Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh

ALL A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z



Acid Aparadh Daman Ain (II of 2002) (এসিড অপরাধ দমন আইন)
Section/Order/Article/Rule/Regulation Head Note
Sections 5(Ka), 5(Kha)

The inconsistencies, discrepancies and the improbabilities revealed from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses casts a serious doubt upon the whole prosecution story and thus High Court Division held that the prosecution had not been able to bring home the charge against the appellant.
The Appellate Division observed that it appears that the High Court Division has examined and considered all the evidence on record thoroughly and properly and rightly pointed out the inconsistencies, discrepancies and improbabilities came out from these evidence of the own witnesses of the prosecution. The High Court Division, considering these inconsistencies, discrepancies and improbabilities pointed out in the judgment, rightly held that these inconsistencies in the evidence of the P.W.2-the victim, the discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the improbabilities revealed from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses made the very prosecution case doubtful and in the circumstances the accused-appellants could not be held guilty of the charges levelled against them.
The State -Vs.- Md. Emadul Haque (Criminal) 12 ALR (AD) 58-60 ....View Full Judgment

Sections 5(Ka) and 7

The evidence of witnesses sufficiently proved the prosecution case that the accused person threw acid on the victim Jharna Begum causing serious burn injuries on different parts of her body including the right chin and throat. Considering the very allegation and the evidence on record the trial court rightly convicted this accused-person.
The Appellate Division observed that it appears that in this case the prosecution adduced sufficient evidence to prove the charge against the accused persons. The victim Jharna Begum herself has deposed before the Tribunal stating that this accused-petitioner Milon and accused Hamid Molla threw acid on her from a steel glass causing burn injuries on different parts of her body and at that time she recognized the accused Milon and Hamid Molla. The other P.Ws. including Halima Begum-the mother of the victim has strongly corroborated the victim Jharna Begum. These witnesses deposed that they saw the accused persons with the light of torch when they were fleeing away and that they also heard about the occurrence from the victim Jharna Begum immediate after the occurrence. Two doctor witnesses also has deposed in this case stating that there were several burn injuries on the person of the victim Jharna Begum which was caused by corrosive substance. The evidence of these witnesses sufficiently proved the prosecution case that this accused-petitioner Milon along with co-accused Hamid Molla and others threw acid on the victim Jharna Be-gum causing serious burn injuries on different parts of her body including the right chin and throat. Considering the very allegation and the evidence on record the trial court rightly convicted this accused-petitioner and others to rigorous imprisonment of 14 years. The High Court Division how-ever, reduced the sentence of this accused-petitioner to 7 years imprisonment. However, Appellate Division finds no reason to allow this Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal and hence it is dismissed.
Milon-Vs.-The State (Criminal) 12 ALR (AD) 85-86 ....View Full Judgment

Section 11(3)

Period of investigation or further investigation
The Tribunal by such provision is not empowered to increase or enlarge statutory schedule of time fixed, by the legislature beyond extended time, for the purpose of investigation or further investigation. Mokbul Hosen & Ors. Vs The State 13 BLT (HCD) 564 ....View Full Judgment

Section 13

Discrimination –
We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the decision arrived at by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal. Evidently there was discrimination practiced by the petitioners in taking departmental action against the respondent alone when the Acid Aparadh Daman Tribunal highlighted neglect of duties of all three Investigating Officers, who were all on the same footing. the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Division. .....Govt. of Bangladesh & others =VS= Ranjit Krishna Mazumder (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 370] ....View Full Judgment

Section 20

The Tribunal has no locus standi to withdraw earlier Order for further investigation by C.I.D. and decided to hold Judicial enquiry by itself.
Section 22 provides that provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure is. applicable in the matter of institution, investigation and trial of any case and the Tribunal constituted under the Acid Domon Ain is a Sessions Judge and will exercise all the power of Sessions Judge in trial of the offence under the Ain and accordingly Tribunal decided to hold a judicial inquiry as prayed for Sessions Judge into acid offence alleged in the F.I.R. and in doing so Tribunal is not required to withdraw or recall its earlier order dated 17.8.2004 for further investigation inasmuch as additional tenure of time not exceeding fifteen days to complete further investigation as mandated under Sub-section (3) expired on 1.9.2004 and, therefore, lost its force automatically. Mokbul Hosen & Ors. Vs The State 13 BLT (HCD) 564 ....View Full Judgment

Section 23(4)

The question of jurisdiction the Court is not a mere technicality, but it is fundamental in nature. Our this view gets support from a decision of the case of Managing Director, Rupali Bank Limited vs Tafazal Hossain, 44 DLR (AD) 260.
State vs Nitish Mondal 60 DLR 334. ....View Full Judgment