Meghalaya High Court
Millingstone Khardewsaw vs State Of Meghalaya on 30 June, 2026
Author: W. Diengdoh
Bench: W. Diengdoh
Serial No. 03
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
Daily List
AT SHILLONG
Crl.A. No. 39 of 2024
Date of order: 30.06.2026
Millingstone Khardewsaw vs State of Meghalaya
Coram:
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
Appearance:
For the Appellant : Ms B.L. Lyngkhoi, Adv.
For the Respondent : Mr K. Khan, AAG with
Mr S. Sengupta, Addl PP
Mr A.H. Kharwanlang, Addl PP
On 16.06.2026, we passed the following order in the
aforesaid appeal;
“During the course of hearing of the aforesaid appeal and
after perusing the evidence of some of the witnesses,
learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the State
Defence Counsel, who was appointed to defend the
appellant had not performed her duty. He submitted that
PW4 and PW5 were not cross-examined by the State
Defence Counsel, for reasons best known, more
particularly, when there was evidence on record qua the
appellant.
In order to consider whether the matter needs to be remitted
back to the trial court only for the purpose of conducting the
cross-examination of the PW4 and PW5, we deem it
appropriate to first verify, whether PW4 and PW5 are
available. A report to that effect be submitted by learned
AAG on the next date.
Stand over to 30th June, 2026.”
Page 1 of 4
2. Pursuant thereto, learned AAG has tendered a report of
the Superintendent of Police, South West Khasi Hills,
Mawkyrwat, dated 24.06.2026. From the said report it appears
that PW4 and PW5 are available.
3. As noted in our order dated 16.06.2026, during the course
of hearing of the aforesaid appeal, we noticed that the State
Defence Counsel appointed to espouse the cause of the appellant
had not cross-examined PW4-Doctor Badira Mawlong and PW5-
Smti. I. Warlarpih for reasons best known, more particularly,
when there was evidence on record qua the appellant.
4. Time and again, the Apex Court has observed that the role
of the State Defence Counsel is extremely important and that
they are expected to perform their obligation and duty in
defending the appellant to the best of their ability. Infact, in
Ashok v. State of Uttar Pradesh: (2025) 2 SCC 381, the Apex
Court while dealing with the issue of appointment of counsel
through legal aid process, in paras 38.11 and 38.12 has held:
“38.11. The right of the accused to defend himself in a
criminal trial is guaranteed by Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. He is entitled to a fair trial. But if
effective legal aid is not made available to an accused whoPage 2 of 4
is unable to engage an advocate, it will amount to
infringement of his fundamental rights guaranteed by
Article 21;
38.12. If legal aid is provided only for the sake of providing
it, it will serve no purpose. Legal aid must be effective.
Advocates appointed to espouse the cause of the accused
must have good knowledge of criminal laws, law of
evidence and procedural laws apart from other important
statutes. As there is a constitutional right to legal aid, that
right will be effective only if the legal aid provided is of a
good quality. If the legal aid advocate provided to an
accused is not competent enough to conduct the trial
efficiently, the rights of the accused will be violated.”
The above proposition of law has been reiterated by the
Apex Court in the case of Sovaran Singh Prajapati v. State of
Uttar Pradesh: (2025) SCC OnLine SC 351.
5. In Sovaran Singh Prajapati (supra), the Apex Court has
observed that it is the duty of the Court to ensure that an
accused facing trial is represented effectively by a defence
counsel and that failure to do so would result in denial of a fair
trial to an accused.
6. Having noticed that the State Defence Counsel has not
performed her obligation by cross-examining the aforesaid
witnesses i.e., PW4 and PW5 and having regard to the report
submitted by learned AAG that PW4 and PW5 are available, we
Page 3 of 4
deem it appropriate to remit the matter back to the trial court,
so as to enable the appellant’s Advocate to cross-examine PW4-
Doctor Badira Mawlong and PW5-Smti. I. Warlarpih. The
prosecution is also permitted to re-examine the witnesses, if so
necessary, in accordance with law.
7. The said exercise to be completed by the trial court within
four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. It is made clear
that no adjournment will be sought either by the prosecution or
by the appellant’s Defence lawyer. Both to cooperate with the
trial court with the expeditious recording of evidence of the said
witnesses.
8. Stand over to 4th August, 2026.
9. Needless to state, that the Registry to forthwith transmit
the record to the trial court, to enable the trial court to comply
with the aforesaid order.
(W. Diengdoh) (Revati Mohite Dere)
Judge Chief Justice
Signature Not Verified Page 4 of 4
Digitally signed by SYLVANA
LIZ KHARBHIH
Date: 2026.07.06 17:20:56 IST
