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



Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000 (নারী ও শিশু নির্যাতন দমন আইন, ২০০০)
Section/Order/Article/Rule/Regulation Head Note
Sections 7 and 9(3)

The High Court Division absolute the Rule and acquitted the accused the state filed leave petition, the Appellate Division observed that the victim, as informant, lodged the First Information Report naming the accused respondent as one of the perpetrators involved in abducting and raping her. She maintained her story of abduction and rape in her deposition before the Court. The trial Court upon assessment of the evidence convicted and sentenced the respondent along with others, although the trial took place in the absence of all the accused persons, the case is remanded to the trial Court so far as it relates to accused respondent Robin with the direction to allow the accused to cross-examine the witnesses, if he so desires and to conclude the trial in accordance with law. The accused respondent Robin be enlarged on bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court till conclusion of the trial.
The State-Vs.-Robin. 4 ALR (AD) 2014 (2) 168 ....View Full Judgment

Section 9Ka

The imperative ingredients of 9Ka of the Ain are that there must be an act of abetment of committing suicide of a female (নারীর আত্মহত্যা করিতে প্ররোচিত করিবার.....") that there must be a wilful act of the accused "[ব্যাক্তির ইচ্ছাকৃত (wilful) কোন কার্য]"; that the said wilful act is done without the consent of the victim or against her will [...নারীর সম্মতি ছাড়া বা ইচ্ছার বিরুদ্ধে] that the said wilful act violates her modesty [...কার্য দ্বারা সম্ভ্রমহানী] and that violation of her modesty is the direct cause of her to instigate suicide by his aforesaid act " সম্ভ্রমহানী হইবার প্রত্যক্ষ কারনে কোন নারী আত্মহত্যা করিলে উক্ত ব্যক্তি নারীকে অনুরূপ কার্য দ্বারা আত্মহত্যা করিতে প্ররোচিত করিবার] .....Dr APM Sohrab-uz-zaman =VS=State, (Criminal), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 466] ....View Full Judgment

Section 9(Ka)

Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000
Section 9(Ka) read with
The Code of Criminal Procedure
Section-561A
Quashment– Abetment of suicide–
Considering the facts and circumstances as revealed from the prosecution papers our considered view is that there was no direct incitement or mensrea on the part of the appellant which comes within the definition of abetment of suicide. In this case, the materials on record, prima-facie, do not disclose an offence under section 9Ka of the Ain and therefore the accused appellant ought not to be tried upon the charge. The judgment and order of the High Court Division is set aside and the proceeding is quashed. .....Dr APM Sohrab-uz-zaman =VS=State, (Criminal), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 466] ....View Full Judgment

Section 9(1)/30

Granting bail to the accused-respondent for a period of 6(six) months. The accused-respondent was convicted under section 9(1)/30 of the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000 and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Tk. 5,000/—, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 4(four) months more. We find that the High Court Division was not justified at all to grant this accused-respondent bail during pendency of the appeal. In the circumstances we set aside the impugned order of the High Court Division granting bail to the accused-respondent. .....The State =VS= Hafej Bakaul, (Criminal), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 594] ....View Full Judgment

Section 9(2)

Charge framing date is the relevant date for considering the age of the accused under the Children Act, 1974 –
The Appellate Division has given our anxious thought to the age of the victim who was 20 years old at the time of the occurrence and the fact that he has been in the condemned cell suffering the pangs of death for more than 10 years. The Appellate Division is inclined to commute the sentence of death to one of imprisonment of life. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed and the sentence of death is modified to one of imprisonment for life. .....Manik =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 520] ....View Full Judgment

Section 9(3) and 30

Charge of rape based on confessional statement of co-accused and other evidence held proved beyond doubt.
The Appellate Division as well as the High Court Division held the confessional statements of the accused clearly inculcator and the trial court was in serious error while terming the same exculpatory. The charges are also held to have been proved beyond all reasonable doubt and thereupon convicted and sentenced the convict- appellants. Aminur Rahman and others Vs. Fatema Beguni and the state 13 MLR (2008) (AD) 249. ....View Full Judgment

Section 10

Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000
Section 10 read with
Penal Code [XLV OF 1860]
Sections 143/448/385 and 506
A case which is not proved due to lack of evidence does not necessarily mean that it was false.
The Appellate Division observed that it must be realized that there is an ocean of difference between a case being false and a one being not proved due to lack of evidence. A case which is not proved due to lack of evidence does not necessarily mean that it was false. Moreover, the High Court Division has observed that on the selfsame matter the complainant petitioner obtained a money decree by way of compensation and there was no reason or satisfactory ground to admit the complainant’s appeal and, accordingly, dismissed the appeal summarily. Appellate Division does not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the High Court Division. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. .....Md. Shibli =VS= Salma Sultana Hashi & another, (Criminal), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 545] ....View Full Judgment

Section 11(Ga)

The High Court Division found that the incident of assault on the complainant is alleged to have occurred on 06.02.2009, whereas the accused husband claims to have divorced the complainant on 19.01.2009. The High Court Division observed that since the divorce took place earlier, the victim was not supposed to be present in the house of her husband after 19.01.2009.
The State -Vs.- Md. Rofizal Haque 6 ALR (AD) 2015 (2)90 ....View Full Judgment

Section 11(Ka)

In section 11(Ka) of the Ain of 2000, it is provided that if death is caused by husband or husband’s, parents, guardians, relations or other persons to a woman for dowry, only one sentence of death has been provided leaving no discretionary power for the tribunal to award a lesser sentence on extraneous consideration. This provision is to the same extent ultra vires the Constitution. …BLAST & others =VS= Bangladesh & others, (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 286] ....View Full Judgment

Section 11(Ka)

Sentenced him to death–
The High Court Division also directed the trial judge to conclude the trial expeditiously and to keep the accused in custody till conclusion of the trial. The learned advocate, however, could not deny the fact that both the trial court and also the High Court Division have found that this accused-petitioner murdered his wife. We direct the trial court concerned to conclude the trail of the case against this accused-petitioner within 6(six) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. .....Lokman Sarder =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 579] ....View Full Judgment

Sections 11(Kha) and 30

Merely signing the salishnama does not necessarily imply that the complainant admitted the allegation brought against her–
The Appellate Division directed that the following paragraph be expunged from the judgement and order of the High Court Division: The trial court should have taken into consideration that the victim was not a person of good character particularly exhibit-X shows that she had an illicit connection with her brother-in-law (বড় ভগ্নিপতি) which had been admitted by herself in putting her signature in a salishnama, accordingly petition was dismissed. .....The State =VS= Md. Rofizal Haque, (Criminal), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 550] ....View Full Judgment

Section 11(ka)

Offence of causing death for dowry - Husband liable to explain how his wife met her death.
Law is well settled that the husband is under the liability to explain how his wife met with her death when the husband and the wife were living in the same house. But when it is not established that the husband was present in the same house at the time of occurrence, the husband does not have the liability to explain as to how his wife met her death. When the symptoms of committing suicide are present and the postmortem examination report is doubtful, the High Court Division acquitted the condemned prisoner which the Appellate Division found nothing to interfere with. State Vs. Md. Sadequl islam Tushar and others 15 MLR (2010) (AD) 147. ....View Full Judgment

Section 17

Appellate Division helds that before proceeding with a case of false complaint or information against the informant or complainant, it would be prudent for the Court or Tribunal concerned to examine the materials on record to assess the prima facie nature of the allegation. It would be a futile exercise to proceed against the complainant/informant of a case charging him with having lodged a false case if the allegation of a false case having been brought by the accused is ultimately not likely to be substantiated in Court.
A.K. Azad -Vs.- Md. Mostafizur Rahman 6 ALR (AD) 2015 (2)44 ....View Full Judgment

Section 17(2)

Tribunal sending the complaint to the police station for investigation without examining the complainant - nothing wrong is there.
The tribunal sent the complaint to the police station for investigation without examining the complainant under section 200 Cr.P.C. The High Court Division held there was nothing wrong and discharged the rule which the apex court found perfectly justified. Afroza Jesmin Vs. the State 12 MLR (2007) (AD) 303. ....View Full Judgment

Section 28

Bail– It appears that while granting bail the High Court Division considered the evidence and materials on record as well as the facts and circumstances of the case and exercised its discretion to grant bail to the respondent. We have also considered the evidence and materials on record. In the facts and circumstances of the case we do not consider that the exercise of discretion calls for any interference by this Division. It appears that the respondent was enlarged on bail by order dated 30.11.2004 and there was no ad interim order passed by this Division. In the circumstances we are of the view that the respondent may remain on bail till disposal of the appeal, if it has not been already disposed of. ...The State =VS= S.M. Mizanur Rahman @ Akash, (Criminal), 2020 [9 LM (AD) 588] ....View Full Judgment

Section 28

No requirement in law for recording the reasons for framing charge elaborately. - There is no direction either in section 265C or in any other section of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the court/tribunal will have to record the reasons of framing charge also. If the Court/Tribunal, on examination of the records and also after hearing both the sides finds that there are sufficient materials for proceeding against the accused the Court/Tribunal shall frame charge against the accused persons, there is no requirement in law for recording the reasons for framing charge elaborately. Md. Muntasir Mamun Khan -Vs.- The State (Criminal) 5 ALR (AD)2015(1) 77 ....View Full Judgment

Section 28

Whether enlarged the convict on bail after he had suffered only seven months out of his sentence of 14 years imprisonment - The Appellate Division held that from the impugned order it appears that while granting bail the High Court Division considered the evidence and materials on record as well as the facts and circumstances of the case and exercised its discretion to grant bail to the respondent. The Appellate Division also considered the evidence and materials on record. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Appellate Division consider that the exercise of discretion calls for any interference by this Division.
The State-Vs.- S.M. Mizanur Rahman 5 ALR (AD)2015(1) 50 ....View Full Judgment

Section 34(2) and (3)

Since we hold that Sub-Sections (2) and (4) of Section 6 of the Ain, 1995 and Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 34 of the Ain of 2000 are ultra vires the Constitution, despite repeal of the Ain of 1995, all cases pending and the appeals pending under the repealed Ain shall be regulated under the said law, but on the question of imposing sentence, the sentences prescribed in respect of those offences shall hold the field until new legislation is promulgated. I hold that there was total absence of proper application of the legislative mind in promulgating those Ains, which may be rectified by amendments. In respect of section 303 of the Penal Code, the punishment shall be made in accordance with section 302 of the Penal Code. It is hereby declared that despite repeal of Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan (Bishesh Bidhan) Ain, 1995, the pending cases including appeal may be held under the repealed Ain, while dealing with the question of sentence, the alternative sentences provided in the corresponding offences prescribed in the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000 shall be followed. …BLAST & others =VS= Bangladesh & others, (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 286] ....View Full Judgment

In the facts of the instant case, a 13 year old house maid has undoubtedly been raped and there is no reason why the victim, who suffered the trauma and the stigma that goes with it, should not be believed. She has put herself in an invidious situation where she will be shunned and marginalised for the rest of her life and yet she has been disbelieved. This is clearly a travesty of justice. (Minority View) .....The State =VS= Mostafizur Rahman & another, (Criminal), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 562] ....View Full Judgment

In facts, the story of rape itself gives rise to a grave suspicion implicating the accused, respondent; as such it will be fully within the domain of the appellate court to acquit the accused. Moreover, the reason of delay in lodging FIR even after the release of the victim from the clutch of the accused has not been properly described; so it is very difficult to consider the evidence of prosecutrix, P.W.2 as beyond any reasonable doubt which is the fundament requirement of conviction of an accused person(Majority View) .....The State =VS= Mostafizur Rahman & another, (Criminal), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 562] ....View Full Judgment