accompanied her to

the house of the headman of the village i.e. John D. Sangma

(PW1), who took the appellant to the Pillangkatta Police

Outpost. It has come in the cross-examination of PW2-Smti.

Kristina M. Sangma that she cannot state, whether the

appellant had committed the alleged offence of murder of her

husband, as she was not an eyewitness in the case.

12. The prosecution examined Smti. Serin Ch. Marak as

PW4. PW4 has stated that towards the end of 2017 (she does

not remember the date and month), when she was present,

she heard the appellant telling the headman that she had 2026:MLHC:814-DB

Page 8 of 15

killed her husband, pursuant to which, she accompanied PW2

to PW1-John D. Sangma ’s house, where the appellant

disclosed the same to PW1. Similar is the evidence of PW5-Tim

M. Sangma.

13. Thus, from the aforesaid evidence, it appears that an

extra-judicial confession was made by the appellant to these

aforesaid witnesses.

14. As far as the second circumstance is concerned, i.e.

confession made by co-accused-Prabhat to the Magistrate

under Section 164 is concerned, we find that the said

confession does not inspire confidence, nor does the said

confession, in any way point to the complicity of the appellant

in the crime. In order to prove the confession of co-accused-

Prabhat, the prosecution examined the Chief Judicial

Magistrate as PW12, who recorded the said confession. PW12-

the Chief Judicial Magistrate has in her evidence deposed that

co-accused-Prabhat in his statement recorded under Section

164 CrPC, disclosed that the appellant had called Prabhat (co-

accused), when he was asleep stating that, there was a quarrel 2026:MLHC:814-DB

Page 9 of 15

and a fight in her house, pursuant to which, Prabhat (co -

accused) visited the house; that on reaching the appellant’s

house, he saw the body of the appellant’s husband lying on

the floor of the veranda; that the person was already dead;

that there were four boys who were sitting in the veranda

besides the dead body and drinking alcohol; that he wanted to

run home but the four boys held him; that the co-accused-

Prabhat told one “Mami” to surrender before the police, as

they had done something wrong; that those four boys told him

that they should bury the dead body and asked him to help

them or else they will beat him up; that co-accused (Prabhat)

held the dead body and buried it near the house alongwith

four boys. It appears from the evidence of PW12, that the

appellant was also produced before the Magistrate, however,

she declined to give her confessional statement.

15. Considering the aforesaid evidence, i.e. confession

allegedly made by co-accused-Prabhat, we find that there is

nothing in the said confession which pinpoint s to the

complicity of the appellant in the crime. On the contrary, the

confession reveals that the dead body was lying in the 2026:MLHC:814-DB

Page 10 of 15

veranda, when he reached the house and that there were four

boys sitting around the dead body. This evidence does not in

any way show the complicity of the appellant in the crime. To

the contrary, it raises more question with respect to who were

the four boys and what investigation the police had done with

respect to the presence of the four boys around the dead body,

which was lying in the veranda; and the disposal of the dead

body thereafter.

16. Coming to the third circumstance i.e. discovery of the

dead body at the instance of the appellant is concerned, we

find that the said evidence as has come on record is

completely flawed. First and foremost, we find that there is no

memorandum panchnama of the appellant to show that the

appellant had made any disclosure statement; that she would

show the dead body which was concealed by her. From the

evidence of the panchas and witnesses i.e., PW6 to PW11, it

appears that it is the police who showed them the spot ,

pursuant to which, the body was exhumed from the said spot.

The said recovery evidence is shaky and as such, implicit

reliance cannot be placed on the same. 2026:MLHC:814-DB

Page 11 of 15

17. As noted above, the procedure contemplated for

recording panchnama under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is

not followed and as such, it is difficult to place implicit

reliance on the evidence of the witnesses examined in support

thereof and the prosecution case, that the dead body was

discovered at the instance of the appellant under Section 27 of

the Evidence Act. In addition to the aforesaid, the prosecution

has miserably failed to prove that the dead body which was

exhumed/discovered at the instance of the appellant was that

of the appellant’s husband i.e., the deceased, inasmuch as, no

DNA report was placed on record.

18. Thus, from the aforesaid, it is evident that the

prosecution has miserably failed to prove two vital

circumstances qua the appellant i.e., circumstance of extra-

judicial confession and confession of the co-accused-Prabhat.

19. Thus, the only circumstance which the prosecution has

been able to prove is an alleged extra-judicial confession made

by the appellant to PW1, PW2, PW4 and PW5. As far as extra-

judicial confession is concerned, the law relating to the same 2026:MLHC:814-DB

Page 12 of 15

is well settled. The Apex Court in the case of Sahadevan &

anr v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2012) 6 SCC 403,

in paragraph 16 held as under:

“The principles

16. Upon a proper analysis of the abovereferred

judgments of this Court, it will be appropriate to state the

principles which would make an extra-judicial confession

an admissible piece of evidence capable of forming the

basis of conviction of an accused. These precepts would

guide the judicial mind while dealing with the veracity of

cases where the prosecution heavily relies upon an extra-

judicial confession alleged to have been made by the

accused:

i) The extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence by

itself. It has to be examined by the court with greater

care and caution.

ii) It should be made voluntarily and should be

truthful.

iii) It should inspire confidence.

iv) An extra-judicial confession attains greater

credibility and evidentiary value if it is supported by a

chain of cogent circumstances and is further

corroborated by other prosecution evidence.

v) For an extra-judicial confession to be the basis of

conviction, it should not suffer from any material

discrepancies and inherent improbabilities.

vi) Such statement essentially has to be proved like

any other fact and in accordance with law.”

20. Having regard to the facts as have unfolded herein

above, the evidence on record clearly shows that apart from 2026:MLHC:814-DB

Page 13 of 15

the extra-judicial confession, there is no other circumstance

which pinpoints to the complicity of the appellant in the

alleged crime. It may be noted that the incident is of 2015,

reported in 2017. The person to whom the extra -judicial

confession was made i.e. PW1, the first informant has turned

hostile and as such, not supported the prosecution. Infact, the

prosecution has also failed to prove that the dead body was of

the deceased i.e. appellant’s husband. Thus, the prosecution

has failed to prove that the circumstances which

unequivocally point to the guilt of the appellant. Neither is the

chain of evidence complete to show that in all human

probability, it is the appellant and the appellant alone, who is

the perpetrator of the same. Infact, the police have failed to

investigate the role of the four persons sitting near the dead

body, as disclosed by co -accused-Prabhat in his 164

statement.

21. In this view of the matter, we find it difficult to sustain

the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant. The

appeal is accordingly allowed and the judgment and order of

conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions 2026:MLHC:814-DB

Page 14 of 15

Judge/Addl.DC, Ri-Bhoi District, Nongpoh, in Session Case

No.22 of 2017, is quashed and set aside.

22. The appellant be set at liberty forthwith, if not required

in any other case. Fine, if any, deposited to be refunded to the

appellant.

23. As far as the recommendation made to the Secretary,

DLSA, Ri-Bhoi District, Nongpoh by the trial court to award

compensation of ₹3 lakhs in the ratio of 2:1 to the custodian of

the minor children of the deceased victim (L) Dhantaru

Mushahary under the Victim Compensation Scheme, we direct

the Secretary, DLSA to submit a report whether any such

compensation has been awarded to the minor children of the

deceased victim (L) Dhantaru Mushahary . The Secretary,

DLSA to submit a report to this Court within eight weeks from

today.

24. Registry to forward/communicate this order to the

Secretary, DLSA, Ri-Bhoi District, Nongpoh by e-mail/Fax

to enable the Secretary to submit its report.

2026:MLHC:814-DB

Page 15 of 15

25. The appeal is allowed and disposed of on the aforesaid

terms.

26. List this appeal for recording compliance on 15

th

September, 2026.

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

(W. Diengdoh) (Revati Mohite Dere)

Judge Chief Justice

Meghalaya

04.08.2026

“Lam DR-PS”

2026:MLHC:814-DB