Case Note & Summary
The State of Meghalaya appealed against the High Court's order transferring the trial of Melvin Sohlangpiaw, a member of the Khasi Scheduled Tribe, from the Sessions Court to the District Council Court. The respondent was charged under Sections 302 and 201 IPC for the murder of a woman, also a Khasi Scheduled Tribe member, whose body was found on a riverbank. The prosecution's case relied on call records and the accused's confession leading to the recovery of the body. The High Court allowed the transfer petition, holding that the District Council Court had exclusive jurisdiction under the Sixth Schedule. The Supreme Court dismissed the State's appeal, affirming that the CrPC does not apply to tribal areas unless extended, and no such extension existed. The Court interpreted 'parties' in paragraph 4 of the Sixth Schedule to include the deceased, who was a tribal, and held that the State is not a party for jurisdictional purposes. The Governor's notification under paragraph 5(1) conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the District Council Court for offences punishable with death or imprisonment for five years or more. The Court rejected the State's argument that the case was between the State and the accused, emphasizing the special constitutional scheme for tribal areas.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Sixth Schedule - Exclusive Jurisdiction of District Council Courts - Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India - The Supreme Court held that where both the accused and the deceased belong to Scheduled Tribes and the offence occurs in a notified autonomous district, the District Council Court has exclusive jurisdiction to try the case, as the term 'parties' in paragraph 4 includes the deceased as a party to the case. The State, as prosecutor, is not a party for the purpose of determining tribal status. (Paras 10-12) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Non-application to Tribal Areas - Section 1(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The CrPC does not apply to tribal areas unless extended by notification. Since no such notification existed for the Khasi Hills District, the Sessions Court lacked jurisdiction. (Paras 6-7) C) Constitutional Law - Conferment of Powers under Paragraph 5 - Paragraph 5(1) of the Sixth Schedule - The Governor's notification dated 07.02.2017 conferred powers on the District Council Court to try offences punishable with death or imprisonment for not less than five years, including Sections 302 and 201 IPC, thereby vesting exclusive jurisdiction in that court. (Paras 8-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a criminal case under Sections 302 and 201 IPC against a member of a Scheduled Tribe, where the deceased is also a member of a Scheduled Tribe, is exclusively triable by the District Council Court under paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, affirming the High Court's order. The trial of the respondent under Sections 302 and 201 IPC shall be conducted by the District Council Court, Khasi Hills Autonomous District, Shillong.
Law Points
- Exclusive jurisdiction of District Council Courts under Sixth Schedule
- Non-application of CrPC to tribal areas
- Interpretation of 'parties' in paragraph 4 of Sixth Schedule
- Conferment of powers under paragraph 5 of Sixth Schedule
