Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh


Cruelty to Women (Deterrent Punishment) Ordinance, 1983
Section/Order/Article/Rule/Regulation Head Note
Sections 4 (Kha) and 10

read with
Penal Code [XLV of 1860]
Section 376
The process of sentencing is at the discretion of the Judge and is at the same time circumscribed by the law. It transpires that the respondent was in custody during the pendency of the appeal from 1993 to 2001 and, therefore, served a term of imprisonment of about 8 years. The High Court Division took the view that the period served by the respondent was sufficient to meet the ends of justice. The appellate Division does not find any illegality in the impugned judgment and, therefore, finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order.
The State -Vs.-Md. Shamsur Rahman Sikder @ Kalu & others. 4 ALR (AD) 2014 (2) 42 ....View Full Judgment

Section 4(b)

The age of a victim is not a material consideration for a offence under Section 4(b) of the Cruelty to Women (Deterrent Punishment) Ordinance 1983. Mozibur Rahman Vs. The State & Anr. 7 BLT (AD)-143 ....View Full Judgment

Section 4(C)

Prayer for bail- Accused petitioner is in custody for 31/2 years. Four accused persons have been named in the F. I. R. but excepting the accused- petitioner all the other three accused persons are absconding and there is no possibility of an early disposal of the case- Held: We must observe that if the trial of the four accused persons has still not begun or if there is no immediate possibility of an early disposal of the case the Special Tribunal will have to either split up the case and proceed with the trial of only the accused petitioner or consider a fresh prayer for bail of the accused- petitioner. Mohammad Sharif Vs. The State 4 BLT (AD)-17 ....View Full Judgment

Section 4(c)

The appellant was the prime kidnapper and he forcibly had sexual intercourse with Mahinur and that the other convicts are entitled to get the benefit of doubt as has been rightly found by the High Court Division as such finding is based on proper appreciation of evidence on record and hence no interference is warranted. Bazlu Talukder vs State 5 BLC (AD) 159 ....View Full Judgment

Section 5

This court is not a trier of facts and its is not its duty to review, evaluate and weigh the probative value of the evidence adduced before the trial court but can easily reconsider the period of sentence prescribed by law on the basis of the subsequent situation followed by the occurrence. Since in the instant case the convicted accused-petitioner has already served out sentence of imprisonment for more than 14 years he should be released in order to save the children arising out of his marriage with the victim. Monir Hossain vs. The state (Mohammad Anwarul Haque, J) (Criminal) 11 ADC 905 ....View Full Judgment

Section 6 & 9

On perusal of the First Information Report and relevant papers it appears that there is no allegation against the appellant that she abetted the causing or attempted to cause death or grievous hurt to the informant of the case for dowry. The allegation appears to be that she instigated the husband of the informant to demand/realise dowry from the informant -appeal is allowed. Anowara Begum Vs. The State & Anr 12 BLT (AD)-230 ....View Full Judgment

Section 7

It is true that when the recording Magistrate deposes in Court to the effect that the accused voluntarily made a statement before him which was recorded by him, the accused becomes aware of the fact of his making such statement. Md. Askan Ali vs. The State (Muhammad Imman Ali, J) (Criminal) 11 ADC 855 ....View Full Judgment