Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan (Bishesh Bidhan) Ain, 1995
Section 2(N) Penal Code
Section 375—Mere penatration is sufficient to constitute rape.
It has been settled by so many decisions of the apex courts of this region that even complete penetration is not essential to constitute rape and even partial penetration with or without emission of semen and rupture of hymen is sufficient to constitute rape. It may be mentioned here that section 2(N) of the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan (Bishesh Bidhan) Ain, 1995 has explained ‘rape’ thus: “ধর্ষণ” শব্দটি Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860)-এর section 375 এ উল্লেখিত “rape” শব্দটির ন্যায় একই অর্থ বহন করিবে।” According to section 375 of Penal Code mere penatration is sufficient to constitute rape.
Syed Sajjad Mainuddin Hasan @ Hasan -Vs.- The State (Criminal) 9 ALR (AD) 189-212

Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000;
Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan (Bishesh Bidhan) Ain, 1995
sections 4 and 10
The law is well settled that there must be some circumstances of a compelling nature together with prolonged custody which would merit consideration for commutation. ...Anowar Talukder Vs. The State, (Criminal), 17 SCOB [2023] AD 69 ....View Full Judgment

Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000;
Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan (Bishesh Bidhan) Ain, 1995
sections 4 and 10
The condemned prisoner has been languishing with the agony of death in the condemned cell for almost 18 years not due to any fault of his own. That being the situation, the fact of prolonged incarceration together with the discussion that we made above fortified with the recently passed decision of this Division can be considered as a mitigating circumstances and for that reason we are inclined to modify the order of sentence and commute the sentence of death to that of imprisonment for life. ...Anowar Talukder Vs. The State, (Criminal), 17 SCOB [2023] AD 69 ....View Full Judgment

Prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt– Upon considering the entire materials on record and the evidence of all the 12 (twelve) prosecution witnesses, and considering the circumstantial evidence that the accused was found present at the house upon setting fire on the person of the victim and he was caught red handed and tied up by the local people immediately after the occurrence and handed over to the police. This speaks a volume about the prevailing circumstances as perceived by the people of the locality. Appellate Division holds that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and the High Court Division did not commit any illegality in passing the impugned judgment and order and, as such, it does not call for any interference. .....Mahbubul Alam (Md) =VS= State, (Criminal), 2022(2) [13 LM (AD) 300] ....View Full Judgment

Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000
Sections 34
Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan (Bishesh Bidhan) Ain, 1995
Sections 4 and 10
The Code of Criminal Procedure
Section 35A
Sentences in respect of similar nature of offences are changed by the Nari-O-Shishu Ain of 2000, therefore, our judicial conscious pricks when under the previous Ain, 1995–– The condemned prisoner has been languishing with the agony of death in the condemned cell for almost 18 years not due to any fault of his own–– Under the previous Ain, 1995 sentence of death is the only punishment for an offence under sections 4 and 10 of the Ain, but subsequently Ain, 2000 made provisions for imprisonment for life for the same offence. But the petitioner have been convicted and sentenced to death. With the repeal of Ain of 1995, the sentences prescribed therein in respect of similar nature of offences are changed by the Ain of 2000, therefore, our judicial conscious pricks when we note that under the previous Ain, 1995, no option other then sentence of death was available to the court.
The condemned prisoner has been languishing with the agony of death in the condemned cell for almost 18 years not due to any fault of his own. ––The Criminal Review Petition No. 03 of 2020 is dismissed. The sentence of death of the petitioner, Anowar Talukder is commuted to imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Taka 50,000/- (fifty thousand), in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 (five) years more. He will get the benefit of section 35A of the Code of Criminal Procedure in calculation of his sentence and other remission as admissible under the Jail Code. .....Anowar Talukder =VS= Deputy Commissioner, Madaripur, (Criminal), 2023(1) [14 LM (AD) 321] ....View Full Judgment

Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan (Bishesh Bidhan) Ain, 1995
Section 6 (2) r/w
Evidence Act
Section 114 (g) —Criminal Trial (Benefit of Doubt)
No independent witness was examined, no neighbouring witness was examined, one witness stated that he could not say which clothes were worn by the accused,later stated that the accused wore pant and shirt, another witness stated that accused wore lungi and gangi, no sign of rape was there while the victim was examined by the doctor, the seized clothes were not sent for examination, the victim's two children were old enough to give evidence in support of the prosecution case, but were not cited in the charge-sheet nor produced as witnesses, Appellate Division held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt, and the accused is entitled to get benefit of doubt. The Appellate Division observed that it appears that in all 9 PWs were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Among them no independent witness was there, all are interested witnesses. And no neighbouring witness was also examined in this case. PW2 Md. Fazlur Rahman stated that he could not say which clothes were worn by the accused. Again he said that the accused was wearing pants and shirt at that time. But PW3 Md. Mokbul Hossain stated that accused Amzad wore lungi and gangi at that time. This contradiction being a vital one was not considered by the Courts be-low. Moreover, no sign of rape was there while the victim was examined by the doctor. Investigation officer PW9 himself admitted that the seized clothes were not sent for examination. PW-6 Md. Jahirul Islam was declared hostile for not supporting the prosecution case. The victim’s two children were old enough to give evidence in support of the prosecution case, but were not cited in the charge sheet nor produced as witnesses in the case and no explanation was given for their non-production. As such Appellate Division is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt, and the appellant is entitled to get benefit of doubt. Thus the appeal is allowed.
Amzed Hossain Dulal. -Vs.- The State. (Criminal) 9 ALR (AD) 216-219

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
Section 35A
Nari O Shishu Nirjatan Daman (Bishes Bidhan) Ain, 1995
Section 6(4)
Modified sentence with get the benefit of section 35A of the Cr.PC.– It is found that the appellant Anowar Hossain has been in the condemned cell for more that 22 (twenty two) years suffering the pangs of death. There are numerous decisions of this Division which shed light on this aspect. In general terms, it may be stated that the length of period spent by a convict in the condemned cell is not necessarily a ground for commutation of the sentence of death. However, where the period spent in the condemned cell is not due to any fault of the convict and where the period spent there is inordinately long, it may be considered as an extenuating ground sufficient for commutation of sentence of death. The appeal is dismissed and the sentence of the appellant is commuted to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Tk.5,000.00, in default, to suffer imprisonment for 15(fifteen) days more. The appellant shall get the benefit of section 35A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and remission as per law. ...Anowar Hossain =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2021(2) [11 LM (AD) 150] ....View Full Judgment

In sub-section (3) of section 6 of the Ain of 1995, if similar offence is committed by more than one person all of them will be sentenced to death. Suppose 5 persons are involved in the commission of the crime of them two directly participated in the commission of rape and other three persons abeted the offence. If these three persons are sentenced to death with other two, it will be contrary to norms and the sentencing principles being followed over a century. …BLAST & others =VS= Bangladesh & others, (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 286] ....View Full Judgment

Sentence of death commuted to life imprisonment–
The High Court Division committed serious error of law in discarding the confessional statement and the finding that ‘the confessional statement of the condemned prisoner is neither voluntary nor true and it is liable to be rejected as a whole’ is also erroneous and as such the order of acquittal of the accused respondent herein is thus also erroneous and illegal. This criminal appeal is allowed. But the sentence of death passed by the trial Court is commuted to life imprisonment relying on the principle laid down in BLAST Vs. Bangladesh(67 DLR(AD)185). .....The State =VS= Haris, (Criminal), 2018 (1) [4 LM (AD) 517] ....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

Bail of accused in a case of rape of minor girl when medical report does not show any sign of rape - The High Court Division granted bail to the accused in a rape case of minor girl of 4-5 years old as the medical report does not show any sign of rape. Apex court finds nothing wrong with the same. State Vs. Md. Liton Miah @ Babu 13 MLR (2008) (AD) 60.

While considering the police report (FRT) the Special Tribunal heard the learned Advocates of the parties and on perusal of the record and case diary took cognizance, of the offence after observing that a prima facie case was made out by the prosecution but the Tribunal could not agree with the opinion of the IO and took cognizance on the basis of the materials on record. Bikish Miah vs State 3 BLC (AD) 182.

Death is proper punishment for rape and murder-When the charge of commission of rape and murder of victim girl is proved beyond doubt, death is the appropriate punishment. Azad Mia alias Md. Azad Vs. The State,7 MLR (2002) (AD) 22.

For the offence of rape and murder, the proper sentence is death—
In case of custodial death the custodian has to explain the circumstances under which the victim died—
When it is established that the victim was taken to the custody of the accused in the dead hours of the night and in the following morning her dead body was found with injuries on throat and her private parts with sign of rape and the explanation offered being not satisfactory the sentence of death has been held by the apex court as perfectly justified. Mainiri Haque and another Vs. The State., 9 MLR (2004) (AD) 321.

Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan (Bishesh Bidhan) Ain, 1995
Section 6(2) r/w
Penal Code, 1860
Section 375
Capital punishment–– Under section 6(2) of the Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan (Bishesh Bidhan) Ain, 1995 is capital punishment only. But in a recent judgment, this Division held that in appropriate cases, the sentence of death may be commuted to punishment for life. But on the facts and circumstances of the case, the condemned-appellant does not deserve any sympathy whatsoever. In this connection reliance may be made on the case of Laxman Naik vs State of Orissa (1994) 3 SCC 381 wherein the Supreme Court of India confirmed the death sentence of a perpetrator for the offence of rape followed by murder of a 7 year old girl by her own uncle. The Court opined that the accused seems to have acted in a beastly manner. After satisfying his lust, he thought that the victim might expose him for the commission of offence on her to her family members and others, therefore, the accused with a view to screening the evidence of the crime, put an end to the life of that innocent girl. The Court noticed how diabolically the accused had conceived his plan and brutally executed it in such a calculated cold blooded and brutal murder of a very tender age girl after committing rape on her which, according to the Court, undoubtedly falls in the rarest of rare case attracting none other than capital punishment. ––The sentence of death imposed upon the condemned-appellant Md Sukur Ali passed by the Tribunal and confirmed by the High Court Division is maintained. .....Sukur Ali (Md) =VS= State, (Criminal), 2023(1) [14 LM (AD) 289] ....View Full Judgment

Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan (Bishesh Bidhan) Ain, 1995
Section 6(3)
In sub-section (3) of section 6 of the Ain of 1995, if similar offence is committed by more than one person all of them will be sentenced to death. Suppose 5 persons are involved in the commission of the crime of them two directly participated in the commission of rape and other three persons abeted the offence. If these three persons are sentenced to death with other two, it will be contrary to norms and the sentencing principles being followed over a century. ...BLAST & Others Vs. Bangladesh & Others, (Civil), 1 SCOB [2015] AD 1

A law which is not consistent with notions of fairness and provides an irreversible penalty of death is repugnant to the concepts of human rights and values, and safety and security. ...BLAST & Others Vs. Bangladesh & Others, (Civil), 1 SCOB [2015] AD 1

A provision of law which deprives the court to use of its beneficent discretion in a matter of life and death, without regard to the circumstances in which the offence was committed and, therefore without regard to the gravity of the offence cannot but be regarded as harsh, unfair and oppressive. The legislature cannot make relevant circumstances irrelevant, deprive the court of its legitimate jurisdiction to exercise its discretion not to impose death sentence in appropriate cases. Determination of appropriate measures of punishment is judicial and not executive functions. The court will enunciate the relevant facts to be considered and weight to be given to them having regard to the situation of the case. Therefore we have no hesitation in holding the view that these provisions are against the fundamental tenets of our Constitution, and therefore, ultra vires the Constitution and accordingly they are declared void. ...BLAST & Others Vs. Bangladesh & Others, (Civil), 1 SCOB [2015] AD 1 ....View Full Judgment

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), 1 SCOB [2015] AD 1 ....View Full Judgment

Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman (Bi-shesh Bidhan) Ain, 1995
Section 6(4) read with
Code of Criminal Procedure [V of 1898]
Section 164
It is an established principle of law that confessional statements, if voluntary and true, can be the sole basis of conviction of the maker of it.
The Appellate Division observed that in the present case the confessional statement of accused-appellant Rakibor @ Okibor alone is sufficient for finding him guilty of the charge levelled against him. The confessional statement of accused-appellant Ra-kibor @ Okibor has been well corroborated also by the extra judicial confessional statements of the other accused Helal and also by the fact that as per that confessional statements of accused Helal some incriminating articles were recovered from the dwelling hut of confessing accused Helal. So as regards the accused-appellant Rakibor @ Okibor it appears that there is not only the own confessional statement of this accused-appellant but there are other evidence also lending corroboration to this confessional statement and all these have proved the charge against this accused-appellant Rakibor @ Okibar beyond all reasonable doubt. The confessional statement of accused Helal recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been argued to be exculpatory in nature as apparently, in this confessional statement he has made an attempt to absolve himself from the offence. But in this confessional statement he has not denied his presence at the place of occurrence and stated also that after commission of the offence the other accused persons took shelter in his hut and according to this confessional statement some incriminating articles, namely, bloodstained curtain, quilt cover, spade and bamboo rod were recovered form his hut. Over and above there are sufficient evidence on record to prove that soon after the occurrence while he was trying to flee away to India he was caught by the villagers and at that time he made extra-judicial confession in presence of many persons stating that he himself and other accused persons including accused-appellant Rakibor @ Okibor committed rape on the victim Morsheda and thereafter they murdered her. This extra-judicial confessional statement of accused Helal followed by recovery of incriminating articles from his hut alone are sufficient to find him guilty of the charge levelled against him. This extra-judicial confessional statement of accused Helal and the recovery of incriminating articles from his hut prove that in his judicial confessional statement accused Helal intentionally suppressed the fact of his involvement in the commission of rape and murder of Morsheda to absolve himself from punishment. Md. Rokibur @ Rokib @ Okibar -Vs.- The State (Criminal) 2019 ALR (AD) Online 330 ....View Full Judgment

Morality cannot be legislated, but behaviour can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless.
The Appellate Division observed that the High Court Division noticed that P.W.6 Abdul Baset is not the full brother of P.W.2, Nazma and that P.W.7, Begum is not the mother of the victim; rather P.W.7 is the step mother of the victim. With reference to the affidavit filed by the petitioners, the High Court Division found that the petitioners tried to impress upon that the victim of her own volition went to the brothel but that the said affidavit was neither properly exhibited nor was it filed in the trial Court and that the victim denied making any affidavit. The High Court Division having considered the evidence of doctor, P.W.9 and the medical report, exhibit-1 found that the age of the victim was about 17 years on the date of her examination and that the victim in her evidence claimed that she was about 13 or 14 years old. The finding of the doctor as to age is belied by the fact that his report shows the taking place of menarche one year back. In context of development of girls in Bangladesh the age stated by the victim would be more commensurate with menarche having started one year previously. The accused-petitioners having no morality could dare to sell the victim-P.W.2, Nazma to a brothel. They were convicted under section 8(1) of the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan (Bishesh Bidhan) Ain,1995 and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life. The order of conviction and sentence was rightly affirmed by the High Court Division. Accordingly, criminal petition for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Sukur Mahmood and others. -Vs.- The State (Criminal) 8 ALR (AD) 144-147

Offence of immoral act punishable under section 9(G)—
Taking nude photographs of victims by force for the purpose of black mailing is highly immoral act.—
When major charge of rape fails accused may be punished for minor offence of immoral act. No observation on extraneous matter not relevant to the merit of the case should be made in the Judgment against outsider.
In a case charge of rape when fails, the accused who took nude photographs of the victim by force may well be punished under section 9(G) of the 1995 Ain when such a highly immoral act Is proved beyond doubt though no charge was framed therefore. Since the accused were fully aware of the details of the occurrence and cross examined the prosecution witnesses on this point, such conviction is perfectly maintainable as no prejudice was caused to the accused. Rajib Kamrul Hassan and three others Vs. The State, 6 MLR (2001) (AD) 70.

Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan (Bishesh Bidhan) Ain,1995
Section 10(1) r/w
Cr. PC
Section 173 —The Appellate Division observed that the High Court Division rightly found that the alleged demand of dowry by the accused Md. Abu Taher from Shafali Begum and the case of the prosecution that the accused Md. Abu Taher murdered his wife Shafali Begum on demand of dowry have not been proved at all by any evidence. In the circumstances the High Court Division rightly found that this case did not come within the ambit of section 10(1) of the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman (Bishesh Bidhan) Ain, 1995. However, the High Court Division, on pointing out some facts and circumstances including marks of injuries on the dead body of Shafali Begum and the postmortem examination report and the admitted fact that Shafali Begum met her unnatural dead at the house of her husband accused Md. Abu Taher, sent back the case to the court below for the purpose of fresh trial under the Penal Code provided the cognizance Magistrate himself, on consideration of the police report submitted under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, finds ingredients for taking cognizance of the case against the accused under the Penal Code.
The State -Vs.- Md. Abu Taher. (Criminal) 14 ALR (AD) 60-63

Punishment for murder of wife for dowry-Circumstantial evidence can well be relied upon—
Husband when living with wife in the same house has to explain as to how his wife is murdered. Failure to offer satisfactory explanation points to the guilt of the accused husband. When inmates of the house of the accused do not come to support the prosecution case, circumstantial evidence can well be relied upon to base the conviction. In the case of murder of wife for dowry sentence of death is the appropriate sentence. Abdul Matleb Howlader Vs. The State— 5 MLR(2000) (AD) 362.

Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman (Bishes Bidhan) Ain, 1995
Section 10(1)
Evidence Act, 1872
Section 106
Penal Code, 1860
Section 302
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
Section 35A
Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
Article 105
Demand of dowry by the petitioner father of the deceased Aklima has not been established by any reliable evidence— Sentence of death under section 10(1) of the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman (Bishesh Bidhan) Ain, 1995 is set aside. He is convicted under section 302 of the Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life— After recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and on consideration of the same along with other materials on record the learned Judge of the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Bishes Adalat found the petitioner Raju Ahmed guilty of the charge and thereby awarded death sentence to him under section 10(1) of the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman (Bishes Bidhan) Ain, 1995 by the judgment and order dated 26.06.2002 passed in Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Case No.218 of 1997 arising out of Nawabganj Police Station Case No.3(1)97. —After hearing the parties and on consideration of the materials on record and the evidence of the witnesses the High Court by the judgment and order dated 12.02.2006 accepted the death reference and dismissed the criminal appeal and jail appeal filed by the appellant-petitioner. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 12.02.2006 passed by the High Court Division the petitioner forwarded a jail petition through Senior Jail Super, Central Prison, Dhaka to the learned Registrar of this Division which was registered as Jail Petition No.8 of 2010. This Jail Petition No.8 of 2010 was taken up for hearing along with Civil Appeal No.116 of 2010, Criminal Petition No.374 of 2011 and Jail Petition Nos.18 of 2008, 3 of 2009, 1 of 2010, 16 of 2010, 2-3 of 2011, 5 of 2012 and 7-8 of 2012. Ultimately by the impugned judgment dated 05.05.2015 this Division dismissed the Jail Petition No.8 of 2010 filed by the petitioner and allowed the civil appeal in part and disposed of Criminal Petition No.374 of 2011, Jail Petition Nos.18 of 2008, 3 of 2009, 16 of 2010, 2-3 of 2011. But other Jail Petition being Nos.1 of 2010, 5 of 2012 and 7-8 of 2012 were directed to be heard separately.
In the absence of any explanation by the petitioner in this case the High Court Division as well as this Division rightly arrived at the conclusion to make the petitioner liable for killing his wife Aklima. But so far the findings relating to demand of dowry by the petitioner from the father of deceased Aklima has not been established by any reliable evidence and as such Appellate Division is unable to agree with the same. Accordingly the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed under section 10(1) of Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman (Bishes Bidhan) Ain, 1995 is liable to be set aside and the petitioner is convicted and sentenced under section 302 of the Penal Code. —He is convicted under section 302 of the Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Tk.1,000/- (one thousand) in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 01 (one) month more. He will get the benefit of section 35A of the Code of Criminal Procedure in calculation of his sentence and other remission as admissible under the Jail Code. .....Raju Ahmed @ Raja Mia =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2024(1) [16 LM (AD) 643] ....View Full Judgment

The Evidence Act, 1872
Section 27
Nari-0-Shishu Nirjatan (Bishesh Bidhan) Ain, 1995
Section 10(1)
The accused is entitled to benefit of doubt not as a matter of grace but as of right– Appellate Division finds that the concept of benefit of doubt is deep-rooted in every legal system for giving benefit to the accused. It is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubt. If there is a single circumstance which creates reasonable doubt for a prudent mind about the guilt of accused, then the accused would be entitled to the benefit of such doubt not as a matter of grace but as a matter of right. The Judges of the High Court Division as well as the trial Court have not considered the material discrepancies, contradictions and omissions of witnesses for which an error has crept in the trial Court’s judgment resulting in the conviction of the appellants. On consideration of the evidence, the appellants are held to be entitled to the benefit of doubt and are liable to be acquitted. .....Ramjan Ali(Md.) =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 545] ....View Full Judgment

Offence of kidnaping for ransom
read with
Evidence Act, 1872
Section 118- Child witness is competent when found capable of proper understanding
Telephonic conversation recorded leading to the arrest of the accused and recovery of the victim supported by ocular evidence can well form the basis of conviction. The conviction and sentence based on consistent and reliable evidence on record to the exclusion of any reasonable doubt affirmed by the High Court Division are held by the apex court perfectly justified. Jasimuddin and another Vs. The State 11 MLR (2006) (AD) 162.

No finding has been given by the Adalat that the FIR and the charge sheet and the examination of witnesses under section 161 CrPC do not disclose any offence against the petitioners under the Act or that even if those papers disclose an offence, there is no material to connect the petitioners with the offence alleged. Without such finding the Adalat cannot fail to take cognizance of the offence. Mohiuddin (Md) and others vs Md Motiur Rahman and another 50 DLR (AD) 4

Provides for appeal against conviction and sentence within 30 days. When provisions of appeal under the special law with special limitation are available application under section 561A Cr.P.C. for quashment of conviction and sentence does not lie. Sharifa Begum @ Sharu Bibi Vs. The State, 8 MLR (2003) (AD) 239.