Sunday, June 25, 2017 | ePaper

There is litte scope to scan the evidence under law

  • Print
APPELLATE DIVISION :
(Criminal)
Surendra Kumar Sinha CJ
Nazmun Ara Sultana J
Syed Mahmud Hossain J
Hasan Foez Siddique J
 
Judgment
August 31st, 2015

Sharif alias Shaira .... .............. Petitioner
Vs
State……..Respondents

Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898)
Section 561A
In an application under Section 561A of the Code, there is little scope to scan the evidence, of witnesses and that since it is not a case of no evidence it is difficult to interfere with the judgment passed by the Tribunal.        …..(8)

Jaglul Haider Afric, Advocate, instructed by Mahmuda Begum, Advocate-on-Record-For the Petitioner.
None Represented-For the Respondent.
Judgment
Hasan Foez Siddique J : The petitioner filed an application under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the High Court Division against the judgment and order dated 21-1-2010 passed by the Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Tribunal, Narshingdi in Nari-o-Shishu Case No. 275 of 2005 and obtained Rule. The Tribunal convicted the petitioner under Section 9(1) of the Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain in short (the Ain) and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Taka 2,00,000, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1(0ne) year more.
2. The prosecution case, in short, was that at about 4-00 pm on 5-4-2005, the petitioner raped the informant's minor daughter Tanzuma finding her in their house alone. The PW 1 lodged a First Information Report (FIR) with Monohordi Police Station bringing such allegation. The police, after holding investigation, submitted chargesheet against the petitioner under the aforesaid provision of law. The case was ultimately tried by the Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Tribunal, Narsingdi who framed charge against the petitioner under Section 9(1) of the Ain. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
3. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses in support of its case and defence examined none. From, the trend of cross-examination it appears that defence case was of innocence and false implication.
4. The Tribunal, examining the petitioner under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and hearing the parties, convicted and sentenced the petitioner as mentioned above.
5. The petitioner could not prefer appeal within the time stipulated in law. Then, he filed an application under Section 561 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and obtained Rule. The High Court Division by the impugned judgment and order dated 26-7-2012 discharged the Rule. Thus, the petitioner has filed this petition.
6. Mr Jaglul Haider Afric, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond shadow of doubt by adducing sufficient evidence against the petitioner, the High Court Division committed error of law in discharging the Rule.
7. The prosecution case was that on 4-5-2005 at about 5-00 pm, the petitioner getting the victim alone in their house, raped her against her will. It appears that out of 11 prosecution witnesses, PW 1 is the mother of victim who narrated the prosecution story as mentioned above. PW 2 grandmother of the victim in her testimony stated that she saw the petitioner to flee away from her house at the time and date of occurrence. She entered to their dwelling hut and found the victim lying on the "Chowki" and blood coming out-from her private part. PW 3 is the grand father of victim who in his testimony stated that, after the occurrence, villagers assured them that they would settle the matter so they did not go to the Police Station. Subsequent after the occurrence. PW 4, First Class Magistrate, Narsingdi recorded the statement of victim under Section 22 of the Ain, The PW 5 is the father of the victim who deposed that the petitioner had raped his daughter. PWs 6-10 corroborated the testimonies of PWs 1-4,  PW 11 is the Investigating Officer of the case. It appears that after examination of PW 1, the petitioner absconded and he did not cross-examine the PW s 2 to 11, that is the evidence adduced by the PWs 2-11 had not been contradicted or denied by the defence cross- examining those witnesses.
8. The High Court Division held that in an application under Section 561 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there is little scope to scan the evidence, of witnesses and that since it is not a case of no evidence it is difficult to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal.
9. In view of the evidence and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court Division, the judgment and order impugned here do not call for any interference by this Division.
Accordingly; the petition is dismissed.

More News For this Category

Meaning of re-import

High Court Division :(Special Original Jurisdiction) Md Miftah UddinChoudhury J ANM Mashir Ullah J     Elaine Apparels Limited ..............Petitioner     vs Commissioner of Customs, Chittagong And others.............. .............. Respondents

Appointment of Special Judge

Appellate Division :(Civil) Surendra Kumar Sinha CJ Syed Mahmud Hossain J Hasan Foez Siddique J Mirza Hussain Haider J Md Bazlur Rahman J Anti-Corruption Commission, Dhaka and others...........Petitioners vsAbdul

Enormous number of suits piled up before 'the Land Survey Tribunal'

Md. Mukhlasur Rahman :Background of the critique: We know that recently a special kind of court, namely "the Land Survey Tribunals" has been constituted by innovation in our country

Company men can only be determined upon taking evidence during trial

High Court Division :(Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction)AKM Asaduzzaman JMd Iqbal Kabir JMozahar Sowdagor (Md) and others.....PetitionersvsState and another..........Opposite-PartiesJudgmentFebruary 3rd, 2016Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881) Section 140 In the first part

Arms, ammunition for army supply cannot be possessed by ordinary persons

High Court Division :(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Quamrul Islam Siddique J AKM Zahirul Hoque J Moshiur Rahman Bhuiyan @ Babu  .... Accused-Appellant vsState......... Opposite PartyJudgment March 9th, 2014 Arms Act

Bail in explosive substances case

High Court Division :(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Syed Md Ziaul  Karim J SM Zakir Hossam JShagor Prodhan .................................. Accused-Appellant vsState ..... Respondent*Judgment November 16th, 2016     Explosive Substance Act (VI

Due execution of 'Will'

High Court Division (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) Quazi Reza-ul Hoque JJN Deb Choudhury JSukumar Nath and another ................................................Appellants vs Rupan Kanti Nath and another.............. .................................RespondentJudgmentJune 13th, 2017 Registration Act (XVI

Before fixing liabilities wrong doers be served with show cause notice

(From previous issue) :19. In the same vain, reliance may be placed to an unreported decision passed in writ petition no 10201 of 2015 dated 25-7-2016 in the case

Death Sentence : An analytical overview

Farhad Uddin Ahmed Bhuiyan, Advocate :Punishment is, in real sense, an ultimate award paid to the criminals considering the range and degree of the crime. Though throughout the world

Alleged use of forged documents

High Court Division :(Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction) Salma MasudChowdhury JFRM Nazmul Ahasan JJudgment March 1st, 2016      Shahid Ullah (Md) .... .....................................Petitioner vs State and another................................Opposite-Parties   Code of Criminal