Meghalaya High Court
Belting Tyngkra vs 2. Investigating Officer on 15 July, 2026
Author: W. Diengdoh
Bench: W. Diengdoh
2026:MLHC:721-DB
Serial No.03
Supplementary List
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
Page 1 of 22
2026:MLHC:721-DB
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 28th
March, 2024 and the order of sentence dated 3rd 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
Page 2 of 22
2026:MLHC:721-DB
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 6th
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
Page 3 of 22
2026:MLHC:721-DB
framed against the appellants and co-accused Chalbinal on 5th
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 eyewitness 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 17th February, 2022. The appellant-Salbinal examined
Page 4 of 22
2026:MLHC:721-DB
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
Page 5 of 22
2026:MLHC:721-DB
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.
Page 6 of 22
2026:MLHC:721-DB
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.
Page 7 of 22
2026:MLHC:721-DB
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 toPage 8 of 22
2026:MLHC:721-DBunderstand 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,
Page 9 of 22
2026:MLHC:721-DB
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 5th 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
Page 10 of 22
2026:MLHC:721-DB
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
Page 11 of 22
2026:MLHC:721-DB
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.”
Page 12 of 22
2026:MLHC:721-DB
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 6th 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
Page 13 of 22
2026:MLHC:721-DB
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
Page 14 of 22
2026:MLHC:721-DB
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 witnesses. 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
Page 15 of 22
2026:MLHC:721-DB
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 6th
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.
Page 16 of 22
2026:MLHC:721-DB
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 6th 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., 6th 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.”
Page 17 of 22
2026:MLHC:721-DB
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
Page 18 of 22
2026:MLHC:721-DBeyewitnesses, 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
Page 19 of 22
2026:MLHC:721-DB
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
Page 20 of 22
2026:MLHC:721-DB
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.
Page 21 of 22
2026:MLHC:721-DB
(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 3rd 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"
Signature Not Verified Page 22 of 22
Digitally signed by
LAMPHRANG KHARCHANDY
Date: 2026.07.15 18:56:06 IST
