The Fast Track Court lacked jurisdiction to try the case, rendering its proceedings invalid; the District Council Court's reliance on those proceedings constituted a jurisdictional error.

JUDGMENT :

1. The learned Judge, District Council Court, Shillong has passed judgment in G.R. No 384(A) of 2004 u/s 376 IPC aimed primarily against the two accused persons implicated in the case, namely; Shri Nangroi Suting @ Rit Suting and Shri Phlasstowell Kharbyngar. The said judgment dated 17.11.2022 has, in effect sealed the fate of the said accused persons, who were found to have committed an offence under Section 376 IPC. The Court then passed the sentence of conviction on 22.12.2022 sentencing both of them to undergo simple imprisonment of 7(seven) years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, failing payment of the same which would entail an additional imprisonment of 6(six) months.

2. Being highly aggrieved with the said impugned judgment dated 17.11.2022, two separate appeals were filed by the two convicts above named, which appeal were registered as Crl.A. No 4 of 2023 and another being Crl.A. No. 5 of 2023, assailing such judgment.

3. This Court, upon hearing the learned counsel for the appellants as well as for the State respondent, the two appeals emanating from a common judgment, it is therefore deemed convenient and expedient to take up both the appeals and to pass a common judgment.

4. Heard Mr. R. Majaw, learned counsel for the appellants who has submitted that the brief background of the case between the parties is that on 09.11.2004, an FIR was lodged by the alleged victim before the Officer Incharge, Madanriting Police Station informing him of the fact that on 08.11.2004, the two appellants herein have forcefully entered the house of the informant and committed an act of rape on her person. On the basis of such complaint, the police registered a police case being Madanriting P.S. case No 79(11) of 2004 under Section 376 IPC. After the charge sheet was filed on 06.04.2005, the case was taken up for trial by the Fast Track Court, Shillong and registered as FTC No. 2 of 2006.

5. The matter before the Fast Track Court proceeded accordingly with the evidence of 8(eight) witnesses being duly recorded. Eventually, the learned Court has then fixed the matter for examination of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, what is left is only for the passing of the final judgment and order.

6. It was at this point of time that the learned Judge, FTC relying on the judgment and order passed by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court (Shillong Bench) in Criminal Revision No. 452/06 and Criminal Revision No. 12(SH) of 2009, wherein it was held that cases between two tribal are exclusively triable by the District Council Court constituted under paragraph 4 of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India, passed an order dated 20.11.2009, whereby the case was transferred to the District Council Court, Shillong for trial.

7. The learned counsel has further submitted that on receipt of the said order of transfer, the learned Judge, District Council Court, Shillong vide order dated 22.11.2011 has directed that there will be a de novo trial and accordingly fixed the matter for consideration of charge. The parties therein are also called upon to file their arguments before charge in written format which was done do.

8. The learned Judge, District Council Court vide order dated 29.09.2016 directed that the matter shall now proceed from the stage where the learned Judge, Fast Track Court has reached when the matter was transferred to the District Council Court. Accordingly, the case was fixed for recording of the statement of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

9. Again, the learned Judge, District Council Court realizing that the statement under Section 313 has already been recorded before the Fast Track Court, it was ordered that the parties file their respective written arguments. But then, the Court took into consideration the written argument already filed by the parties before the Fast Track Court and judgment was reserved for pronouncement which was done so on 17.11.2022.

10. The learned counsel for the appellants h