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



Explosive Substances Act, 1908
Section/Order/Article/Rule/Regulation Head Note
Section 3

It appears that though the local witnesses deposed that appellant Mustafizur Rahman caused injury by using an explosive substance but this has not been supported by the evidence of P.W. 8 Dr. Shah Md. Akhtaruzzaman. He has not stated that injury No. 2 was caused by any explosive substance. He stated that the injury could be caused probably by a chemical substance. From his evidence it cannot be found that P.W. 1 sustained injury by an explosive substance. The Investigating Officer also failed to get the injury and the shirt of P.W. 1 examined by an expert to find out whether P.W. 1 sustained injury by explosive sub-stance. Unless that is proved it cannot be found that appellant No. 2 Mustafizur Rahman) alias Reza caused injury on the person of PW 1 by any explosive substance. Aminul Islam @ Ranga & Ors. Vs. The State 8 BLT(AD)-129 ....View Full Judgment

Section 3

Although the local witnesses deposed that appellant Mustafizur Rahman caused injury by using an explosive substance but the doctor opined that the injury was caused by a chemical substance when the investigating officer failed to get the injury and the shirt of PW 1 examined by an expert to find out whether PW 1 sustained inury by explosive substance it cannot be said that it is proved that Mustafizur Rahman caused injury by explosive substance. Aminul Islam alias Ranga and others vs State 5 BLC (AD) 179. ....View Full Judgment