Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh (AD & HCD)
Evidence Act, 1872 | |||
---|---|---|---|
Section/Order/ Article/Rule/ Regulation | Head Note | Parties Name | Reference/Citation |
Section 3 |
The facts proved by the prosecution lead no inference of guilt of the
appellants. The inference of guilt can only be drawn if the proved facts
are consistent with the guilt of the appellants and inconsistent wholly
with their innocence. The prosecution has totally failed to lead evidence
to draw such inference against them. (Per S.K. Sinha, J minority view).
|
Sree Rabindra Nath Roy @ Rabindra and another -Vs- The State | 1 ALR (AD) 189 |
Sections 3 & 30 |
The Evidence Act (I of 1872)
|
Saley Akram alias Polash =VS= The State | 10 LM (AD) 360 |
Sections 3, 8, 30 |
Even an innocent man may feel panicky and to evade arrest and trial may abscond when suspected of grave crime like murder. Abscondence by itself was not conclusive proof of guilt or guilty conscience of an accused but it might lend support to other evidence on record. ...Alamgir Hossain =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2021(1) [10 LM (AD) 466] ....View Full Judgment |
Alamgir Hossain =VS= The State | 10 LM (AD) 466 |
Sections 3 & 5 |
Evaluation of evidence of witnesses and conclusion from facts–On the face of direct evidence of four eye–witnesses, the High Court Division acted wrongly in acquitting the principal accused by entertaining doubts in mind as to the place, time and occurrence. State vs Mohammad Kha 42 DLR (AD) 192. |
State vs Mohammad Kha | 42 DLR (AD) 192 |
Sections 3 and 30 |
The Evidence Act, 1872
|
Sumon =VS= State | 13 LM (AD) 342 |
Section 5 |
The evidence of interested, inter-related and partisan witness
|
Nowabul Alam and others Vs The State, | 15 BLD (AD) 54 |
Section 5 |
Mere placing no reliance upon confessional statement of the accused and non-examination of the Magistrate who held TI Parade are no grounds for acquittal where the order of conviction and sentence is based on other sufficient and reliable legal evidence on record. Abdul Hashem (Md) @ Bachchu Fakir and others vs State 52 DLR (AD) 117. |
Abdul Hashem (Md) @ Bachchu Fakir and others vs State | 52 DLR (AD) 117 |
Section 5 |
Calling and taking away of the victim by the appellant Billal and co-convict Saiful from his residence half an hour before his murder, recovery of the body of the victim, Billal's offer of love and threat to the PW 2 Mokseda, and abscondence of Billal immediately after the occurrence are circumstances to lead to the conclusion that he abetted the murder. Billal vs State 52 DLR (AD) 143. |
Billal vs State | 52 DLR (AD) 143 |
Section 5 |
It is unfortunate that for not seizing the lungi of PW I the positive
testimony of this witness and other witnesses who spoke about the presence
of PW I in the occurrence have been discarded.
|
Mahmudul Islam alias Ratan vs State | 53 DLR (AD) 1 |
Section 5 |
When a wife met with an unnatural death while in custody of the husband and also while in his house the husband is to explain under what circumstance the wife met with her death. Ilias Hussain (Md) vs State 54 DLR (AD) 78. |
Ilias Hussain (Md) vs State | 54 DLR (AD) 78 |
Sections 5, 60 |
The accused can be convicted despite the seizure list witnesses denied supporting the prosecution case– If the prosecution case is proved otherwise beyond reasonable doubt based on evidence, the accused can be convicted despite the seizure list witnesses denied supporting the prosecution case i.e. recovery and seizure. The trial Court as well as the High Court Division successfully assessed that the prosecution had been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that 250 bottles of Phensedyl amounting to 25 liters containing Chlorpheniramine Maleate and codeine phosphate have been recovered and seized from the possession of the accused-respondent. .....The State =VS= Badal Kumar Paul, (Criminal), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 423] ....View Full Judgment |
The State =VS= Badal Kumar Paul | 12 LM (AD) 423 |
Section 7 |
Admission— Value of admission made in the plaint of a previous suit which
was withdrawn — In our law of evidence an admission made by a party in a
plaint is admissible as evidence against him in other actions as well but
such admission cannot be regarded as conclusive proof and it is open to the
party to show that it is untrue.
|
Abdul Kader Khan being dead his heirs All Akbar Khan and others Vs. Basek Khan being dead his heirs Shaju Bia and others; | 8 BLD (AD) 22 |
Section 8 |
By judicial pronouncements it is now settled that if the circumstantial
evidence is far from satisfactory and it sufferes from a number of
infirmity, the court is left with no option other than to acquit the
accused. If two infermities are possible from the circumstantial evidence,
one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other also plausible, that
the commission of the crime was the act of some one else, the
circumstantial evidence would not warrant conviction of the accused. (Per
S.K. Sinha, J minority view).
|
Sree Rabindra Nath Roy @ Rabindra and another -Vs- The State | 1 ALR (AD) 189 |
Section 8 |
The proof of motive helps the Court in coming to a correct conclusion when there is no eye witness of the occurrence. Since P.W.1 claimed that the appellant was not previously known to him and, after his arrest, he came to know him for the first time, the motive of killing as stated by the appellant in confessional statement was not true. We do not find any other motive of killing the victim by the appellant in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. It is true that the failure to establish the motive for the crime does not throw over-board the entire prosecution case but it casts a duty on the Court to scrutinize other evidence with greater care since motive moves a man to do a particular act and the same is relevant fact behind a crime. ...Humayun Kabir(Md.) =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2021(1) [10 LM (AD) 619] ....View Full Judgment |
Humayun Kabir(Md.) =VS= The State | 10 LM (AD) 619 |
Section 8 |
Murder charge resting on circumstantial evidence—Accused’s motive in calling out and accompanying the victim boy—There is absolutely no material on record to show that anybody had at any stage expressed any suspicion that the accused might have had any evil motive in calling out the victim. All that the father said at the trial was that the motive for murder was to give him pain. This is no motive. He did not say why the young accused would cause him pain, There is also no material to suggest even’ that there might have been some immediate and on—the—spot reason for the accused to cause violence to the victim or that they were acting at some others’ behest—Per ATM Afzal J with whom Shahabuddin Ahined CJ and MH Rahman J concurred. State Vs. Khasru @ Syed Mostafa Hossain 43 DLR (AD) 182. |
State Vs. Khasru @ Syed Mostafa Hossain | 43 DLR (AD) 182 |
Section 8 |
Motive (by majority) : Evidence of motive, when necessary—there is no reference at all in the dying declaration to any fact or circumstances for which it can be even remotely inferred that there was any reason whatever for which the appellant was likely to make an attempt on the life of the deceased nor is there any reason for the deceased to suspect the appellant as his possible killer. In a case of this nature based only upon the dying declaration there should have been some evidence of motive although motive may not be proved in case of direct evidence or as an ingredient of the offence. Sk. Shamsur Rahman Vs. State 42 DLR (AD) 200. |
Sk. Shamsur Rahman Vs. State | 42 DLR (AD) 200 |
Section 8(j) |
Prosecution for rape— Question of corroboration. It has long been a rule of practice for insisting on corroboration of the statement of the prosecutrix. If the Judge feels that without corroboration in a particular case the conviction can be sustained then he should give indication that he had the rule of caution in his mind and then should proceed to give reasons for considering it unnecessary to require corroboration and for considering that it was safe to convict the accused without corroboration. Saidur Rahman Neuton Vs. State 45 DLR (AD) 66. |
Saidur Rahman Neuton Vs. State | 45 DLR (AD) 66 |
Section 8 |
Penal Code, 1860
|
Younus Ali @ Kawser Ahmed =VS= The State | 16 LM (AD) 561 |
Section 8 |
The Evidence Act, 1872
|
Anowar Hossain(Md.) =VS= The State | 13 LM (AD) 316 |
Section 8 |
Code of Criminal Procedure
|
Md. Shukur Ali and others Vs. The State | 16 SCOB [2022] AD 62 |
Section 8 |
Motive is a relevant fact behind a crime:
|
Md. Humayun Kabir Vs. The State | 15 SCOB [2021] AD 76 |
Section 9 |
The idea of holding T.I. parade is to test the veracity of the witness on
the question of his capability to identify an unknown person whom he has
seen only once:
|
Md. Humayun Kabir Vs. The State | 15 SCOB [2021] AD 76 |
Sections 9 and 157 |
All the TI parades were held after about one year from the date of occurrence and there was a chance for PW. 1 to see the accused persons in court lockup before the identification in the TI parade for which no reliance can be placed on such TI parade and hence the conviction and sentence under section 395 of the Penal Code is not sustainable. Mirza Abdul Hakim and others vs State 5 BLC (AD) 21. |
Mirza Abdul Hakim and others vs State | 5 BLC (AD) 21 |
Section 10 |
The Evidence Act, 1872
|
Zamir =VS= The State | 10 LM (AD) 647 |
Section 10 |
The Penal Code, 1860
|
State =VS= Dafader Marfoth Ali Shah & ors. | 4 LM (AD) 430 |
Section 10 |
Fixing the period of conspiracy is important as the provisions of section 10 of the Act would apply only during the existence of the conspiracy. (Per SK Sinha J). Major Baziul Huda vs State 62 DLR (AD) 1. |
Major Baziul Huda vs State | 62 DLR (AD) 1 |
Section 10 |
Common Intention—When a criminal conspiracy for committing murder has been established there is no need to award a conviction in the aid of section 34 for, in an offence of criminal conspiracy anythirjg said, done or written in reference to their common intention after the intention was entertained is relevant against all the accused. When specific acts done by each of the accused have been established showing their common intention they are admissible against each and every other accused. Though an act or action of one accused cannot be used as evidence against other accused but an exception has been carved out in section 10 of the Evidence Act in case of criminal conspiracy. If there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together in the light of the language used in 120A of the Penal Code, the evidence of acts done by one of the accused. can be used against the other. Major Baziul Huda vs State 62 DLR (AD) 1. |
Major Baziul Huda vs State | 62 DLR (AD) 1 |
Section 10 |
Penal Code, 1860
|
State Vs. Dafader Marfoth Ali Shah & ors | 5 SCOB [2015] AD 1 |
Section 11 |
Acquittal on proof of Alibi-When satisfactorily established by evidence such as attendance Register that the accused was on duty in his office at the relevant time of the occurrence, the accused may be acquitted on such plea of alibi. Nurul Islam Vs. Abdul Malek and another, 8 MLR (2003) (AD) 37. |
Nurul Islam Vs. Abdul Malek and another, | 8 MLR (AD) 37 |
Sections 11, 32 and 137 |
The Tribunal has no basic conception of law on the point of admissibility
of a statement made by a witness before a police officer which does not
fall within the terms of section 32 of the Evidence Act. It cannot be held
relevant under section 11 of the Evidence Act. If the maker of a statement
is examined as a witness, ordinarily his previous statement is admissible
merely to corroborate or contradict the testimony in Court but it cannot be
taken as substantive evidence. The learned Judge illegally drew adverse
inference against the defence observing that the appellants failed to
establish by cross-examining her that the statement was false. (Per
S.K.Sinha,J minority view).
|
Sree Rabindra Nath Roy @ Rabindra and another -Vs- The State | 1 ALR (AD) 189 |
Sections 13,42 and 43 |
The law is now settled that a Judgment whether inter parties or not may be conclusive evidence against all persons of its existence, date and legal effect, as distinguished from the accuracy of the decision rendered. The former judgments and decrees were not themselves a transaction or an instance within the meaning of section 13 of the Evidence Act, but the suit in which they were made was a transaction or an instance in which the defendant's right of possession was claimed and recognised and that to establish that such transaction or instance took place the previous judgment was the best evidence. Robert Pinaru vs Moulana Habibur Rahman and others 8 BLC (AD) 115. |
Robert Pinaru vs Moulana Habibur Rahman and others | 8 BLC (AD) 115 |
Section 13 |
Existence of any right or custom, such as any "transaction" creating any right–Relevancy of–Section 13 provides that where the question is as to the existence of any right or custom, certain facts are relevant, such as any 'transaction' by which right or custom in question was created, claimed, modified, recognised, asserted or denied, and 'particular instances' in which the right or custom was claimed, recognised or asserted. Hazi Waziullah vs Additional Deputy Commissioner, Noakhali 41 DLR (AD) 97. |
Hazi Waziullah vs Additional Deputy Commissioner, Noakhali | 41 DLR (AD) 97 |
Sections 13 and 43 |
Evidentiary value to the previous judgment in Writ Petition No. 682of1980 as to the status of the petitioner in view of the provisions of section 43 read with section 13 of the Evidence Act not accorded–Effect of. Dr Syed Matiur Rob vs Bangladesh 42 DLR (AD) 126. |
Dr Syed Matiur Rob vs Bangladesh | 42 DLR (AD) 126 |
Sections 13 and 43 |
Previous Judgment - Admissibility of–Not binding upon the respondent No. 4 and the Government as the new issues raised in a review case had no occasion to be considered in the previous judgment. Dr Syed Matiur Rob vs Bangladesh 42 DLR (AD) 126. |
Dr Syed Matiur Rob vs Bangladesh | 42 DLR (AD) 126 |
Section 13 |
An admission of a person is admissible in evidence as against him, though it can be explained away by the maker thereof or the person against whom it is sought to be proved. According to me, the same principle applies to an admission in a signed pleading, or in affidavit, or in any sworn deposition given by a party in a prior litigation, though it is capable of rebuttal. The assertion of a right, whether in a pleadings or other statements, is relevant under section 13 of the Evidence Act and is, therefore, legally admissible in evidence. An admission contained in a plaint or written statement or an affidavit or any sworn deposition given by a party in a prior litigation will be regarded as an admission in a subsequent action, though it is capable of rebuttal. …Alimuzzaman (Reza)(Md.) =VS= Masudar Rahman(Md.) @ Babul, (Civil), 2020 (1) [8 LM (AD) 164] ....View Full Judgment |
Alimuzzaman (Reza)(Md.) =VS= Masudar Rahman(Md.) @ Babul | 8 LM (AD) 164 |
Section 17 |
Admission— What the expression means—
|
Begum Khodeza Akhter Vs. Hajera Khatun | 37 DLR (AD) 212 |
Section 17 |
Admission made in plaint is admissible in evidence—
|
A.K. Khan vs. Basek Khan | 40 DLR (AD) 114 |
Section 17 |
'Admission' is no doubt a strong evidence against its maker but it is also open to him to adduce evidence to show that it is not in fact an 'admission' but is the result of bonafide mistake of fact. Begum Khodeza Akhter vs Hajera Khatun 37 DLR (AD) 212. |
Begum Khodeza Akhter vs Hajera Khatun | 37 DLR (AD) 212 |
Section 17 |
Admission–Use of–Whether an admission made by a party in plaint, signed and verified by him, may be used as evidence against him in other suits–Whether it is also open to the party to show that the admission is to be regarded as conclusive evidence and also to show that it is untrue. AK Khan vs Basek Khan 40 DLR (AD) 114. |
AK Khan vs Basek Khan | 40 DLR (AD) 114 |
Section 17 |
Under the English Law a statement in a pleading sworn, or otherwise adopted by a party, is admissible against him in other actions. In our law of evidence an admission made by a party in a plaint is admissible in evidence against him but such admission cannot be regarded as conclusive proof and it is open to the party to show that it is untrue. AK Khan vs Basek Khan 40 DLR (AD) 114. |
AK Khan vs Basek Khan | 40 DLR (AD) 114 |
Sections 17 & 145 |
Admission–Since the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant was never a fact in issue, the application of the defendant dated 12–1–66 (unconnected with the relationship) and his deposition in a different proceeding could not be admitted into evidence as an admission suggesting an inference as to any fact in issue. The alleged admissions were not set out in the plaint. Admission can be explained and the maker of the same must have an opportunity to explain them. Abdur Rabban vs Aminul Hoque Sowdagar 43 DLR (AD) 19. |
Abdur Rabban vs Aminul Hoque Sowdagar | 43 DLR (AD) 19 |
Section 18 |
Per Mohammad Gholam Rabbani ] : The charge was not admitted by the respondent rather he denied it as baseless in the reply stating the whole truth giving the reason for victimising him by the complainant which cannot be an admission to the charge, but it was a part of his defence and it was not considered as such by the Enquiry Officer. Even if it is conceded that the statements made by the respondent amounted to admission of misconduct, he could not be removed from service for the alleged admission without holding a formal enquiry in accordance with rules. Admittedly, instead of the Registrar, the Chief Justice himself proposed for major punishment to both the accused and accordingly, second show cause notice was issued but the Chief Justice was not given to consider the replies and the Registrar imposed major punishment on the respondent and in fact acquitted the other and such action must be held to be malafide, biased and illegal. Registrar, Supreme Court of Bangladesh vs Md Shafiuddin and another 6 BLC (AD) 141. |
Registrar, Supreme Court of Bangladesh vs Md Shafiuddin and another | 6 BLC (AD) 141 |
Section 18 |
Admission or concession by lawyer when not binding on his client–s– It does not appear from the judgment of the appellate Court below that the respondent's lawyer placed reasoning appearing in the trial Court judgment before the lower appellate Court. Under such a circumstance Court is not prepared to accept lawyer's concession as an admission of facts of abandonment of an issue. Sajia Khatun vs Amena Khatun 43 DLR (AD) 206. |
Sajia Khatun vs Amena Khatun | 43 DLR (AD) 206 |
Sections 20 and 21 |
Admission by persons expressly referred to by party to suit and proof of
admissions, against persons making them, and by or on their behalf.
|
Sontosh Kumar Chowdhury and others-Vs.-Pranab Kumar Chakraborty and others | 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 401 |
Section 20 |
Admission between the parties made in another proceeding — Such admission whether binds a party in a subsequent proceeding - Respondent’s admission that he was a tenant under the appellant estops him from denying appellant’s title in the suit premises — Admission by way of statements made in documents certified to be true copies by an authorised officer of the Government are admissible in evidence. Hajee Abdus Sattar Vs. Mahiuddin and others; 6BLD (AD) 224 |
Hajee Abdus Sattar Vs. Mahiuddin and others; | 6 BLD (AD) 224 |
Section 23 |
The legal position of a letter written by the appellant with the words
"without prejudice" is to be understood with reference to section 23 of the
Evidence Act which reads as follows:
|
Messrs Haque Brothers (Carbide) Ltd vs Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha | 37 DLR (AD) 54 |
Section 23 |
When a letter is written mentioning the expression 'without prejudice,' it means the terms made in it may be accepted by the person written to. If not accepted, the matter ends there. Exception when a letter cannot be referred to for collateral matters. Messrs Haque Brother (Carbide) Ltd vs Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha 37 DLR (AD) 54. |
Messrs Haque Brother (Carbide) Ltd vs Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha | 37 DLR (AD) 54 |
Section 23 |
Admission made by a party in a letter written “without prejudice” — Admissibility of — The letter written by the appellant cannot be used to determine the extent of its liability, but in so far as it shows the relationship between the appellant and the respondent No. I as debtor and creditor and that they tried to settle the account, the letter can be taken into consideration. M/s. Haque Brothers (Carbide) Ltd. Vs. Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha and others; 5BLD (AD) 102 |
M/s. Haque Brothers (Carbide) Ltd. Vs. Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha and others; | 5 BLD (AD) 102 |
Section 24 |
It is only when the statement of the accused can be read as a plenary admission of guilt in clear terms that it can be taken as a confession of the crime. State Vs. M M Rafiqul Hyder 45 DLR (AD) 13. |
State Vs. M M Rafiqul Hyder | 45 DLR (AD) 13 |
Section 24 |
Confessional statement— There being no corroboration on any material particular of the confessional statement, it is unsafe to maintain conviction of the respondents under sections 302/34. Penal Code thereon, though respondent Abid Ali implicated himself in the statement to be an offender. State Vs. Shafique 43 DLR (AD) 203. |
State Vs. Shafique | 43 DLR (AD) 203 |
Sections 24 and 27 |
It is of course true that the extra judicial confession made by the appellant before the witnesses in presence of the police is not admissible. But the fact remains that the chen/dao was recovered by the police from ceiling of the shop of the appellant at his instance in presence of the witnesses. Such recovery is admissible under section 27 of the Evidence Act. [Syed Mahmud Hossain, CJ (Minority view)] …Md. Abdul Awal Khan Vs. The State, (Criminal), 16 SCOB [2022] AD 22 ....View Full Judgment |
Md. Abdul Awal Khan Vs. The State | 16 SCOB [2022] AD 22 |
Section 24 |
The learned trial Judge appears to have taken into consideration the alleged admission by the appellant in presence of P.Ws 2,3,4 and 5 but failed to appreciate that if there was such an admission, it was made when the appellant was accompanied by the police and hence inadmissible under section 24 of the Evidence Act. The conviction and sentence were thus not based on legal evidence. [Muhammad Imman Ali, J (Majority view)] …Md. Abdul Awal Khan Vs. The State, (Criminal), 16 SCOB [2022] AD 22 ....View Full Judgment |
Md. Abdul Awal Khan Vs. The State | 16 SCOB [2022] AD 22 |
Section 24 |
The Evidence Act, 1872
|
Abdul Awal Khan(Md.) =VS= The State | 14 LM (AD) 401 |
Section 24 |
The learned trial Judge appears to have taken into consideration the alleged admission by the appellant in presence of P.Ws 2,3,4 and 5 but failed to appreciate that if there was such an admission, it was made when the appellant was accompanied by the police and hence inadmissible under section 24 of the Evidence Act. The conviction and sentence were thus not based on legal evidence. (Majority view: Per Mr. Justice Muhammad Imman Ali) .....Abdul Awal Khan(Md.) =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2023(1) [14 LM (AD) 401] ....View Full Judgment |
Abdul Awal Khan(Md.) =VS= The State | 14 LM (AD) 401 |
Section 27 |
The Penal Code, 1860
|
Khorshed(Md.) =VS= The State | 10 LM (AD) 458 |
Section 27 |
The Arms Act, 1878
|
Md. Tofajjal Hussain =VS= The State | 1 LM (AD) 483 |
Section 27 |
Since statement under section 27 of the Evidence Act is alleged to be
frequently misused by the police, the courts are required to be vigilant
about its application:
|
Md. Humayun Kabir Vs. The State | 15 SCOB [2021] AD 76 |
Section 27 |
The recovery of other wearing apparels and toiletries of the deceased at the showing of the condemned- prisoner while in police custody leads to the irresistible conclusion that the condemned- prisoner had the most intimate relationship with the deceased and that wearing apparels and toiletries of the deceased must have been either in the possession of the condemned prisoner or within his knowledge as to where those articles were. There recoveries are admissible in evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Khalil Miah Vs. The State 7 BLT (AD)-245 |
Khalil Miah Vs. The State | 7 BLT (AD) 245 |
Section 27 |
The Evidence Act, 1872
|
Ramjan Ali(Md.) =VS= The State | 12 LM (AD) 545 |
Section 27 |
The recovery of other wearing apparels and toiletries of the deceased at the showing of the condemned- prisoner while in police custody leads to the irresistible conclusion that the condemned- prisoner had the most intimate relationship with the deceased and that wearing apparels and toiletries of the deceased must have been either in the possession of the condemned- prisoner or within his knowledge as to where those articles were. These recoveries are admissible in evidence under section 27 of the Evidence Act. Khalil Mia vs State 4 BLC (AD) 223. |
Khalil Mia vs State | 4 BLC (AD) 223 |
Section 30 |
Section 30 of the Evidence Act provides that the confession of a co-accused can be taken into consideration to lend assurance to other substantive evidence on record but it never says that such confession amounts to proof. In the instant case, there being no substantive evidence, either direct or circumstantial, implicating the appellant in the alleged murder or in the abetment of the same except as to some evidence about the motive of the offence, the High Court Division was wrong in treating the confessional statement of the co-accused as substantive evidence and treating the evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 7 as corroboration thereof. Ustar Ali Vs. The State, 18BLD (AD)43 |
Ustar Ali Vs. The State, | 18 BLD (AD) 43 |
Section 30 |
Nari-O-Shishu Nirjaton Daman Ain, 2000
|
Aziz @ Azizul @ Azid =VS= The State | 10 LM (AD) 697 |
Section 30 |
A voluntary and true confession made by an accused can be taken into consideration against a co-accused by virtue of section 30 of the Evidence Act but as a matter of prudence and practice the Court should not act upon it to sustain a conviction of the coaccused without full and strong corroboration in material particulars both as to the crime and as to his connection with the crime [Ram Prakash V. State of Punjab (1959 SCR 1219)]. “As is evident from a perusal of section 30 extracted above, a confessional statement can be used even against a co accused. For such admissibility it is imperative, that the person making the confession besides implicating himself, also implicates others who are being jointly tried with him. In that situation alone, such a confessional statement is relevant even against the others implicated. …Dr. Miah Md. Mohiuddin & ors Vs. The State & ors, (Criminal), 17 SCOB [2023] AD 1 ....View Full Judgment |
Dr. Miah Md. Mohiuddin & ors Vs. The State & ors | 17 SCOB [2023] AD 1 |
Section 30 |
Confession by co—accused— Its worth in the absence of corroboration—A confession made by a co—accused in a joint trial for the same offence affecting himself and others may be taken into consideration. The confession, of such an accused may lend assurance to the other evidence on record. Babor Ali Molla and others Vs. State 44 DLR (AD) 10 |
Babor Ali Molla and others Vs. State | 44 DLR (AD) 10 |
Section 30 |
Evidence adduced by prosecution—For appreciation of its quality and worth—Broad facts of the case recounted. Appreciation of oral evidence—so called confession by a co—accused (appellant Daud) relied upon by the trial Court—that confession is no confession in the eye of law as it was a testimony against the other accused without the maker having involved himself. Ibrahim Mollah Vs. State 40 DLR (AD) 216. |
Ibrahim Mollah Vs. State | 40 DLR (AD) 216 |
Section 30 |
If the principal evidence in the case namely direct oral evidence does not qualify to be trustworthy the alleged confession is of no avail to the prosecution for sustaining the order of conviction. Ibrahim Mollah Vs. State 40 DLR (AD) 216. |
Ibrahim Mollah Vs. State | 40 DLR (AD) 216 |
Section 30 |
Examination and analysis of oral evidence—High Court Division failed to give due and proper consideration to the well established principles governing appreciation of evidence in a case where there is possibility of false implication because, of existing dispute and enmity between the parties—Where the witnesses are related and partisan and have a strong motive to depose falsely, their evidence must be put to the strictest scrutiny having regard to the attendant circumstances. Ibrahim Mollah Vs. State 40 DLR (AD) 216. |
Ibrahim Mollah Vs. State | 40 DLR (AD) 216 |
Section 30 |
Neither the trial Cowl nor the High Court Division scanned the evidence in an analytical manner. After all these infirmities on the side of the prosecution the trial court and the High Court Division should have entertained reasonable doubt as to the alleged participation of the appellants in the throwing of bombs. Ibrahim Mollah Vs. State 40 DLR (AD) 216. |
Ibrahim Mollah Vs. State | 40 DLR (AD) 216 |
Section 30 |
The extra—judicial confession made in Police Station in presence of constables who had arrested the confessing accused and the police officer who had investigated the case is inadmissible in evidence. Mofazzal Hossain Mollah & ors. Vs. State 45 DLR (AD) 175. |
Mofazzal Hossain Mollah & ors. Vs. State | 45 DLR (AD) 175 |
Section 30, 114 [illustration (b)], 133 |
Where trust worthy evidence establishing all links of circumstantial evidence is available the confession of a co-accused as to conspiracy even without corroborative evidence can be taken into consideration–– In a case of conspiracy in which only circumstantial evidence is forthcoming and when the board features are proved by trust-worthy evidence connecting all the links of a complete chain then on the isolated events the confessional statements of the co-accused lending assurance to the conclusions of the Court can be considered as relevant material and would not vitiate proceedings [Babu rao Bajirao Patil-Vs-State of Maharashtra [3 SCC (1971) 432]. Where trust worthy evidence establishing all links of circumstantial evidence is available the confession of a co-accused as to conspiracy even without corroborative evidence can be taken into consideration [Mohd. Khalid-Vs-State of W. B., 7 SCC (2002) page 334]. ––In the present case in hand, 7[seven] innocent persons died. There is no explanation as to why they were killed. A citizen of a civilised nation can never contemplate such a cowardice contemptuous bomb attack. This attack is against the established social and political order of a democratic state for which it deserves exemplary punishment. .....Younus Ali @ Kawser Ahmed =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2024(1) [16 LM (AD) 561] ....View Full Judgment |
Younus Ali @ Kawser Ahmed =VS= The State | 16 LM (AD) 561 |
Section 30 |
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
|
Alamgir Hossain =VS= The State | 10 LM (AD) 466 |
Section 30 |
The Evidence Act, 1872
|
Dr. Miah Md. Mohiuddin =VS= The State | 13 LM (AD) 363 |
Section 30 |
Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000
|
Ismail Hossain Babu(Md.) =VS= The State | 13 LM (AD) 323 |
Section 30 |
We hold that confessional statement of a co-accused can be used against others nonconfessing accused if there is corroboration of that statement by other direct or circumstantial evidence. In the instant case, the makers of the confessional statements vividly have stated the role played by other co-accused in the rape incident and murder of the deceased which is also supported/corroborated by the inquest report, postmortem report and by the depositions of the witnesses particularly the deposition of P.Ws.1,2,3,10,11,12,14 and 18 regarding the marks of injury on the body of the deceased. Every case should be considered in the facts and circumstances of that particular case. In light of the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that the confessional statement of a co-accused can be used for the purpose of crime control against other accused persons even if there is a little bit of corroboration of that confessional statement by any sort of evidence either direct or circumstantial. (Emphasis added). Thus, the accused namely Shukur and Sentu are equally liable like Azanur and Mamun for murdering the deceased after committing rape. …Md. Shukur Ali and others Vs. The State, (Criminal), 16 SCOB [2022] AD 62 ....View Full Judgment |
Md. Shukur Ali and others Vs. The State | 16 SCOB [2022] AD 62 |
Section 30 |
The Evidence Act, 1872
|
Milon @ Md. Milon =VS= The State | 14 LM (AD) 282 |
Section 32 |
Dying declaration–
|
Tofayel Ahmed =VS= The State | 1 LM (AD) 511 |
Section 32 |
Non disclosure of the appellant name of the name at the initial stage and
the disclosure after 9 days of the occurrence itself is a good ground to
disbelieve it–
|
Tofayel Ahmed =VS= The State | 1 LM (AD) 511 |
Section-32, 33 |
The Evidence Act, 1872
|
Allama Delwar Hossain Sayedee =VS= Government of Bangladesh | 2 LM (AD) 76 |
Hearsay evidence under US Law– |
Hearsay evidence under US Law–
|
Allama Delwar Hossain Sayedee =VS= Government of Bangladesh | 2 LM (AD) 76 |
Section 32(1) |
In the instant case, there are two dying declarations made by deceased Hatem Ali Sikder and in both the dying declarations he mentioned the names of the appellants. The second dying declaration being nearer to death, the High Court Division believed the same and acted on it. Moreover, P.Ws 4 and 7 in clear terms mentioned the inflicting of injuries by the appellants on the person of the deceased, which is supported by the medical evidence. The High Court Division ought not to have rejected the evidence of these two witnesses merely on the ground that they were not disinterested witnesses, notwithstanding the fact that the defence failed to shaken their credibility in cross-examination. The order of conviction is maintained. Samad Sikdar Vs. Md. Abdul annan Sikder, 17BLD(AD)239 |
Samad Sikdar Vs. Md. Abdul annan Sikder, | 17 BLD (AD) 239 |
Section 32(1) |
Dying declaration—Its probative value (by majonty) A dying declaration although a piece of substantive evidence has always been viewed with some degree of caution as the matter is not liable to cross—examination It stands on the same footing as any other piece of evidence and has to be judged in the light of surrounding circumstances and common human experience. When there is a record of such statement of the deceased the court has to satisfy itself, in the first place, as to the genuineness of the same keeping in view all the evidence and circumstances in which the statement of the deceased was said to have been recorded. The alleged dying declaration, the only piece of evidence against the appellant, having not been free from reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Sk Shamsur Rahman Vs. State 42 DLR (AD) 200. |
Sk Shamsur Rahman Vs. State | 42 DLR (AD) 200 |
Section 32(1) |
Dying declaration— Statement of a person about the cause of his death or circumstances leading to his death is substantive evidence under section 32(1) of the Evidence Act—If found reliable, it may by itself be basis for conviction even without corroboration. Statement falling under section 32(1) of the Evidence Act is called a “dying declaration” in ordinary parlance—A dying declaration may be recorded by any person who is available and it may be written or it may be verbal or it may be indicated by signs and gestures in answer to questions even—There is no requirement of law that a dying declaration should be recorded by a Magistrate as in the case of the confessional Statement of an accused under section 164(3) CrPC. Nurjahan Begum Vs. State 42 DLR (AD) 130. |
Nurjahan Begum Vs. State | 42 DLR (AD) 130 |
Section 32(1) |
Legislature in its wisdom has put a dying declaration at par with evidence on oath for the simple reason that a man under the apprehension of death is not likely to speak falsehood and involve innocent persons in preference to his assailant. When a Probationer Officer actually recorded the statement in presence of, and under the observation of the Superior Officer (PW 9), there was hardly any wrong in his Evidence that he recorded it in presence of the witnesses. Nurjahan Begum Vs. State 42 DLR (AD) 130. |
Nurjahan Begum Vs. State | 42 DLR (AD) 130 |
Section 32(1) |
Evidence Act 1872,
|
Md. Mehedi Hasan @ Rajib and anr Vs. The State | 16 SCOB [2022] AD 17 |
Section 32(1) |
Dying declaration,
|
Rashed Vs. The State | 12 SCOB [2019] AD 34 |
Section 32(1) |
Dying declaration–
|
Rashed =VS= The State | 6 LM (AD) 70 |
Sections 32, 33 |
Hearsay evidence– It is the cardinal principle of law of evidence that hearsay evidence is to be considered together with circumstances and the material facts depicted. Hearsay evidence is admissible and the Court can rely on it provided it has probative value. (Majority view), (Per Mr. Justice Syed Mahmud Hossain, CJ). ...A.T.M. Azharul Islam =VS= Chief Prosecutor, ICT, Bangladesh, (Criminal), 2020 [9 LM (AD) 593] ....View Full Judgment |
A.T.M. Azharul Islam =VS= Chief Prosecutor, ICT, Bangladesh | 9 LM (AD) 593 |
Section 33 |
Use of evidence recorded by Magistrate of Marine Court by Admiralty Court-
Whether permissible—
|
Bangladesh Inland Water Transport Corporation Vs. Al-Falah Shipping Lines Ltd. and others. | 3 MLR (AD) 59 |
Section 33,145 |
Evidence given in preliminary enquiry is admissible as substantive
evidence—
|
Birendra Chandra Sana Vs. Shashi Mohan Saha (1975) | 27 DLR (SC) 89 |
Section 33 |
The market value of the vessel of the plaintiff was determined by the Admiralty Judge on the basis of Ext. 25 series which is the deposition of seven witnesses (employees of the plaintiffs vessel) who appeared before the Magistrate, 1st. Class, Marine Court, Dhaka. It is really unfortunate that deposition of those persons who deposed in a criminal proceeding before the Marine Court was relied upon by the Admiralty Judge. Under section 33 of the Evidence Act that proceeding was not between the same parties. As a matter of fact, Ext. 25 series is not admissible in this admiralty proceeding and Ext. 25 series cannot be legally accepted as the basis for determining the market value of the vessel and consequently the passing of the decree of Tk. 80,10,000/- is without any legal evidence and the same cannot be awarded in favour of the plaintiff as has been done by the learned Admiralty Judge. [Para-14] BIWTC Vs. Al-Falah Shipping Lines Ltd. & Ors. 6 BLT (AD)- 103 |
BIWTC Vs. Al-Falah Shipping Lines Ltd. & Ors. | 6 BLT (AD) 103 |
Section 34 |
Entries in the books of accounts of business transaction are admissible in
evidence—
|
M/s. Bengal Friends and Co. Vs. M/s. Gour Dsnode Saha (1969) | 21 DLR (SC) 357 |
Section 34 |
It was incumbent on the Courts below to properly scrutinise the material circumstances for determining whether the chain of circumstantial evidence is so complete as to lead to the only conclusion of the appellant's guilt. Osman Gani vs State 54 DLR (AD) 34. |
Osman Gani vs State | 54 DLR (AD) 34 |
Section 34 |
The exception taken by the Counsel for non–examination of all or reasonable number of witnesses cited in the prosecution report is of no merit since it is for the prosecution to decide amongst the cited witnesses how many it will examine for establishing its case against the accused persons. Zahed Ali Foreman (Driver) and others vs State 56 DLR (AD) 29. |
Zahed Ali Foreman (Driver) and others vs State | 56 DLR (AD) 29 |
Section 36 and section 83 |
Maps prepared by private person— not public documents—
|
Ramkeshore Vs. Union of India (1975) | 27 DLR (SC) 93 |
Section 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44 |
Relevancy, admissibility and evidentiary value of previous judgment—
|
Hazi Waziidlah Vs. ADC (Rev) | 41 DLR (AD) 97 |
Section 43 |
Judgments interparties or not to what extent admissible in evidence in
subsequent proceedings—
|
Malik Din Vs. Mohammad Aslam (1969) | 21 DLR (SC) 94 |
Section 43 |
Section 43 of the Evidence Act is attracted to the present case. Under section 40 a previous judgment, order or decree is relevant to bar a second suit, that is, when such a judgment operates as res judicata under section 11 CPC. Under section 41 a final judgment, order or decree of a competent court in the exercise of probate, matrimonial, admiralty or insolvency jurisdiction, is not only relevant but also is conclusive both against the parties thereto as well as against the rest of the world, that is, it is a judgment in rem as distinguished from a judgment in personam. Under section 42 a judgment is relevant if it relates to any matter of public nature but it is not a conclusive proof of the fact it states. None of these sections, 40, 41 and 42, obviously is attracted to the instant case. It is section 43 which may be attracted to the instant case. Hazi Waziullah vs ADC Revenue 41 DLR (AD) 97. |
Hazi Waziullah vs ADC Revenue | 41 DLR (AD) 97 |
Section 43 |
Findings of the Criminal Court are not binding on the Civil Courts — An
order under section 145 Cr. P.C. cannot be treated as substantive evidence
of possession — A judgment of acquittal in a criminal case only decides
that the accused has not been found guilty of the offence with which he had
been charged but the opinion and the conclusion expressed in the judgment
are not admissible in evidence in civil Courts.
|
Akhtar Hossain Sharif and others Vs. Munshi Akkas Flossain and others; | 3 BLD (AD) 334 |
Section 43 |
Relevance of previous judgment — When a judgment, though not inter
parties, may be admissible — Ordinarily a judgment cannot be used as
evidence against a person who is a stranger thereto — But the judgment in
a prior suit together with the plaint-and other steps taken in connection
there with is evidence of an assertion by the holder of the judgment of the
right which he claims to acquire and is then admissible in evidence of his
right.
|
Hazi Waziullah alias Waziullah Miah and others Vs. The Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Noakhali and Assistant Custodian, Vested and Non-Resident Property and others; | 9 BLD (AD) 135 |
Section-44 |
The date 30.05.1971 was written by different ink and different hand
writing. From the report of delivery of possession, it appeared that, in
fact, no delivery of possession was given and no witnesses were present
during delivery of possession as there was no signature of any witness on
exhibit 1(ka).
|
Shamsul Alam Mia =VS= Sirajul Hoque & others | 1 LM (AD) 316 |
Section-44 |
Fraud vitiates a decree–
|
Sekandar (Md.) =VS= Janata Bank Ltd. | 3 LM (AD) 448 |
Section 44 |
Fraudulent judgment and decree– A fraudulent judgment and decree may be avoided in the proceedings in which it is sought to be relied upon. It is not necessary to have it set-aside by instituting independent proceedings in a competent Court. A judgment or decree obtained by practicing fraud upon a Court binds no such Court or any one else claiming through such judgment or decree though it has not been set-aside or reversed. .....Nadira Huq =VS= Rajdhani Unnayan Katripakkha (RAJUK) , (Civil), 2022(2) [13 LM (AD) 65] ....View Full Judgment |
Nadira Huq =VS= Rajdhani Unnayan Katripakkha (RAJUK) | 13 LM (AD) 65 |
Sections 45-51 |
District Registrar could be regarded as an expert within the meaning of
sections 45-51 of the Evidence Act–
|
Zainal Abedin =VS= Mohammad Kala Miah | 4 LM (AD) 348 |
Section 45 |
Medical Evidence:
|
The State -Vs- 1. Md. Nasiruddin @ Anik | 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 275 |
section 45 |
Section 7K of the Arbitration Act of 2001:
|
Anamika Corp. Ltd. & ors Vs. Humayun M. Chowdhury & ors | 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 119 |
Section 45 |
Medical evidence is only corroborative in nature—Ocular evidence of the eyewitness which substantially corroborates the major injuries on the person of the deceased must be accepted. Abdul Quddus Vs. State 43 DLR (AD) 234. |
Abdul Quddus Vs. State | 43 DLR (AD) 234 |
Sections 45 and 73 |
When modern technologies are available in comparing the disputed signatures with the admitted signature the court should not take the risk of comparing the signature by itself– The finding in respect of thumb impression. So, on the face of such report by the Handwriting Expert the High Court Division committed serious error in relying on the opinion of the trial Court and also upon its one opinion and thereby erroneously passed the impugned judgment and order. No doubt the court is the expert of all experts as decided in the case of Captain, (Retd) Abtab Ali vs SM Kutubuddin, 56 DLR (AD) 117. But when modern technologies are available in comparing the disputed signatures with the admitted signature the court should not take the risk of comparing the signature by itself when the experts with modern technologies are available. This view finds support in the case of Serajuddin Ahmed (Md) vs AKM Saiful Alam, 9 MLR (AD) 201 = 56 DLR (AD) 41 and Tarek Chandra Majhi vs Atahar Ali Hawlader, 8 MLR (AD) 209 = 8 BLC (AD) 67. In respect of thumb impression it is not at all possible to justify whether one thumb impression matches with other by naked eye other than with the help of modern technique and enlargement of impression for which the Expert is the right person who can give opinion upon critical analyses of all marks of the impressions, as decided in the cases cited above. Appellate Division is of the view that the High Court Division was not at all justified in discarding the handwriting expert's report and relying on the opinion of the trial Court and also examining the signature and thumb impression by itself and thereby it came to an erroneous decision which is liable to be set-aside. .....Pranay Kumar Malakar =VS= Chowdhury Makhlisur Rahman, (Civil), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 81] ....View Full Judgment |
Pranay Kumar Malakar =VS= Chowdhury Makhlisur Rahman | 12 LM (AD) 81 |
Sections 45 & 73 |
Since by scientific process or method examination of signature, particularly thumb impression, has developed much, it is safe and sound to leave the matter of such examination to the expert or to the person specialized in the examination. Serajuddin Ahmed and others vs AKM Saiful Alam and others 56 DLR (AD) 41. |
Serajuddin Ahmed and others vs AKM Saiful Alam and others | 56 DLR (AD) 41 |
Section 45 |
The High Court Division rightly found that it was unsafe to convict the accused persons on the uncorroborated opinion of handwriting and fingerprint expert. State vs Raihan Ali Khandker and others 50 DLR (AD) 23. |
State vs Raihan Ali Khandker and others | 50 DLR (AD) 23 |
Section 45 |
The expert's opinion is not a substantive piece of evidence. The Courts below were quite competent to arrive at their own conclusion as to whether or not the signatures appearing on Ext 3 series were those of the petitioner. Nurul Huq alias Md Nurul Hoque vs State 50 DLR (AD) 88. |
Nurul Huq alias Md Nurul Hoque vs State | 50 DLR (AD) 88 |
Section 50 |
The Evidence Act, 1872
|
Momtaz Begum(Mst.) =VS= Anowar Hossain | 10 LM (AD) 188 |
Section 56, 78(6) and 85 |
Power of Attorney executed in Foreign Country— Admissibility in
evidence— Notaries Ordinance 1961 (Ord. XIX of 1961) Section 14—
Registration Act, 1908 (Act XVI of 1908) Section 33—
|
Nurunnessa and others Vs. Babar Ali Bepari and others. | 1 BLD (AD) 86 |
Section 56 |
The plaintiffs having been successful in proving that the original kabalas were lost it cannot be argued that inadmissible evidences were relied upon as the courts below found that secondary evidence was given of those original documents. Abdul Khaleque Mollah vs ABM Zakaria and another 51 DLR (AD) 78. |
Abdul Khaleque Mollah vs ABM Zakaria and another | 51 DLR (AD) 78 |
Sections 56, 78(6) and 85 |
Power of attorney authentic in foreign city—Power of attorney executed
and authenticated by a Magistrate or Notary Public in a foreign
country—Whether could be acted upon as a valid document in Bangladesh.
|
Nurunnessa and others Vs. Babar Ali Bepari and others; | 1 BLD (AD) 86 |
Section 57 |
Judicial notice of facts—
|
The State Vs. Abdul Khaleq Howladar | 2 MLR (AD) 244 |
Section 57 |
Courts can take judicial notice of the ordinary course of events–
|
State =VS= Dafader Marfoth Ali Shah & ors. | 4 LM (AD) 430 |
Section 57 |
Courts can take judicial notice of the ordinary course of events. That a matter is judicially noticed means that it is taken as true without the necessity of being formally proved on evidence. Taylor in his Law of Evidence states that a man is not the father of a child, where non-access is already proved until within six months of the woman’s delivery. Nor is it necessary to prove the course of the heavenly bodies, or the like, that a matter is judicially noticeable means that it is taken without offering of evidence by the party who should ordinarily have done so. This is because the court assumes that the matter is so notorious that it will not be disputed. A proclamation of emergency is a matter of general information of which a court can take judicial notice. A matter of public history may be such a fact (Wigmore section 2567). Facts of which judicial notice may be taken are not limited to those of the nature specifically mentioned in clauses (1) to (13) of section 57 of the Evidence Act. (Surendra Kumar Sinha, J) …State Vs. Dafader Marfoth Ali Shah & ors, (Criminal), 5 SCOB [2015] AD 1 ....View Full Judgment |
State Vs. Dafader Marfoth Ali Shah & ors | 5 SCOB [2015] AD 1 |
Sections 57 & 60 |
The Appellate Division will set no example before the Courts to make reference to booklets of unknown origin. State vs Abdul Khaleque alias Abdul Khaleq Howlader 49 DLR (AD) 154. |
State vs Abdul Khaleque alias Abdul Khaleq Howlader | 49 DLR (AD) 154 |
Sections 57 & 60 |
Whether the author is living or dead, the book of reference must be an appropriate reference book in that the author must be shown to be properly qualified to make statements upon the subject and so only standard books acknowledged as authorities may be referred to-The reference to the booklet of unknown origin is therefore entirely disapproved. State Vs. Abdul Khaleque 5 BLT (AD)-227 |
State Vs. Abdul Khaleque | 5 BLT (AD) 227 |
Section 57, 81, 78(2) |
The Court may take judicial notice under Section 57 of the Evidence Act
certain matters which are so notorious or clearly established that evidence
of their existence is deemed unnecessary.
|
Major Md. Bazlul Huda(Artillery)=VS=The State (Banga Bandhu Murder Case) | 9 LM (AD) 386 |
Section 57 |
Judicial Notice of a period of general dislocation — Momentous changes
took place when Benches of the High Court Division were established outside
the capital — the cases arising from Barisal were initially sent to the
Jessore Bench and then after the establishment of the Barisal Bench, to
Barisal — It was a period of general dislocation of which judicial notice
should be taken.
|
Mvi. Md. Keramat Ali and another Vs. Syed Munsur Ali and others; | 11 BLD (AD) 97 |
Sections 58 and 90 |
The revisional Court could not re-open the case unless it was shown that
the findings were based on non-consideration or misreading of material
evidence.
|
Sylhet Pourashava =VS= Purnendu Bikas & others | 1 LM (AD) 69 |
Sections 58, 65 and 73 |
The provisions of sections 58, 65 and 73 of the Evidence Act were misread and misconstrued, in a suit for declaration of title onus lied upon the plaintiff to prove his title producing the original title deed through competent witnesses–– Appellate Division finds that the High Court Division committed error of law in disturbing the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by both the Courts below and on misreading of the evidence on record. Hence, this Division compelled to approve the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the High Court Division gave appalling discovery upon non-consideration of the findings of facts recorded by the Courts below. ––The appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court Division is set aside and that of the Trial Court is hereby restored. .....Bhadu Pramanik =VS= Md. Abbas Ali Pramanik, (Civil), 2022(2) [13 LM (AD) 7] ....View Full Judgment |
Bhadu Pramanik =VS= Md. Abbas Ali Pramanik | 13 LM (AD) 7 |
Section 59 |
Evidence of interested witness— value of—
|
Abani Mohan Saha Vs. Assistant Custodian. | 39 DLR (AD) 223 |
Section 59 |
Reliance on oral evidence of the interested witnesses in utter disregard of the principles of law of evidence deprecated. Abani Mohan Saha vs Asstt. Custodian 39 DLR (AD) 223. |
Abani Mohan Saha vs Asstt. Custodian | 39 DLR (AD) 223 |
Sections 60, 5 |
The accused can be convicted despite the seizure list witnesses denied supporting the prosecution case– If the prosecution case is proved otherwise beyond reasonable doubt based on evidence, the accused can be convicted despite the seizure list witnesses denied supporting the prosecution case i.e. recovery and seizure. The trial Court as well as the High Court Division successfully assessed that the prosecution had been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that 250 bottles of Phensedyl amounting to 25 liters containing Chlorpheniramine Maleate and codeine phosphate have been recovered and seized from the possession of the accused-respondent. .....The State =VS= Badal Kumar Paul, (Criminal), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 423] ....View Full Judgment |
The State =VS= Badal Kumar Paul | 12 LM (AD) 423 |
Section 61 |
Secondary evidence can be given when the original is lost—
|
Abani Mohan Vs. Assistant Custodian. | 39 DLR (AD) 223 |
Section 62 |
A firisti is no evidence of the contents of the documents in support of relationship of landlord and tenant. Chandan Mondal@ Kushal Nath Mondal andothers vs Abdus Samad Talukder & others 51 DLR (AD) 150. |
Chandan Mondal@ Kushal Nath Mondal andothers vs Abdus Samad Talukder & others | 51 DLR (AD) 150 |
Section 63 |
A party producing secondary evidence of a document is not relieved of the duty of proving the execution of the original. Even where a document is exhibited without objection the Court is to be satisfied as to its execution. Sova Rani Guha alias Sova Rani Gupta vs Abdul Awal Mia and others 47 DLR (AD) 45. |
Sova Rani Guha alias Sova Rani Gupta vs Abdul Awal Mia and others | 47 DLR (AD) 45 |
Sections 63 and 65 |
Photostat copy or secondary evidence are admissible in evidence.
|
Executive Chairman, BEPZA -Vs.- M/S. Abdul Mannan | 3 ALR (AD) 168 |
Section 63 |
Secondary evidence
|
Soya Rani Guha alias Soya Rani Gupta Vs. Abdul Awal Mia and others, | 14 BLD (AD) 257 |
Section 64 |
Proof of document when not objected to—
|
Abdullah Vs. Abdul Karim (1968) | 20 DLR (SC) 205 |
Section 64— |
Admissibility of private documents in evidence—
|
Md. Jashimuddin Kanchan Vs. Md. AH Ashraf. | 42 DLR (AD) 289 |
Section 64 and 65 |
Section 64 of the Evidence Act, 1872 states that documents must be proved by primary evidence except in the cases hereinafter mentioned. Primary evidence means the document itself produced for the inspection of the court. In the instant case, no original document was produced before the court and during the investigation, the investigating officer also did not seize any original document. The secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition or the contents of the document in the cases mentioned in section 65 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The prosecution failed to prove any of the exception mentioned in section 65 of the Evidence Act, 1872. .....Md. Nurul Islam Vs. The State & anr, (Criminal), 19 SCOB [2024] HCD 146 ....View Full Judgment |
.Md. Nurul Islam Vs. The State & anr | 19 SCOB [2024] HCD 146 |
Section 65 |
যখন কোনো দলিলের মূল কপি নষ্ট হয়ে যায়, হারিয়ে যায় ইত্যাদি তখন সেই দলিলটি সহি মহুরী নকল দিয়ে প্রমান করা যায়। সুতরাং যেহেতু উপরিল্লিখিত তালাশীপত্র মোতাবেক (প্রদর্শনী-৮ ও ১১) রেন্ট স্যুটের মূল নথি ধ্বংস করে দেওয়া হয়েছে এবং বয়নামা, দখলনামা এবং স্যুট রেজিষ্ট্রারের সহি মহুরী নকলসমূহ মামলা রজু হওয়ার ৩০ বছর পূর্ব উত্তোলিত এবং যেহেতু আমাদের পরীক্ষান্তে উক্ত প্রদর্শনী সমূহ জাল জালিয়াতির মাধ্যমে সৃষ্ট বলে প্রতীয়মান হয় না এবং জাল জালিয়াতির মাধ্যমে সৃষ্ট রয়েছে মর্মে বিবাদী পক্ষ কোনো ধরনের সাক্ষ্য দাখিল করতে পারে নাই, সেহেতু এই তিনটি প্রদর্শিত দলিল সমূহ (প্রদর্শনী-২, ৩ এবং ৪) বিশ্বাস না করা বা তাদের উপর নির্ভর না করার কোনো যৌক্তিক কারণ খুঁজে পাচ্ছি না। সেহেতু আমরা মনে করি, বিচারিক আদালত এই তিনটি এবং আরো কিছু দলিলিক সাক্ষ্যের উপর ভিত্তি করে নিলাম বিক্রয়ের বিষয়টি করেন এবং প্রমাণিত হওয়া মর্মে যে সিদ্ধান্ত নিয়েছেন তা হস্তক্ষেপ করা কোনো বৈধ ও আইনসঙ্গত কারণ নাই। ... Abdul Latif Vs. Mohammad Kamal Uddin and others (আব্দুল লতিফ –বনাম- মোহাম্মদ কামাল উদ্দীন এবং অন্যান্য), (Civil), 15 SCOB [2021] HCD 27 ....View Full Judgment |
Abdul Latif Vs. Mohammad Kamal Uddin and others (আব্দুল লতিফ –বনাম- মোহাম্মদ কামাল উদ্দীন এবং অন্যান্য) | 15 SCOB [2021] HCD 27 |
Section 65 |
Secondary Evidence-When admissible—
|
Abdul Khaleque Mollah Vs. Mr. A.B.M. Zakaria & another. | 3 MLR (AD) 57 |
Section 65 |
Secondary evidence —
|
Haji Waziullah Vs. ADC | 41 DLR (AD) 97 |
Section 65 |
`K’ list of the abandoned building– Mere failure to produce the original deed of sale under no circumstances can take away the right of the respondents– It appears that the respondents have been able to prove their case before the High Court Division about the whereabouts of their father the owner of the house, his/ their citizenship and their exclusive possession in the property in question since purchase and they are paying all charges, taxes and rents to the government my mutating their names. Moreover when the competent authority after holdings proper inquiry found the predecessor of the respondents to the rightful owner in 1973 by virtue of the registered sale-deed of 1970 and since then till date the present respondents are enjoying the possession of the same upon mutating their names in all the government records and since the record of 1973 has never been challenged by the government or set-aside by and appropriate authority and since in the recent Mohanagar Survey the name of the respondents have been correctly records as owners and possessors of the house in question and since they are paying installments to the House Building Finance Corporation regularly, mere failure to produce the original deed of sale under no circumstances can take away the right of the respondents. Appellate Division does not find any illegality which would call for interference by this Division. Accordingly this Division holds that the High Court Division did not commit any error either of fact or law in arriving at the decision. Thus this Division does not find substance in this appeal. Accordingly this civil appeal is dismissed without any order as to cost. .....Government of Bangladesh =VS= Sultan Giasuddin, (Civil), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 45] ....View Full Judgment |
Government of Bangladesh =VS= Sultan Giasuddin | 12 LM (AD) 45 |
Section 65 |
The rule contained in section 65 which excludes secondary evidence is not
so rigid as to be enforced even if no objection is taken at the trial by
the party against whom the secondary evidence is offered. As there is nothe
execution of a document in section 65, a certified copy is only evidence of
the existence, condition and contents of a document and not of its
execution. A certified copy is a copy signed and certified as true by the
officer to whose custody the original is entrusted, and it is admitted upon
the credit of such officer without comparing with the Original. Unless a
party can be found to have been stopped from objecting to the admissibility
of the evidence, evidence, not otherwise admissible, or which would have
been liable to rejection if objection were taken to it, can not be said to
be good evidence, if admitted by the consent of parties.
|
Zafela Begum and others -Vs-Atikulla and others | 1 ALR (AD) 1 |
Section 65 |
Secondary evidence — Question of admissibility without formal proof —
Though no objection was raised when the secondary evidence in the Photostat
copy was produced, the party producing it was not exempt from explaining
why its original was not produced
|
Hazi Waziullah and others Vs. Additionial Deputy Commissionier, Noakhali and others; | 9 BLD (AD) 135 |
Section 66 |
The prosecution proved the photocopy of alleged letter of admission of guilt of the accused Md. Nurul Islam as exhibit-1 and the photocopy of the deposit slips as exhibit-II. No original letter of admission of guilt and deposit slip was proved by the prosecution. Admittedly all the documents lie with the Sonali Bank Ltd. Neither the investigating officer seized those documents nor any original document was proved by the prosecution. Furthermore, the investigation officer PW. 9 Rabindranath Chaki stated that seized documents were not attested by any officer of the bank. The prosecution failed to give any explanation under section 66 of the Evidence Act, 1872 for not producing original documents. No evidence was adduced by the prosecution to show that the original document was lying with the accused Md. Nurul Islam. Therefore, exhibits- 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 in Special Case No. 8 of 2012, exhibits- 2 to 7 in Special Case No. 9 of 2012, and exhibits 1 to 5 in Special Case No. 10 of 2012 are not admissible in evidence. .....Md. Nurul Islam Vs. The State & anr, (Criminal), 19 SCOB [2024] HCD 146 ....View Full Judgment |
Md. Nurul Islam Vs. The State & anr | 19 SCOB [2024] HCD 146 |
Section 66 |
The confessional statement of the accused in another case cannot be taken into account in this case–– Confessional statement of an accused in a previous case can be taken into account in a subsequent case provided he is accused in both the cases and requirements of law in recording confessional statement have been fully complied with. Confessional statement made by the accused in another case would be admissible if he is an accused in both the cases and that if the requirements of law are satisfied, it is immaterial whether the confession was made in one particular case or in a different case [State of Gujarat Vs. Mohammed Atik and others, AIR 1998 SC 1686]. A confession made by an accused person in connection with another case is found to be relevant in connection with other case and if the offences committed in course of the same transaction and if the confession has been duly recorded in accordance with law. Secondary evidence after fulfilment of the requirements of section 66 may be adduced to prove the confession and if the person making the confession is accused in both or all the incidents of commission of offences [Mufti Abdul Hannan Munshi alias Abul Kalam and another-Vs-State, 69 DLR (AD) page 490]. .....Younus Ali @ Kawser Ahmed =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2024(1) [16 LM (AD) 561] ....View Full Judgment |
Younus Ali @ Kawser Ahmed =VS= The State | 16 LM (AD) 561 |
Section 66 |
Secondary evidence, admissibility of– Certified copies of certain kabuliyats were filed without calling for the original copies. Learned Judge of the High Court Division on a wrong consideration of section 66 Evidence Act left those out of consideration treating them as inadmissible as the originals were not called for. But the documents having been filed and marked exhibits without any objection the question of inadmissibility of those documents cannot be raised at a subsequent point of time. Joynal Abedin & others vs Mafizur Rahman 44 DLR (AD) 162. |
Joynal Abedin & others vs Mafizur Rahman | 44 DLR (AD) 162 |
Section 67 and 68 |
Will-Execution, attestation and its proof—
|
Paresh Chandra Bhoumik Vs. Hiralal Nath and another. | 4 BLD (AD) 199 |
Section 67 and 68 |
Execution of a document — How to be proved— Legal value of Registrar's
endorsement—
|
Abani Mahon Saha Vs. Assistant Custodian uested property and others. | 7 BLD (AD) 306 |
Section 67 |
Mere non-payment of rent does not affect the title accrued through lawful
transfer
|
Abdun Noor and others -Vs.- Aziruddin and others | 13 ALR (AD) 33 |
Section 67 and 68 |
Will how to be proved—
|
Paresh Chandra Bhownick Vs. Hiralad Nath (1984) | 36 DLR (AD) 156 |
Section 68 |
Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act: The law on attesting witness is guided by section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act. The scribe will not be an attesting witness unless he intends to sign the deed as such. In other words a scribe can play the dual role of a scribe and an attesting witness. ...Sirajul Haque Howlader and ors Vs. Zulekha Begum & ors, (Civil), 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 199 ....View Full Judgment |
Sirajul Haque Howlader and ors Vs. Zulekha Begum & ors | 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 199 |
Section 68 |
A registered document carries with it a presumption of validity which can be rebutted after giving due opportunities to the parties. The case is remanded for. disposal after giving such opportunity to prove genuineness or otherwise of the kabala in question. Haji Sk. Md Lutfur Rahman vs Chairman, Court of Settlement 45 DLR (AD) 136. |
Haji Sk. Md Lutfur Rahman vs Chairman, Court of Settlement | 45 DLR (AD) 136 |
Section 73 |
Appeal is the continuation of the suit and the appellate Court has similar
power like that of the trial Court and the appellate Court in appropriate
cases can obtain additional evidence to come to a correct decision. By
taking opinion of the handwriting expert, the appellate Court did not
exceed its jurisdiction.
|
A. K. Azad and another -Vs.- Mostafizur Rahman and others | 13 ALR (AD) 71 |
Section 73 |
Provision of section 73 of the Evidence Act permits the court to compare the contentious signature with the ad-mitted signature, the safe and best course for the court would be to avoid the practice of comparing the writing or signature etc. and should not stake its judgment. …Shawkat Hossain(Md.) =VS= Golam Mohammad, (Civil), 2020 (1) [8 LM (AD) 51] ....View Full Judgment |
Shawkat Hossain(Md.) =VS= Golam Mohammad | 8 LM (AD) 51 |
Section 73 |
Remand the case for fresh trial– Reported in 8 BLC (AD) 67. This Division
held in that case "in case of contentious writing, signature, etc., though
provision of section 73 of the Evidence Act permits the court to compare
the contentious signature with the ad-mitted signature, the safe and best
course for the court would be to avoid the practice of comparing the
writing or signature etc. and should not stake its judgment on the opinion
formed or view taken upon resorting to risky or, in other words,
unsatisfactory and dangerous procedure and the desired course should be to
go for microscopic enlargement and expert advice since the science of
examination of signature, writing, etc. for determination of similarity has
advanced enough and it has reached to the stag, of accuracy and certainty
as well as expertise skill is also available."
|
Shawkat Hossain(Md.) =VS= Golam Mohammad | 8 LM (AD) 51 |
Section 73 |
The Companies Act 1994
|
Reza Bin Rahman =VS= A.T.G. Mortaza | 7 LM (AD) 8 |
Section 73 |
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
|
Md. Amam Hossain Milu =VS= The State | 16 LM (AD) 608 |
Section 73 |
Comparison of signature– when direction for comparison is not called for the case is one for eviction and not for determination of title between the competing parties. Profulla Chandra who is sought to be summoned for his specimen signature was not present before the Court either as a witness or in any other capacity. In the facts of the case the question of directing him to give his specimen signature does not arise. BIWTC vs Nazma Flour Mills Ltd 43 DLR (AD) 105. |
BIWTC vs Nazma Flour Mills Ltd | 43 DLR (AD) 105 |
Section 73 |
The section permits the Court to make a comparison of signature or writings and so adoption of such a method cannot be termed as hazardous or dangerous. Ishaque (Md) vs Ekramul Haque Chowdhury and others 54 DLR (AD) 26. |
Ishaque (Md) vs Ekramul Haque Chowdhury and others | 54 DLR (AD) 26 |
Section 73 |
In view of the provision of section 107(2) of the Code the High Court Division was competent to compare the signature of the defendant in the 'bainapatra' with his available signatures and, as such, was in error in sending back the case for the said purpose to the trial Court. Aftab Ali (Captain Retired) vs SM Kutubuddin 56 DLR (AD) 117. |
Aftab Ali (Captain Retired) vs SM Kutubuddin | 56 DLR (AD) 117 |
Sections 73 & 45 |
The expert's opinion is not a substantive piece of evidence. The Courts below were quite competent to arrive at their own conclusion as to whether or not the signatures appearing on Ext 3 series were those of the petitioner. Nurul Huq alias Md Nurul Hoque vs State 50 DLR (AD) 88. |
Nurul Huq alias Md Nurul Hoque vs State | 50 DLR (AD) 88 |
Sections 73, 111, 114(g) |
Evidence Act, 1872
|
||
Section 73 |
Companies Act [XVIII of 1994]
|
Reza Bin Rahman and others -Vs.- A.T.G. Mortaza and others | 2019 ALR (AD) Online 101 |
Section 73 |
It is well settled that Section 73 of the Evidence Act permits the Court to make a comparison of signature or writings and so adoption of such a method cannot be termed as hazardous or dangerous. Zohra Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Ekamul Haque Chowdhury & Ors. 10BLT (AD)-171 |
Zohra Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Ekamul Haque Chowdhury & Ors. | 10 BLT (AD) 171 |
Section 73 |
Comparison of handwriting by Court—Whether conclusion arrived at by comparison of hand writing or signature by the Courts below can be interfered with by the High Court Division in Second Appeal — Comparison of signature with admitted signature is a question of fact — High Court Division is not to interfere with the conclusion of the First Appellate Court on such question — Comparison of signature is a perfectly legal mode of proving hand-writing and, however inconclusive such proof may be, it cannot be considered as an error of law to base a conclusion on such proof alone — High Court in second appeal is not competent to set aside a finding based on such method — Code of Civil Procedure, l908(V of 1908) S. 100 (repealed). Abdul Matin Chowdhary Vs. Chapala Rani Sen and others; 5BLD (AD) 172 |
Abdul Matin Chowdhary Vs. Chapala Rani Sen and others; | 5 BLD (AD) 172 |
Section 74, 35 and 85 |
Entries in the Birth and Death Register are evidence of age—
|
Keramat Alt Vs. Md. Yunus (1963) | 15 DLR (SC) 120 |
Sections 74 and 76 |
read with Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Section- 123
|
Bangladesh & Anr. Vs. Mrs. Shirely Anny Ansar | 9 BLT (AD) 185 |
Section 75 |
As to presumption of correctness of document— Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885—
Section 103B- Presumption of record of rights-State Acquisition and
Tenancy Act, 1950— Section 144A—
|
Ajufunnessa Vs. Sufar Mia (1978) | 30 DLR (SC) 41 |
Sections 76(6) and 79 |
In terms of section 76(6) of the Evidence Act the deed of conveyance dated 19-8-1965 may be proved by producing the original, or by a copy thereof certified by the legal keeper thereof, with a certificate under the seal of a Notary Public, or of Bangladesh Consul or diplomatic agent, that the copy has been duly certified by the officer having the legal custody of the original, and upon proof of the character of the document according to the law of the foreign country. Section 79 of the Evidence Act provides that the Court shall presume such certified copy as genuine. Such certified copy of the said deed of reconveyance as produced by the appellant was taken into 'consideration by the Appellate Division as idditional evidence. Rupali Bank Ltd and another vs Shawkat Am Salauddin 10 BLC (AD) 14. |
Rupali Bank Ltd and another vs Shawkat Am Salauddin | 10 BLC (AD) 14 |
Sections-77, 78, 78(6) & 86 |
A foreign judicial record is a public document–
|
RAJUK =VS=Manzur Ahmed & Others | 1 LM (AD) 1 |
Section-78(6) |
Duplicate copy of the Certificate– The authenticity of the certificate
has not been certified by an authorised officer of the High Commission
Office of Bangladesh stationed in Pakistan–
|
Salauddin Quader Chowdhury =VS= The Chief Prosecutor, ICT, Dhaka | 2 LM (AD) 571 |
Section 79 |
A registered document carries presumption of correctness of the endorsement made therein–One who disputes this presumption is required to dislodge the correctness of the endorsement. Shishir Kanti Pal and others vs Nur Muhammad and others 55 DLR (AD) 39. |
Shishir Kanti Pal and others vs Nur Muhammad and others | 55 DLR (AD) 39 |
Section 80 |
Code of Criminal Procedure [V of 1898]
|
The State -Vs- 1. Md. Nasiruddin @ Anik | 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 275 |
Section 80 |
Presumption as to confession —Even though provision is there for making certain presumption in respect of a confession by an accused person produced before a court taken in accordance with law and purporting to be signed by a Magistrate, having regard to the facts of the case it was injudicious to rely upon such confession without calling the Magistrate as a witness. In respect of a confession the court is required to see not only that the forms under sections 164 and 364 CrPC were complied with but the substance underneath the law was equally adhered to—There must not be any reason for doubt as to the truth of the statements, be it circumstantial or proved otherwise. In this particular case it is difficult’ to deny accused appellants an opportunity to cross—examine the Magistrate who allegedly recorded their statements. Babul Vs. State 42 DLR (AD) 186. |
Babul Vs. State | 42 DLR (AD) 186 |
Section 80 |
Non-reading of the material evidence and misconstruction of any evidence on record affecting the merit of the cases– Appellate Division holds the view that the finding of the learned Judge of the Single Bench of the High Court Division as well as the appellate Court below are shockingly perverse and those are vitiated by non-reading of the material evidence and misconstruction of any evidence on record affecting the merit of the cases. Thus, it appears that the learned Judge of the Single Bench of the High Court Division without assessing the evidence on record arrived at a wrong decision and thereby affirmed the finding of the appellate Court below which is liable to be set aside. Thus, the appeal is allowed without any order as to costs and the impugned judgment and order delivered by the learned Judge of the Single Bench of the High Court Division as well as the judgment of the appellate Court below are set aside and the judgment and order passed by the trial Court is restored. .....Khalid Bin Nazrul Prince(Md.) =VS= Mohammad Bazlur Rahman Chowdhury, (Civil), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 209] ....View Full Judgment |
Khalid Bin Nazrul Prince(Md.) =VS= Mohammad Bazlur Rahman Chowdhury | 12 LM (AD) 209 |
Section 80 |
High Court Division wrongly applied the provisions of section 80 to admit into evidence a statement of a witness recorded under section 164 during investigation stage and not in a judicial proceeding. Hossain@Foran Miah and others vs State 56 DLR (AD) 213. |
Hossain@Foran Miah and others vs State | 56 DLR (AD) 213 |
Section 80 |
Non examination of the Magistrate recorded the confessional statement- the no requirement under the law that Magistrate should be examined the Gf shall presume the document to be gen and that the statement was duly taken. Abdul Khaleque Mir Vs. The State 2 BLT (AD)-172 |
Abdul Khaleque Mir Vs. The State | 2 BLT (AD) 172 |
Section 82 |
Sale deed in the absence of the contrary can not be treated as mortgage deed. Feroja Majid Vs. J.B.Corporation. 39 DLR (AD) 78. |
Feroja Majid Vs. J.B.Corporation. | 39 DLR (AD) 78 |
Section 85 |
A Power of Attorney— Execution, authentication—presumption—
rebuttal—
|
Salema Khaiun Bibi Vs. Hemangini Chose Daslidar (1978) | 30 DLR (SC) 99 |
Section 86 |
Admissibility of judgment of foreign country without authentication of
concerned foreign office—
|
M/s. Bengal Friends & Co. Vs. M/s. Cour Benode Saha (1969) | 21 DLR (SC) 357 |
Section 86 |
From Ext.3 it transpires that the contract on the basis of which the suit
was filed in the Munsif Court, Krishananagar was written by one Nagendra
Nath Ghose and the attesting witnesses to the contract belonged to the
members of Nagendra Nath Ghose’s community and all of them were citizens
of India. But the plaintiff in his evidence in the present suit stated that
one Azimuddin Biswas was scribe of the agreement for exchange and Moksed
and Moizuddin were attesting witnesses.
|
Md. Abdul Mannan & Ors. Vs. Abdus Samad Mondal & Ors. | 14 BLT (AD) 198 |
Section 90 |
Record of rights:
|
Md. Rofiqul Islam & ors Vs. Md. Khalilur Rahman & ors | 8 SCOB [2016] HCD 29 |
Section 90 |
30 years old documents–
|
Bangladesh Railway =VS= Jashimuddin | 5 LM (AD) 58 |
Section 90 |
The benefit of the presumption as to documents more than 30 years old
applies to any document and not necessarily only to registered documents–
The suit was filed on 8-6-1979, and, therefore, the document was more than
30 years old at that time. The benefit of the presumption as to documents
more than 30 years old applies to any document and not necessarily only to
registered documents. Hence, the presumption under section 90 of the
Evidence Act is applicable in the case of the amalnama of the year 1926.
The appellate Court did not reverse the finding of the trial Court with
regard to the amalnama being accepted as genuine as it was a document more
than 30 years old.
|
Asgor Ali =VS= Noorjahan | 12 LM (AD) 54 |
Section 90 |
Nadabi Patra– The age of Nadabi Patra document is more than 30 years
which can be admitted in evidence without any formal proof– Heaving
considered those facts, circumstances as well as evidence and other
materials on record, Appellate Division led to hold that the learned Judge
of the trial Court rightly dismissed the suit on evaluating the evidence
and assessing the spirit of the suit, but the appellate Court below as well
as the High Court Division wrongly decreed the suit. As such, the impugned
judgment as well as the judgment of the appellate Court below is liable to
be set aside and thereby also the judgment of the trial Court is liable to
be restored.
|
Shamsul Huq Paik(Md.) =VS= Arab Ali Dewan | 12 LM (AD) 115 |
Section 90 |
Once such a document more than 30 years old is produced from proper custody Section 90 of the Evidence Act entitles the Court to presume that it is a genuine document. A.D.C. (Revenue) Vs. Md. Reazuddin PK & Ors 8BLT (AD)-185 |
A.D.C. (Revenue) Vs. Md. Reazuddin PK & Ors | 8 BLT (AD) 185 |
Section 90 |
That the legal presumption of 30 years old document by virtue of provision of section 90 of the Evidence Act is rebuttable. The mere fact that a document is 30 years old does not make it immune from attack by the other side on the question of its genuineness. Md. Biseruddin Sardar & Ors Vs. Md. Tofazzal Hossain Biswas & Ors. 15 BLT(AD)47 |
Md. Biseruddin Sardar & Ors Vs. Md. Tofazzal Hossain Biswas & Ors. | 15 BLT (AD) 47 |
Section 91 and 92 |
We are surprised that the Courts below did not take these rent receipts into any consideration at all and which are relevant documentary evidences. Instead, as is obvious from their findings, the Courts below have erroneously and unlawfully relied upon oral evidences bypassing the documentary evidences and which they are barred from doing under the law. Section 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act expressly bar the reliance upon oral evidences where documentary evidences are there on record. ...Syed Aynul Akhter Vs. Sanjit Kumar Bhowmik & ors, (Civil), 4 SCOB [2015] HCD 127 ....View Full Judgment |
Syed Aynul Akhter Vs. Sanjit Kumar Bhowmik & ors | 4 SCOB [2015] HCD 127 |
Section 91 and 92 |
In pre-emption case oral evidence contrary to the contents of the sale deed
not admissible—
|
Joynal Abedin Molla Vs. Aliar Rahman and others. | 3 BLD (AD) 105 |
Section 91 and 92 |
Whether a sale deed can be held to be a mortgage deed on the basis of oral
evidence—
|
Mrs. Firoza Mazid and another Vs. Jiban Bima Corporation | 7 BLD (AD) 124 |
Section 91 |
Kabala when out and out a sale deed—
|
Abu Hosan Vs. Basir Uddin and others | 11 BLD (AD) 231 |
Sections 91 and 92 |
As per the law enunciated in the sections of 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act, 1872 documentary evidences shall prevail over oral evidences.–– The appellants-defendants produced certified copies of the registered deed which is almost 40 years older in terms of time of execution of the respondents-plaintiffs, this long gap cannot be filled in only by the description in the plaint and that too were not proved. .....Abdul Gaffar =VS= Md. Abdul Miah, (Civil), 2022(2) [13 LM (AD) 40] ....View Full Judgment |
Abdul Gaffar =VS= Md. Abdul Miah | 13 LM (AD) 40 |
Sections 91 and 92 |
The Evidence Act, 1872
|
Shahed Ali (Md) =VS= Abdul Hafiz | 12 LM (AD) 217 |
Sections 91 and 92 |
What sections 91 and 92 provide–It is an established rule of evidence that oral evidence is inadmissible for the purpose either of construing terms of a document or of ascertaining the intention of the parties thereto. Feroza Majid vs JB Corporation 39 DLR (AD) 78. |
Feroza Majid vs JB Corporation | 39 DLR (AD) 78 |
Sections 91 & 92 |
Section-91 of the Evidence Act is about the manner of proof of a document
which has been reduced to the form of a document and which is required by
law to be reduced to the form of a document. The document itself has to be
proved, or where secondary evidence is admissible, secondary evidence of
its contents may be proved. The terms of the document cannot be proved by
any other mode of proof. The impugned kabala has been proved under
Section-91.
|
Tambia Khatun Vs. Rafiqullah | 8 BLT (AD) 230 |
Section 92 |
Oral evidence is inadmissible to vary the contents of document but in the
present case not challenge the contents of the documents but nature of
transaction which object was to defeat the statutory right of the
co-sharer. Therefore, the co-sharer challenged the nature of the transfer
in that view of the matter the facts and circumstances of the present case
is hit but the proviso (1) of the section 92 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
|
Abdul Hakim Siddique -Vs.- Mst. Shakhina Bewa and others | 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 102 |
Sections 91 and 92 |
When a document is meant merely on an informal memorandum of transaction
and not as a document embodying disposition of property, oral evidence is
not excluded.
|
Abdul Hakim Siddique -Vs.- Mst. Shakhina Bewa and others | 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 102 |
Section 92 |
Written registered document cannot be altered of varied by oral evidence– Written registered document cannot be altered of varied by oral evidence and also that oral evidence is inadmissible for the purpose either of construing terms of a document or of ascertaining the intention of the parties thereto. .....Eakubbar Shaikh =VS= Abdul Khalek Shaikh, (Civil), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 184] ....View Full Judgment |
Eakubbar Shaikh =VS= Abdul Khalek Shaikh | 12 LM (AD) 184 |
Section 92 |
In view of the provision of section 92, a deed of sale cannot be treated as a mortgage–deed and intention to treat as a mortgage deed cannot also be permitted. Feroza Majid vs JB Corporation 39 DLR (AD) 78. |
Feroza Majid vs JB Corporation | 39 DLR (AD) 78 |
Section 92 |
Oral extraneous evidence to contradict the terms of the contents of a document is inadmissible under section 92 of the Evidence Act. Feroza Majid vs JB Corporation 39 DLR (AD) 78. |
Feroza Majid vs JB Corporation | 39 DLR (AD) 78 |
Section 92 |
There is nothing in section 92 of the Evidence Act to prevent the admission of oral evidence to prove that a mortgage has been discharged partly by payment and partly by release of debt. Tafzal Ahmed Contractor vs Abdur Rahim and others 48 DLR (AD) 94. |
Tafzal Ahmed Contractor vs Abdur Rahim and others | 48 DLR (AD) 94 |
Section 92 |
Specific performance of contract to execute the sale deed– We find that the High Court Division correctly observed that the appellate Court admitted into evidence the bainanama of defendant No. 1 but did not at all consider the same and against such non-consideration the defendants did not take any step. We also find it curious that the bainanama of defendant No. 1 having been allegedly executed in the year 1983 the agreement was not put into effect until almost 10 years later, and there was no explanation why such a delay occurred. In any event the lower appellate Court in allowing the appeal of the defendants in the suit did not take into consideration the alleged bainanama of the year 1983. Furthermore, the High Court Division correctly referred to the provision of section 92 of the Evidence Act and held that the oral and extraneous evidence contradicting the contents of a written instrument is not admissible. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgement and order of the High Court Division. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, without however any order as to costs. ...Gopal Goyala =VS= Molina Rani(Sree), (Civil), 2020 [9 LM (AD) 9] ....View Full Judgment |
Gopal Goyala =VS= Molina Rani(Sree) | 9 LM (AD) 9 |
Section 92 |
State Acquisition & Tenancy Act, 1950
|
Nur Mohammad Mondal =VS= Mohammad Golam Rabbani | 5 LM (AD) 390 |
Sections 92, 115 |
An estoppel arises when a representation is acted upon as true by the party
to whom it is made. Generally the elements of estoppel are the
representations made under circumstances which amounted to an intentional
causing belief in another. The principle which is incorporated in section
115 of the Evidence Act is a simple and equitable doctrine which lays down
that if a person has acted to his detriment or altered his position on the
basis of any declaration, act or omission of another person that other
person will not be allowed in any proceedings between himself and the other
person to go back upon it to the detriment of the other party. The rule is
that the party will not be allowed to go behind the facts admitted in
writing. If a person has by his conduct permitted the other party to
believe that the agreement was other than it is embodied in the document,
and has caused him to act upon that belief, he can not fall back upon
section 92 of the Evidence Act and thereby escape the consequences of his
own action.
|
The Privatization Commission =VS= Golam Mostafa | 11 LM (AD) 534 |
Section 92 Proviso (2) |
Section— 92 Proviso (2)
|
Tafzal Ahmed Contractor Vs. Abdur Rahim and others | 16 BLD (AD) 160 |
Sections 101 and 103 |
According to the provisions laid down in sections 101 and 103 of the Evidence Act, the entire onus was upon the plaintiffs to prove that the signatures given by Rustom Howlader in all the documents are false because it is their specific case that Rustom Howlader never appeared in public due to his serious ailment and indisposition and blindness and even he was to be taken to the toilet by somebody else and remained bed ridden from 1980 until his death. Plaintiffs had to take resort to expert opinion in order to discharge their initial onus under section 101 of the Evidence Act to prove that those impugned documents were executed not by Rustom Howlader but by an imposter with a scheme to grab the property and Rustom Howlader was completely unable to perform his own affairs due to his serious illness. Law says when the initial onus is discharged by the plaintiff the onus then shifts upon the defendants to show the contrary. ...Sirajul Haque Howlader and ors Vs. Zulekha Begum & ors, (Civil), 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 199 ....View Full Judgment |
Sirajul Haque Howlader and ors Vs. Zulekha Begum & ors | 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 199 |
Section 101 and 102 |
Onus of proof- Upon whom lies- In a suit for specific performance of
contract—
|
Jabed Ali Mondol and others Vs. Jamini Kanta Day arid others. | 7 BLD (AD) 156 |
Section 101 |
Onus to prove parentage-
|
Sree Gopal Chandra Mondol Vs. Lasman Dasi and others. | 7 BLD (AD) 107 |
Section 101 and 103 |
Burden of proof— Plaintiff to prove his own case—
|
Ajafunnessa Vs. Safar Mia (1978) | 30 DLR (SC) 41 |
Sections 101, 103 |
Burden of proof– When any document like solenama is executed by an age old and sick person burden lies on the person who claims benefit under the document to establish that the document was executed by him on his own accord. .....Khalid Bin Nazrul Prince(Md.) =VS= Mohammad Bazlur Rahman Chowdhury, (Civil), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 209] ....View Full Judgment |
Khalid Bin Nazrul Prince(Md.) =VS= Mohammad Bazlur Rahman Chowdhury | 12 LM (AD) 209 |
Section 101 |
The initial onus lies on the plaintiff to prove his title. [32 DLR (AD) 29 distinguished]. Abani Mohan Saha vs Asstt. Custodian 39 DLR (AD) 223. |
Abani Mohan Saha vs Asstt. Custodian | 39 DLR (AD) 223 |
Section 101 |
When both the parties lead evidence question of onus is out of place and the matter is to be decided on the evidence led by the parties. Ishaque (Md) vs Ekramul Haque Chowdhury and others 54 DLR (AD) 26. |
Ishaque (Md) vs Ekramul Haque Chowdhury and others | 54 DLR (AD) 26 |
Sections 101–104 |
Defendant though pleaded marriage of Monwara with Amir Ali yet the onus of proof is not on him (but on the plaintiff). Khorshed Alam vs Amir Sultan 38 DLR (AD) 133. |
Khorshed Alam vs Amir Sultan | 38 DLR (AD) 133 |
Sections 101–104 |
Plaintiff failed to prove that defendant is the son of the prostitute Baramoni––Court below shifted the onus on the defendant to prove marriage of Monwara with Amir Ali contrary to law. Khorshed Alam vs Amir Sultan 38 DLR (AD) 133. |
Khorshed Alam vs Amir Sultan | 38 DLR (AD) 133 |
Sections 101–104 |
Plaintiff failed to establish that there was no marriage between Amir Ali and Monowara and also that Khorshed Alam is the son of Baramoni–Again, all the courts below worked under a misconception of law as to the question of onus of proof and they placed the onus on the defendant about Monowara's marriage–Which was clearly for the plaintiff to discharge. Khorshed Alam vs Amir Sultan 38 DLR (AD) 133. |
Khorshed Alam vs Amir Sultan | 38 DLR (AD) 133 |
Sections 101–104 |
Plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proof that defendant I was the son of Baramoni, a prostitute and was adopted by Amir Ali–Plaintiff did not examine Baramoni to prove his case–Appellate Court's finding that Baramoni was not examined as witness by defendant which shows that defendant I was not the son of Amir Ali. This conclusion is unwarranted and contrary to all presumptions of law built up over the last 150 years. Khorshed Alam vs Amir Sultan 38 DLR (AD) 133. ....View Full Judgment |
Khorshed Alam vs Amir Sultan | 38 DLR (AD) 133 |
Sections 101 & 103 |
Evidence Act, 1872
|
Matiar Rahman Bhuiyan =VS= Md. Ekram Hossain Bhuiyan | 16 LM (AD) 1 |
Section 101 |
Prosecution must prove the charge against an accused beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt– In a criminal case the prosecution must prove the charge brought against an accused beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt. Criminal cases are not like civil cases. In criminal case the accused may only take the plea of not guilty and the burden is entirely upon the prosecution to prove its case. Cross-examination is not also necessary on the entire deposition of a witness as it may damage the defence case. Non-cross-examination on a certain fact would not make the deposition of a witness on that point admitted facts. (Minority View), (Per Madam Justice Zinnat Ara). ...A.T.M. Azharul Islam =VS= Chief Prosecutor, ICT, Bangladesh, (Criminal), 2020 [9 LM (AD) 593] ....View Full Judgment |
A.T.M. Azharul Islam =VS= Chief Prosecutor, ICT, Bangladesh | 9 LM (AD) 593 |
Section 102 |
Burden of proof:
|
Abedun Nessa Vs. Jaher Sheikh and others | 16 SCOB [2022] HCD 37 |
Section 102 |
Burden of proof—When fraud is alleged— Part of a document can not be
challenged—
|
Hussain Ahmed and others Vs. Sharifullah and others. | 3 MLR (AD) 212 |
Section 102 |
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
|
Phoenix Finance and Investment Ltd. =VS= Yeasmin Ahmed | 10 LM (AD) 522 |
Section 102 |
Limitation is a mixed question fact and law which can be decided in the light of evidence on record. Afroz Rashid Vs. Fazlul Kartm. 40 DLR (AD) 79. |
Afroz Rashid Vs. Fazlul Kartm. | 40 DLR (AD) 79 |
Section 102 |
This observation of the SubJudge · was correctly made. The onus was not wrongly placed on the defendant. Contention of the appellant's Counsel regarding the question of limitation. The finding of the lower appellate Court cannot be construed as making of new case regarding the barga settlement. Limitation is a mixed question oflaw and fact after considering the evidence both oral and documentary. Afroz Rashid vs Fazlul Karim 40 DLR (AD) 79. |
Afroz Rashid vs Fazlul Karim | 40 DLR (AD) 79 |
Section 102 |
Burden of Proof and Onus Probandi –The plaintiff has produced not an agreement of sale but a receipt of earnest money, signed not by the owner of suit properties but by her son– The basis of his suit is an oral agreement, not Ext. 4 the receipt which is only a supporting evidence. The defendants have no burden to prove their alternative story with regard to the creation of Ext. 4. Al-Haj Ahmed Hossain vs Rejaur Rahman 42 DLR (AD) 225. |
Al-Haj Ahmed Hossain vs Rejaur Rahman | 42 DLR (AD) 225 |
Section 103 |
Plaintiff discharged his burden of establishing the fact that defendant sent the rent for the month of May, 1988 after June 15, 1988. It was requirement for the defendant to..: disprove the said fact, but he did not take any step to disprove the oral as well as documentary evidence produced from the side of the plaintiff in assertion of the fact that rent for the month of May, 1988 was sent by money order after June 15,' 1988. Bulbul Begum vs Md Sanwar Belal and anr 8 BLC (AD) 97. |
Bulbul Begum vs Md Sanwar Belal and anr | 8 BLC (AD) 97 |
Section 103 |
In a civil proceeding both the parties have responsibility to prove their respective cases, although onus rests upon the plaintiff to prove his case but responsibility of the defendant is also there to substantiate his written statement’s assertion as per section 103 of the Evidence Act. But the courts below shifted the responsibility to prove the case entirely upon the plaintiffs which cannot be sustained. ...Hayetullah & ors. Vs. Abdul Khaleque & ors., (Civil), 10 SCOB [2018] HCD 309 ....View Full Judgment |
Hayetullah & ors. Vs. Abdul Khaleque & ors. | 10 SCOB [2018] HCD 309 |
Section 103 |
Pre-emption case- left out party- subsisting interest—
|
Md. Abdul Jalil Vs. Durjan Ali alias Siddique Hossain and others. | 1 BLD (AD) 241 |
Sections 103 & 106 |
Burden of proving alibi in wife—killing case—It is true that the burden of proving a plea of alibi or any other plea specifically set up by an accused—husband for absolving him of criminal liability lies on him. But this burden is somewhat lighter than that of the prosecution. The accused could be considered to have discharged his burden if he succeeds in creating a reasonable belief in the existence of circumstances that would absolve him of criminal liability, but the prosecution is to discharge its burden by establishing the guilt of the accused. An accused’s burden is lighter, because the court is to consider his plea only after, and not before, the prosecution leads evidence for sustaining a conviction. When the prosecution failed to prove that the husband was in his house where his wife was murdered, he cannot be saddled with any onus to prove his innocence. State Vs. Mofazzal Hossain Pramanik 43 DLR (AD) 64A. |
State Vs. Mofazzal Hossain Pramanik | 43 DLR (AD) 64A |
Section 105 |
The Penal Code, 1860
|
State =VS= Abu Hanifa @ Hanif Uddin | 9 LM (AD) 262 |
Section 105 |
The Penal Code, 1860
|
State =VS= Abu Hanifa @ Hanif Uddin | 9 LM (AD) 262 |
Section 105 |
In a criminal case the accused are not required to set up their case in writing, such as a written statement of the defendant of a civil suit, nor are they required to give evidence to prove their innocence, or even to establish their pleas, except a special plea within the meaning of s. 105, Evidence Act, and it is entirely for the prosecution tD establish the guilt of the accused—The cardinal principle of criminal justice that the accused shall be presumed to be innocent until his guilt is proved shall be followed at all stages of the trial. Shah Alam Vs. State 42 DLR (AD) 31. |
Shah Alam Vs. State | 42 DLR (AD) 31 |
Section 105 |
Section 105, Evidence Act casts a burden upon the accused to prove the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any special exception or proviso contained in any other part of the Penal Code. There has been complete failure on the part of the defence to prove those circumstances. Md. Abdul Majid Sarkar Vs. State 40 DLR (AD) 83. |
Md. Abdul Majid Sarkar Vs. State | 40 DLR (AD) 83 |
Section 106 |
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
|
Golam Rabbani(Md.) =VS= The State | 11 LM (AD) 422 |
Section106 |
It is by now well settled by numerous decisions of our superior Court that under section106 of the Evidence Act the accused is to explain the cause of death since the victim died while in his custody. In fact the evidence of the witnesses shows that the accused was found inside the locked room where the victim lay with injuries on her body and her hands and feet were tied up. Appellate Division finds from the evidence on record that no attempt was made by the accused to explain how the victim met her death while she was living with him in his room and found dead in his room in his presence. ...Nazrul Islam(Md.) =VS= Deputy Commissioner(DC), Dhaka, (Criminal), 2021(2) [11 LM (AD) 403] ....View Full Judgment |
Nazrul Islam(Md.) =VS= Deputy Commissioner(DC), Dhaka | 11 LM (AD) 403 |
Section 106 |
Section 106 No independent witness was examined by the Investigating Officer nor cited as witness in this case, thus creating doubt. The Appellate Division finds that it is true that a case where section 106 of the Evidence Act is applicable, i.e. when the victim was last seen with the alleged accused, the accused has a duty to explain how the victim died. However, in the instant case there is no independent corroborative witness with regard to the deceased being in the company of the accused in spite of the fact that the houses of the victim’s father and that of her husband are near to each other and they are surrounded by many other houses of persons who would be independent witnesses, but no independent witness was cited in the charge sheet or examined by the prosecution in support of the prosecution case. Moreover, the allegation of the victim having been killed by her husband on account of non-payment of dowry is belied by the fact that the victim was apparently killed after having been gang raped as indicted in the post mortem report and supported by the inquest report. The defence suggestion that the victim went out of her father’s house to watch a show at the local school or that she may have been taken out of her father’s house and raped and killed thereafter cannot be overlooked in view of the finding of the post mortem examination that the victim was gang raped. The fact of the victim having been gang raped is not commensurate with the prosecution claim that the accused, being the husband, killed his wife for dowry. The Appellate Division also note from the cross examination of P.W. 3 Md. Mofazzel Hossain, who is a brother of the informant that he stated ""আমার মেয়েকে অজ্ঞাত লোকে ধর্ষন করে মারিয়াছে আমি বলতে পারিবনা" (emphasis added) which is clearly prevarication, particularly in view of the fact that the post mortem examination report clearly indicates gang rape prior to murder. Accordingly, the criminal petition for leave to appeal is dismissed. .....The State =VS= Md. Akinur Rahman, (Criminal), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 537] ....View Full Judgment |
The State =VS= Md. Akinur Rahman | 1 LM (AD) 537 |
Section 106 |
Section 106 of the Evidence Act said “When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. .....M.A.Kader =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2018 (1) [4 LM (AD) 408] ....View Full Judgment |
M.A.Kader =VS= The State | 4 LM (AD) 408 |
Sections 106 or 114 |
Burden of proof –
|
Ministry of Law, Justice & Parl. Afrs. =VS= BLAST | 3 LM (AD) 274 |
Section 106 |
Burden of proving fact especially within the knowledge of any
person—Alibi in a quasi-criminal proceeding
|
Md. Abdul Tahid alias Tahid Ulla Vs. Md. Kadaris All, | 16 BLD (AD) 248 |
section 106 |
এই ঋণাত্মক দায় নীতিমালাটি প্রযোজ্য হওয়ার পূর্বে দুটি প্রাথমিক বিষয় রাষ্ট্রপক্ষকে যুক্তিসংগত সন্দেহ বহির্ভূতভাবে প্রমাণ করতে হবে। তা হলো মামলায় নিহত ব্যক্তিটি বা ভিকটিম আসামীর হেফাজতে ছিল এবং ঘটনার সময় ঘটনাস্থলে আসামী এবং ঐ ভিকটিম একত্রে ছিল। সেইক্ষেত্রে এটি যে তথাকথিত স্ত্রী হত্যাকান্ড (Wife Killing Case) নীতিমালা অর্থাৎ ঋণাত্মক দায় নীতিমালা প্রযোজ্য হবে। ...State Vs. Abdullah @Titumir @Titu, (Criminal), 18 SCOB [2023] HCD 20 ....View Full Judgment |
State Vs. Abdullah @Titumir @Titu | 18 SCOB [2023] HCD 20 |
section 106 |
ঋণাত্মক দায় ও নরহত্যাঃ
|
State Vs. Abdullah @Titumir @Titu | 18 SCOB [2023] HCD 20 |
section 106 |
যেখানে ময়নাতদন্ত
প্রতিবেদনে নরহত্যাজনিত (Homicidal
in nature) লেখা থাকেনা সেখানে
পারিপার্শ্বিক অবস্থা দেখে
আদালতকেই নির্ধারণ করতে হবে
এটি নরহত্যাজনিত মৃত্যু
কিনাঃ
|
State Vs. Abdullah @Titumir @Titu | 18 SCOB [2023] HCD 20 |
Section 106 |
Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman (Bishes Bidhan) Ain, 1995
|
Raju Ahmed @ Raja Mia =VS= The State | 16 LM (AD) 643 |
Section 106 |
Evidence Act 1872,
|
Md. Abdul Haque Vs. The State | 15 SCOB [2021] AD 58 |
Section 106 |
The burden to prove the plea of alibi is heavy on the accused and the plea
of alibi cannot be proved by preponderance of probabilities:
|
Md. Abdul Haque Vs. The State | 15 SCOB [2021] AD 58 |
Section 106 |
With regard to the victim’s death while in the custody of her husband, the evidence on record shows that the appellant used to stay at his shop. There was no evidence that on that night he was sleeping in his own house. Hence, there is sufficient explanation from the appellant that he was not present in the house when his wife was attacked, and provision of section 106 of the Evidence Act are not applicable in the facts of the instant case. [Muhammad Imman Ali, J (Majority view)] …Md. Abdul Awal Khan Vs. The State, (Criminal), 16 SCOB [2022] AD 22 ....View Full Judgment |
Md. Abdul Awal Khan Vs. The State | 16 SCOB [2022] AD 22 |
Section 106 |
in the absence of evidence as to the presence of the condemned-petitioner in the occurrence house with his family the condemned- petitioner cannot be taken to be liable to prove the fact as to how his wife and 3(three) year old daughter met their death. Mukter Hossain Khan vs State 60 DLR (AD) 44. |
Mukter Hossain Khan vs State | 60 DLR (AD) 44 |
Section 106 |
Normally, there is no burden on the accused to offer the reason of death of a person for which he is tried. But when the deceased is living with the accused in the same house he is to explain how the death occurred. State vs Khandker Zillul Bari 57 DLR (AD) 129. |
State vs Khandker Zillul Bari | 57 DLR (AD) 129 |
Section 108 |
When long abscondence is to be treated culpable in nature: Soon after the occurrence, the appellant-husband absconded and he surrendered before the Tribunal on 28.08.2002, that is, about 6 months after the occurrence. This long abscondence of the appellant-husband without any explanation whatsoever appears to be culpable in nature under section 8 of the Evidence Act. …Md. Abdul Haque Vs. The State, (Criminal), 15 SCOB [2021] AD 58 ....View Full Judgment |
Md. Abdul Haque Vs. The State | 15 SCOB [2021] AD 58 |
Section 110 |
Defendant-appellants have failed to prove the acquisition of title by adverse possession establishing the existence of the essential ingredients of section 7(2) of the Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949. No presumption can be drawn under section 110 of the Evidence Act, 1872 in the absence of those ingredients. Plaintiff-respondent has proved their title by registered deed dated 13-11-7? for valuable consideration which has been believed by the Courts below. Claim of long possession of the defendant-appellants remains precarious because of the finding of title of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. Gouri Das and ors vs ABM Hasan Kabir 7 BLC (AD) 140. |
Gouri Das and ors vs ABM Hasan Kabir | 7 BLC (AD) 140 |
Section 110 |
The Evidence Act, 1872
|
Monoranjan Pal =VS= DC, Narayangonj | 15 LM (AD) 518 |
Section 110 |
Possession is evidence of title, and gives a good title as against wrong
doer.
|
Hajee Abul Hossain and others: -Vs.- Md. Amjad Hossain and others | 11 ALR (AD) 24 |
Section 110 |
Evidence Act
|
Hajee Abul Hossain =VS= Md. Amjad Hossain | 8 LM (AD) 108 |
Section 110 |
The presumption under section 110 in this case would apply only if two conditions are satisfied viz that the possession of the person claiming long possession in not prima facie wrongful and secondly the title of the person in this case the plaintiff despondent, against whom the long possession is claimed is not proved. The courts below found that the defendant appellants are in possession but they are not in possession to the knowledge of the real owner upon denying his title or any kabuliyat or deed of settlement. On the other hand the plaintiff respondent has proved their title by registered kabala executed on 13.11.1974 for valuable consideration. The hits at the root of the claim by the defendant appellants on the suit land on the basis of long possession since the courts below have disbelieved their claim of title of the suit property, No doubt the defendant appellants possession for a long time and by succession remains. But the claim of long possession remains precarious because of the finding of title of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff respondent by courts below. Sree Mali Gouri Das & Ors, Vs. A. B. Hasan Kabir & Ors. 11BLT (AD)87 |
Sree Mali Gouri Das & Ors, Vs. A. B. Hasan Kabir & Ors. | 11 BLT (AD) 87 |
Section 111 |
Deed executed by Pardanashin lady— Onus of proof—
|
Most Rokeya Khatun Vs. Alijan Bepari and others, | 2 BLD (AD) 139 |
Section 111 |
Pardanashin Lady— Legal protection against disposition of her property—
such protection is also extended to her legal heirs—
|
Most Rokeya Khatun Vs. Alijan Bepari and others. | 2 BLD (AD) 139 |
Section 112 |
It appears from the judgment of the appellate Court, the last Court of facts, without considering evidence, particularly, the evidence of P.W.2, and recitals in exhibit-3 erroneously held that Kanai was not the son of Niroda and Krishna Das. This finding is not based on legal evidence and both the Courts have failed to give due weight of the presumption under Section 112 of the Evidence Act. The defendants have tried to make out the case only to deprive the plaintiff from the property without any legal evidence. ...Reba Rani =VS= Sree Nipendra Chandra Mondal, (Civil), 2021(1) [10 LM (AD) 164] ....View Full Judgment |
Reba Rani =VS= Sree Nipendra Chandra Mondal | 10 LM (AD) 164 |
Section 114(e) |
Presumption of regularity of the official acts and burden of proof in such
cases:
|
Md. Mominul Islam Vs. Bangladesh & ors | 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 108 |
Section 114(g) |
In a case of circumstantial evidence no presumption can be drawn unless the
circumstances proved are completely incompatible with the innocence of the
accused.
|
M.A. Kader -Vs.- The State | 9 ALR (AD) 57 |
Section 114(e) |
It appears that in terms of the provisions of section 114(e) of the Evidence Act, there is a preemption that the above compromise decree was duly passed and the writ of delivery possession was duly executed and there is nothing on record to show otherwise. Since the plaintiff could not controvert the above presumption by producing materials before the court, the plea that the above order sheet and writ of delivery of possession were merely paper transaction can not stand. Our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances and the evidence on record we find that the High Court Division considered the matter in its proper perspective and we find no irregularity or illegality in the decision of the High Court Division. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs. .....Shah Alam(Md.) =VS= Islam(Md.), (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 407] ....View Full Judgment |
Shah Alam(Md.) =VS= Islam(Md.) | 5 LM (AD) 407 |
Section 114(g), section 85, Section 120 |
Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act; Order 3 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil
Procedure read with section 85 of the Evidence Act; Section 120 of the
Evidence Act:
|
Sirajul Haque Howlader and ors Vs. Zulekha Begum & ors | 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 199 |
Section 114(e) |
It has been asserted in paragraph Nos. 14(ka)(6) of the written statement that Rustom Howlader filed Title Suit No. 126 of 1996 against Thana Education Officer, Madaripur and filed application for temporary injunction not to remove the Char Ghunshi Government Primary School. The temporary injunction was rejected against which Rustom Howlader filed Miscellaneous Appeal No. 41 of 1996 in the Court of District Judge, Madaripur. The appeal failed. Then he preferred Civil Revision No. 3104 of 1998 before this Court. The Rule issuing order dated 09.08.1998 is exhibit-Ja and after his death his substituted heirs extended the order of status quo till disposal of the rule on 21.08.2000 which is exhibit-Ja(1). Those are public documents and under section 114(e) of the Evidence Act carry presumptive value of its contents and it is to be presumed that Rustom Howlader sworn affidavit in exhibit-Ja until and unless the contrary is proved by reliable evidence and thus it appears that he was never that sick as has been alleged by the plaintiffs. ...Sirajul Haque Howlader and ors Vs. Zulekha Begum & ors, (Civil), 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 199 ....View Full Judgment |
Sirajul Haque Howlader and ors Vs. Zulekha Begum & ors | 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 199 |
Section 114(e) |
The admission of Rustom Howlader that he executed those documents cannot be avoided when plaintiffs could not establish a definite and clear case on Rustom Howlader’s sickness. The execution is admitted and plaintiff had no knowledge on execution or passing of consideration being third party to the document. Plaintiffs cannot question about the consideration because it was between parties to the document. The transferee is to prove the payment of consideration when the transferor challenges the same. In the instant case, if the plaintiffs could prove by cogent and credible evidence that Rustom Howlader was seriously ill and blind from 1980 till his death, in that case the onus would lie upon the defendant to prove the payment of consideration. ...Sirajul Haque Howlader and ors Vs. Zulekha Begum & ors, (Civil), 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 199 ....View Full Judgment |
Sirajul Haque Howlader and ors Vs. Zulekha Begum & ors | 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 199 |
Section 114(g) |
Accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt–– It is well settled principle that where on the evidence two possibilities are open, one which goes in favour of prosecution and the other benefits the accused, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. We are of the view that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all shadow of doubt against the appellant, so the appellant is entitled to get benefit of doubt. Accordingly, we find substance in the appeal. The appellant Humayun Kabir, son of Liakatulla, of village- Newrain, Police Station Laksham, District Comilla is acquitted on the charge. ...Humayun Kabir(Md.) =VS= The State, [10 LM (AD) 619] ....View Full Judgment |
Humayun Kabir(Md.) =VS= The State | 10 LM (AD) 619 |
Section 114 (g) |
Adverse presumption
|
Md. Reazuddin Sardar alias Md. Reazuddin and others Vs. The State, | 14 BLD (AD) 178 |
Section 114(g) |
Non-examination of the Investigation Officer
|
Abdus Sobhan Howlader and others Vs. The State, | 13 BLD (AD) 131 |
Section 114 (g) |
Benefit of doubt
|
The State Vs. Ashraf Ali and others, | 14 BLD (AD) 127 |
Section 114 (g) |
Benefit of doubt When from the evidence of the handwriting expert it is clear that the three disputed cheques, on the basis of which moneys were withdrawn, were in the hand-writing of the accused person and he did not challenge that fact and did not explain why he wrote the three cheques belonging to a fictitious account- holders, his guilt is established and he is not entitled to get benefit of doubt out of minor omissions made by the prosecution witnesses. Md. Ibrahim Hossain Vs. The State, 14BLD(AD)253 |
Md. Ibrahim Hossain Vs. The State, | 14 BLD (AD) 253 |
Section 114 (g) |
Benefit of doubt
|
Mahbubnr Rahman Khan alias Tipu Vs. The State | 16 BLD (AD) 268 |
Section 114(e) |
Presumption of correctness of official acts—
|
Bangladesh represented by the Secretary Ministry of Land vs. Abul Hossain and others. | 3 MLR (AD) 193 |
Section 114 |
Presumption as to correctness of the Paper Books—
|
Maksud Ali Vs. EskandarAli (1976) | 28 DLR (SC) 99 |
Section 114 |
Presumption as to registered letter—
|
Haji Khabiruddin Ahmed Vs. Md. Salam Kabir (1982) | 34 DLR (AD) 271 |
Section 114(g) |
The prosecution ought to have examined the investigating officer as a witness to dispel the mystery around the two charge—sheets on the self—same occurrence, although for non—examination of investigating officer prosecution case will not fail in every case. Abdus Sobahan Howlader Vs. State 45 DLR (AD) 134. |
Abdus Sobahan Howlader Vs. State | 45 DLR (AD) 134 |
Section 114 |
Acquisition of land for Railway–Two public documents one being a copy of Gazette notification of 1933 and the other the land's plan which were more than thirty years old and filed as exhibits lead to a presumption that official acts referred to therein were regularly performed and those documents were sufficient to rebut the presumption of correctness of RS and subsequent record of right. GM Bangladesh Railway vs Mossammat Sharifjan Bibi 43 DLR (AD) 112. |
GM Bangladesh Railway vs Mossammat Sharifjan Bibi | 43 DLR (AD) 112 |
Section 114(g) |
No doubt, important and relevant witnesses in this case and the
non-examination of these relevant witnesses created presumption under
section 114(g) of the Evidence Act and raised question of doubt in the
prosecution case and the benefit of this doubt would go to the accused.
|
The State -Vs.- Nurul Islam | 2019 ALR (AD) Online 351 |
Section 114(g) |
Benefit of doubt—High Court Division has committed fundamental error in giving the accused the benefit of doubt despite the fact that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge beyond shadow of doubt. State vs Keramat Ali 63 DLR (AD) 102. |
State vs Keramat Ali | 63 DLR (AD) 102 |
Section 114(g) |
Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000
|
Mohammad Khorshed Alam =VS= The State | 14 LM (AD) 248 |
Section 114(g) |
Benefit of doubt– The concept of benefit of doubt is deep-rooted in every legal system for giving benefit of doubt to 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 guilt of accused, then accused would be entitled to benefit of such doubt not as a matter of grace but as a matter of right. The learned Judges of the High Court Division have not considered the material discrepancies, contradictions and omissions of eye-witnesses as well as facts and circumstances of the case for which an error has crept in the judgment resulting in the conviction of the appellants. On consideration of the evidence, particularly, of the eye-witnesses, the appellants are held to be entitled of the benefit of doubt. Appellate Division is inclined to give the benefit of doubt to the accused-appellants. .....Ashraful =VS= Deputy Commissioner, Naogaon, (Criminal), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 433] ....View Full Judgment |
Ashraful =VS= Deputy Commissioner, Naogaon | 12 LM (AD) 433 |
Section 115 |
From a close reading of Section 115 of the Evidence Act ..., it is quite clear that the legislature does not allow a person from retracting or denying anything that which he might intentionally have said or done either verbally or by action or by omission and the consequence of which might have led some other person to rely on such as true or act upon such belief. This is as we find is clearly barred under the law. It is also significant to note that the bar is not confined to a particular type or class of suits but it applies to ‘any’ suit or proceeding be it Civil or Criminal whatever may be the nature, class or category of the suit or proceeding. It is evident from perusal of the same that Section 115 in no way distinguishes or otherwise makes any distinction between Civil and Criminal Proceedings. From the language of Section 115 itself it is evident that it applies to all proceedings. ...Md. Sadek Hossain & ors Vs. Most. Azmeri Begum and ors., (Civil), 6 SCOB [2016] HCD 112 ....View Full Judgment |
Md. Sadek Hossain & ors Vs. Most. Azmeri Begum and ors. | 6 SCOB [2016] HCD 112 |
Section 115 |
বিবাদী পক্ষ অথবা তাদের বায়াগন বিভিন্ন ক্রয় কবুলিয়তে নালিশী সম্পত্তি নিলাম বিক্রয়ের বিষয়টি কোনো না কোনোভাবে স্বীকার করে নিয়েছেন। এ প্রসঙ্গে প্রদর্শনী-১৩খ, ১৪খ এবং ১৪গ দৃষ্ট প্রতীয়মান হয় যে, বিবাদী ও বিবাদীর বায়াগন নালিশী সম্পত্তি নিলামের বিষয়টি মেনে নিয়েই সি.এস. ৪৬০ নং খতিয়ানের অধীন বিভিন্ন সম্পত্তির ক্রয় এবং বন্দোবস্তী নিয়েছেন। তাই সেই নিলাম ক্রয় সম্পর্কে বা অনুষ্ঠিত হওয়া সম্পর্কে বিবাদী পক্ষের ওজর আপত্তির ক্ষেত্রটি অত্যন্ত দুর্বল এই প্রসঙ্গে সাক্ষ্য আইনের ১১৫ ধারা তথা এসটোপেল নীতিটি প্রণিধানযোগ্য। ...Abdul Latif Vs. Mohammad Kamal Uddin and others (আব্দুল লতিফ –বনাম- মোহাম্মদ কামাল উদ্দীন এবং অন্যান্য), (Civil), 15 SCOB [2021] HCD 27 ....View Full Judgment |
Abdul Latif Vs. Mohammad Kamal Uddin and others (আব্দুল লতিফ –বনাম- মোহাম্মদ কামাল উদ্দীন এবং অন্যান্য) | 15 SCOB [2021] HCD 27 |
Section 115 |
The Penal Code, 1860
|
Anti-Corruption Commission =VS= Omar Faruk | 12 LM (AD) 517 |
Section 115 |
Estoppel—
|
Jahangir Kahir Vs Bangladesh represented by Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs. | 1 MLR (AD) 46 |
Section 115 |
Promissory Estoppel— Previous approval of Government and subsequent
cancellation— When arbitrarily done—
|
The Chairman, Board of Investment and others Vs. Bay Trawling Limited and others. | 3 MLR (AD) 54 |
Section 115 |
Waiver and estoppel—
|
Rokeya Begum Vs. Md. Abu Zaher & others. | 5 MLR (AD) 171 |
Section 115 |
Estoppel against defendant denying kol-karsha right—
|
Sum Kumar Biswas Vs. Mohd. Idris and others. | 1 BLD (AD) 367 |
Section 115 |
No estoppel against statutory right—
|
Sree Sudhir Chandra Saha and another Vs. Matiron Bewa. | 6 BLD (AD) 182 |
Section 115 |
Promissory Estoppel-Operates equally against Government—
|
Collector of Customs, Customs House Chittagong Vs. Mr. A. Hannan. | 10 BLD (AD) 216 |
Sections 115 and 116 |
Principle of acquiesce, waiver and estoppels– When anyone submits to the jurisdiction of any court /authority and complies with the order of such court/authority he is debarred from questioning the authority/jurisdiction of the said court under the principle of acquiesce, waiver and estoppels. Thus the respondent No.1 cannot claim that the village Court had no authority/jurisdiction to pass such order 31. .....Selim (Md) =VS= Mohammad Ismail Sowdagar, (Civil), 2022(2) [13 LM (AD) 225] ....View Full Judgment |
Selim (Md) =VS= Mohammad Ismail Sowdagar | 13 LM (AD) 225 |
Section 115 |
Estoppel—
|
West Punjab Government Vs. Pindi Jheelum Vally Transport (1960) | 12 DLR (SC) 246 |
Section 115 |
Promissory estoppel—
|
Collector of Customs Vs. Abdul Hannan. | 42 DLR (AD) 167 |
Section 115 |
Fishery–Lease of–Appellant society could not show any infringement of statutory rules in creating lease of fishery–No question of estoppel arises against Government either quasi or promissory. Haruni Fishermen's Co–operative Society vs Md Ebadat Ali & others 40 DLR (AD) 266. |
Haruni Fishermen's Co–operative Society vs Md Ebadat Ali & others | 40 DLR (AD) 266 |
Section 115 |
Notification exempting duty and tax–Legality of subsequent notification and question of estoppel–The notification under section 19 was issued without any condition excepting the "terms and conditions" therein. Subsequent notification taking away exemptions can have no operation when a right had vested in the importer. The importer having acted upon the assurance 'given, the Government cannot retrace its steps and ask for duty at the rate mentioned in the subsequent notification. This is clearly a case of estoppel, the well–settled principle of promissory estoppel. Collector of Customs, Chittagong vs A Hannan 42 DLR (AD) 167. |
Collector of Customs, Chittagong vs A Hannan | 42 DLR (AD) 167 |
Section 115 |
Consent Decree–Limitation and Estoppel–Plaintiffs elected to give up all the reliefs prayed for in the suit and to limit their prayer, by amendment, to a declaration that they are the sole legal heirs of the loanee. On understanding with the plaintiffs, the defendants neither opposed the amendment nor advanced any argument. Since the plaintiffs elected to relinquish all reliefs except the one for saving the suit from limitation and to secure some benefits for them, they are bound by the principle of estoppel and cannot be allowed to argue for the same reliefs which they had voluntarily abandoned. The decree obtained by them being based on understanding–and consent of the parties, they are not permitted to take any appeal from such consent decree. On the same principle the defendant is also barred from preferring any appeal from the High Court Division's judgment. Parveen Banu vs BHBFC 42 DLR (AD) 234. |
Parveen Banu vs BHBFC | 42 DLR (AD) 234 |
Section 115 |
Estoppel & Acquiescence - Having induced the appellants to permit him to retire from service, the respondent cannot be heard to say they had no power to relieve him. Even if the appellants' action was not sanctioned by law, he cannot be the person to make any grievance of it, because he wanted a beneficial order in his favour and the appellants had only obliged him. Bangladesh Parjatan Corporation vs Mofizur Rahman 46 DLR (AD) 46. |
Bangladesh Parjatan Corporation vs Mofizur Rahman | 46 DLR (AD) 46 |
Section 115 |
The Government could not be allowed to work inconsistently, whimsically and capriciously to the prejudice of respondent later when the project was approved by another lawful Government agency at an earlier point of time. Chairman, Board of Investment and others vs Bay Trawling Limited and other 51 DLR (AD) 79. |
Chairman, Board of Investment and others vs Bay Trawling Limited and other | 51 DLR (AD) 79 |
Section 115 |
If a public authority promises to follow certain procedure and which is actually acted upon, for years together, it should follow the said procedure, unless of course, some legal impediment has been created against it. Government of Bangladesh and others. -Vs- Md. JahangirAlam and others 1 ALR (AD) 45 |
Government of Bangladesh and others. -Vs- Md. JahangirAlam and others | 1 ALR (AD) 45 |
Section 115 |
In a case, as in the instant one transaction by Exhibit B, where transfer is challenged after lapse of considerable long time then recital in the document being of long past can legally be considered, in the light of observation in the case reported in AIR 1916 PC 110, genuine and the court may taking the recital along with the circumstances go for making its decision as to validity of the deed. Jitendra Nath Mistry vs Abdul Malek Howlader and ors 54 DLR (AD) 106. |
Jitendra Nath Mistry vs Abdul Malek Howlader and ors | 54 DLR (AD) 106 |
Section 115 |
The meaning of estoppel:
|
Chattogram Dry Dock Ltd Vs. M.T. Fadl-E-Rabbi & ors | 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 82 |
Section 115 |
The logical question that arises in this circumstance is that if the auction-purchaser wants to employ the doctrine of estoppels as a shield on the ground of non-mentioning of the payment of customs duties in the auction notice, then, resorting to the same doctrine, he should not have paid off all other dues, taxes and charges, such as sale tax, Port dues and wage men’s charges which were also not mentioned in the auction notice published in the newspapers. The true scenario, as surfaces from the conducts of the auctionpurchaser and from the explanations received from the team of Marshall, is that it was notified to all the bidders that they were at liberty either to submit their proposal agreeing with these “Further Conditions” or they might abstain from submitting their proposals. Therefore, it is amply clear to me that upon accepting the above conditions, all the bidders have participated in the bid and this applicant became the highest bidder upon agreeing with and accepting the condition that customs duties and other Government dues are to be paid off on top of his offer of Taka 8,50,00,000/-. More so, on 10.07.2018, since the offer of the highest bidder was accepted and confirmed by this Court subject to the payment of all the Government tax, duties and charges, and given the fact that the auction-purchaser (applicant) received this Court’s aforesaid Order dated 10.07.2018 without raising any objection thereto, the auction-purchaser evidently had reconfirmed his position that he was purchasing the vessel upon agreeing with the conditions of payment of all the Government dues and, that is how, he had waived his right to question about payment of Government dues, which includes customs duties. ...Chattogram Dry Dock Ltd Vs. M.T. Fadl-E-Rabbi & ors, (Civil), 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 82 ....View Full Judgment |
Chattogram Dry Dock Ltd Vs. M.T. Fadl-E-Rabbi & ors | 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 82 |
Section 116 |
Once the relationship of landlord and tenant is established between the parties, the tenant is estopped from challenging the title of the plaintiff without surrendering possession in view of section 116 of the Evidence Act. Selina Begum vs Azizun Nessa 6 BLC (AD) 115. |
Selina Begum vs Azizun Nessa | 6 BLC (AD) 115 |
Section 116 |
Estoppel against tenant—
|
Hajee Abdus Sattar Vs. Mahiuddin and others. | 6 BLD (AD) 224 |
Section 116 |
A tenant could not set up title to a property of which he was a monthly
tenant without surrendering possession thereof to the landlord.
|
Md. Rabiul Anam and others. -Vs.- Md. Abdul Aziz Khan and others | 8 ALR (AD) 191 |
Section 116 |
Estoppel against tenant— The language of section 116 of the Evidence Act is clear enough to constitute estoppel between tenant and the landlord at the time of the creation of tenancy. Amarchandra Saha Vs. Arif Kumar Das (1981) 33 DLR (AD) 37. |
Amarchandra Saha Vs. Arif Kumar Das (1981) | 33 DLR (AD) 37 |
Section 116 |
Estoppel by contract or tenant's estoppel–explained. The estoppel as described in this section is known as tenant's estoppel or estoppel by contract. This estoppel is founded upon a contract between the tenant and the landlord. It provides that when a person enters into possession of immovable property as a tenant of another person then neither he nor anybody claiming through him shall be permitted during the continuance of the tenancy to deny the landlord's title however defective that title might be. This necessarily implies that in case the tenant sets up a claim of title in himself he shall first surrender possession to the person from whom he had taken it. Abdus Sattar vs Mahiuddin 38 DLR (AD) 97. |
Abdus Sattar vs Mahiuddin | 38 DLR (AD) 97 |
Section 116 |
A device resorted to by tenant whereby he defaults to pay rent and when sued for eviction, sets up plea of no relationship of tenant and landlord–Such a plea is unavailing when origin of tenancy is proved. Abdus Sattar vs Mohiuddin 38 DLR (AD) 97. |
Abdus Sattar vs Mohiuddin | 38 DLR (AD) 97 |
Section 116 |
Section 116 is no bar when landlord's title is lost or extinguished–If tenant claims a title in himself, he must surrender possession to the landlord. If the landlord determines the tenancy, but the tenant continues to stay on still bar of section 116 will operate. Abdus Sattar vs Mohiuddin 38 DLR (AD) 97. |
Abdus Sattar vs Mohiuddin | 38 DLR (AD) 97 |
Section 116 |
Mere non–payment of rent does not snap landlord and tenant relationship. Abdus Sattar vs Mahiuddin 38 DLR (AD) 97. |
Abdus Sattar vs Mahiuddin | 38 DLR (AD) 97 |
Section 116 |
On the death of the tenant the tenancy can be determined by either party, if tenant's heirs stay on they must pay rent or quit. Abdus Sattar vs Mohiuddin 38 DLR (AD) 97. |
Abdus Sattar vs Mohiuddin | 38 DLR (AD) 97 |
Section 116 |
A tenant cannot set up title to a property of which he is a monthly tenant without surrendering possession to his landlord. Haji Kasimuddin Mondal being dead his heirs Afroza Bewa and others vs Md Jalaluddin Pramanik 48 DLR (AD) 205. |
Afroza Bewa and others vs Md Jalaluddin Pramanik | 48 DLR (AD) 205 |
Section 118 |
Child witness– A child as young as 5/6 years can depose evidence if she understands the questions and answers in a relevant and rational manner. The age is of no consequence, it is the mental faculties and understanding that matter in such cases. Their evidence, however, has to be scrutinised and caution has to be exercised in each individual case. The Court has to satisfy itself that the evidence of a child is reliable and untainted. Any sign of tutoring will render the evidence questionable if the Court is satisfied, it may convict a person without looking for corroboration of the child’s evidence. As regards credibility of child witness, it is now established that all witnesses who testify in Court must be competent or able to testify at trial. In general, a witness is presumed to be competent. This presumption applies to child witnesses also. ...Abdul Haque(Md.) =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2021(1) [10 LM (AD) 472] ....View Full Judgment |
Abdul Haque(Md.) =VS= The State | 10 LM (AD) 472 |
Section 118 |
Preliminary examination of a child witness– Testing of intelligence of a witness of a tender age is not a condition precedent to the reception of his evidence. Therefore, preliminary examination of a child witness is not at all necessary. ...Abdul Haque(Md.) =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2021(1) [10 LM (AD) 472] ....View Full Judgment |
Abdul Haque(Md.) =VS= The State | 10 LM (AD) 472 |
Section 118 |
Even a child witness can be relied on if he/she is capable of understanding and replying to the question intelligently. Abdul Quddus Vs. State 43 DLR (AD) 234. |
Abdul Quddus Vs. State | 43 DLR (AD) 234 |
Section 118 |
Competence of a witness:
|
Md. Abdul Haque Vs. The State | 15 SCOB [2021] AD 58 |
Section 118 |
Competence of a child witness:
|
Md. Abdul Haque Vs. The State | 15 SCOB [2021] AD 58 |
Section 118 |
Trial judge may resort to any examination of child witness which will tend
to disclose his capacity and intelligence:
|
Md. Abdul Haque Vs. The State | 15 SCOB [2021] AD 58 |
Section 118 |
Preliminary examination of a child witness is not necessary:
|
Md. Abdul Haque Vs. The State | 15 SCOB [2021] AD 58 |
Section 118 |
Though a child witness, PW 2 received injuries in the hands of the appellants when his father was done to death and the witness having testified about the factum of the occurrence and the same having not been shaken in cross-examination, the witness, though a child, should be believed in the facts of the case. Forkan alias Farhad and another vs State 47 DLR (AD) 149. |
Forkan alias Farhad and another vs State | 47 DLR (AD) 149 |
Section 118 |
Evidence of a 12 years old witness is admissible even if the Tribunal does
not test her intelligence when she answers rationally and withstands
onslaught of crossexamination:
|
Md. Abdul Haque Vs. The State | 15 SCOB [2021] AD 58 |
Section 118 |
The position of a prosecutrix is a little different from that of an injured person simpliciter. The possibility of a prosecutrix being a collaborator cannot always be ruled out. Therefore a corroboration of the evidence of prosecutrix by at least some circumstantial evidence or a medical examination is always desirable. Md. Hasan Vs. The State 7 BLT (AD)-378 |
Md. Hasan Vs. The State | 7 BLT (AD) 378 |
Sections 123 and 162 |
Immunity of documents relating affairs of the state—
|
Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Vs. Md. Shamsul Hilda and others | 14 MLR (AD) 224 |
Section 133 |
International Crimes Tribunals Act, 1973
|
A.T.M. Azharul Islam =VS= Chief Prosecutor, ICT, Bangladesh | 9 LM (AD) 593 |
Section 133 |
International Crimes Tribunals Act, 1973
|
A.T.M. Azharul Islam =VS= Chief Prosecutor, ICT, Bangladesh | 9 LM (AD) 593 |
Section 134 |
Evidence has to be weighed and not counted– It is well known maxim, which is a golden Rule, that ‘evidence has to be weighed and not counted’. Thus, evidence on a point is to be judged not by the number of witnesses produced but by its inherent truth. It also appears from the record that after the occurrence convict- Hazrat Ali was absconded for a long time. It is well settled that mere abscondence by itself does not prove any offence against any person unless such abscondence is substantiated by evidence in favour of his guilt incompatible with his plea of innocence. In the instant case if we consider the evidence of PW-23 couple with the factum of the abscondence of convict Hazrat, then we can safely come to a conclusion that abscondence of convict Hazrat Ali is a strong circumstances as to his guilt. This pertinent fact also presumed that he is guilty of offence. This Division in the case of Amin Husain Hawlader Vs. State 1989 BLD (AD) 193 has observed that-“absconsion of an accused is corroboration of direct evidence of eye-witness connecting the accused with the crime.” .....Hazrat Ali =VS= Deputy Commissioner, Dhaka, (Criminal), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 529] ....View Full Judgment |
Hazrat Ali =VS= Deputy Commissioner, Dhaka | 12 LM (AD) 529 |
Section 134 |
Number of witnesses— Conviction of the appellants can safely be based on the solitary evidence of the eye—witness PW 1. His evidence is full, complete and self—contained. It may not have received corroboration from other witnesses, but it stands fully corroborated by the circumstances of the case and the medical evidence on record. Its fullness and completeness are enough to justify the: conviction. Abdul Hai Sikder Vs. State 43. DLR (AD) 95. |
Abdul Hai Sikder Vs. State | 43 DLR (AD) 95 |
Section 134 |
Acid Aparadh Daman Ain, 2002
|
Akbar Ali(Md.) @Jelhaque Mondal =VS= The State | 13 LM (AD) 288 |
Section 134 |
The testimony of the solitary eye—witness could not be shaken in any manner by the defence in cross—examination for which it is difficult to disbelieve her testimony as she narrated the prosecution case in details. Abdul Quddus Vs. State 43 DLR (AD) 234. |
Abdul Quddus Vs. State | 43 DLR (AD) 234 |
Section 134 |
A sole witness is enough to convict an accused of the charge brought
against him, if the witness is natural and trustworthy.
|
The State -Vs.- Abul Basher Tipu | 3 ALR (AD) 211 |
Section 134 |
If a witness is otherwise found reliable or independent or non–partisan or disinterested, the evidence of such a lone witness can be taken as the foundation in making decision as to an issue in the case. Shishir Kanti Pal and others vs Nur Muhammad and others 55 DLR (AD) 39. |
Shishir Kanti Pal and others vs Nur Muhammad and others | 55 DLR (AD) 39 |
Section 137 |
When a witness specifically makes statement regarding particular facts if
the defence did not deny ‘such facts’, then according to law the
deposition deemed to have been admitted– Non-appearance of vital
prosecution witnesses after exhausting the process of Court, specifically
after deposition, while did not turn up to face cross in the present case,
which are not explained by the prosecution side, the trial Court must give
a specific opinion in respect of the evidential value of such depositions
of the witnesses against the accused who has not got any chance to cross
the witnesses. However, both the Tribunal and the High Court Division have
failed to discuss the above legal aspects and consequences.
|
Maksudur Rahman Biplab =VS= The State | 10 LM (AD) 397 |
Section 137 |
Statements elicited from a witness in cross—examination is a very important part of evidence before a Court. Before drawing any inference from the testimony of a witness, the Court must consider the statements made in the examination—in—chief and those made in cross—examination by putting them in juxtaposition and see whether that witness has stood the test. Wajear Rahman Moral Vs. State 43 DLR (AD) 25. |
Wajear Rahman Moral Vs. State | 43 DLR (AD) 25 |
Section 137 |
Contention as to facts—The defence cannot make an ingenuous argument that the prosecution story cannot be believed as they did not mention about the connecting doors in between the rooms as the defence did not put any suggestion as to non—existence of the same. Abdul Quddus Vs. State 43 DLR (AD) 234. |
Abdul Quddus Vs. State | 43 DLR (AD) 234 |
Section 137 |
Objection to the manner of cross—examination put to PWs 2 and 3 in a lump and similarly to the 10 PW 9—Objection rightly taken when there was no such statement in the examination—in—chief of the witness. Taleb Ali & ors. Vs. State 40 DLR (AD) 240. |
Taleb Ali & ors. Vs. State | 40 DLR (AD) 240 |
Section 137 |
The functions of cross-examination is to have the exact truth, to ascertain what part of the story is true, what is false and what is left out-these matters may be had by searching questions put to the witness (Per S K Sinha, J majority view). Md. Habibur Rahman Bhuiyan and others -Vs-Mosammat Galman Begum and others 1 ALR (AD)133 |
Md. Habibur Rahman Bhuiyan and others -Vs-Mosammat Galman Begum and others | 1 ALR (AD) 133 |
Section 145 |
The Evidence Act, 1872
|
Allama Delwar Hossain Sayedee =VS= Government of Bangladesh | 2 LM (AD) 76 |
Section-145 |
The Evidence Act, 1872
|
Ali Ahsan Muhammad Mujahid =VS= The Chief Prosecutor, ICT, Dhaka | 2 LM (AD) 1 |
Section 145 |
Evidence recorded in preliminary Inquiry is admissible as superlative—
|
Birendra Chandra Saha Vs. Shashi Mohan Saha (1975) | 27 DLR (SC) 89 |
Section 145 |
Decision of the majority Judges– Defendant's deposition Exts.5 and 6 are
inadmissible under section 19 of the Evidence Act.
|
Khorshed Alam vs Amir Sultan | 38 DLR (AD) 133 |
Section 145 |
View of Shahabuddin, J (minority)– Deposition by the defendant in previous rent and money suits to the effect that he did not know his mother's name or where she lived etc.–He may be confronted with such deposition in a subsequent case under section 145 Evidence Act to test his veracity. Khorshed Alam vs Amir Sultan 38 DLR (AD) 133. |
Khorshed Alam vs Amir Sultan | 38 DLR (AD) 133 |
Section 154 |
Hostile witness a witness has gone back upon his previous statement and
given in court evidence which is inconsistent with that statement does not
make the witness hostile.
|
Aminul Islam Bulbul -Vs.- The State | 8 ALR (AD) 101 |
Section 154 |
Hostile witness (by minority): The evidence of the two hostile witnesses cannot be rejected in whole or in part but the whole of the evidence so far as it affects both sides must be taken into consideration. Sk. Shamsur Rahman Vs. State 42 DLR (AD) 200. |
Sk. Shamsur Rahman Vs. State | 42 DLR (AD) 200 |
Section 154 |
Hostile witness—A witness is not necessarily hostile if he reveals the truth. Established practice, now forming a rule of law, regarding the evidence of a hostile witness is that the whole of his evidence so far as it affects both the parties, favourably or unfavourably, must be considered and the Court which gets the opportunity to observe his demeanor is at liberty to make assessment of the evidence. If corroboration from other sources is available to the evidence of hostile witness, there is no reason why his evidence shall be rejected outright. If the evidence of the hostile witness fits in with the attending circumstances, then it may be accepted and considered along with other evidence. Siddique Munshi Vs. State 44 DLR (AD) 169. |
Siddique Munshi Vs. State | 44 DLR (AD) 169 |
Section 154 & 155 |
Evidence by eyewitness—Vital omission in FIR and statement to the Investigation Officer make their substantive evidence unreliable. Babor Ali Molla & others Vs. State 44 DLR (AD) 10 |
Babor Ali Molla & others Vs. State | 44 DLR (AD) 10 |
Section 154 |
Evidence of the witness, who has been declared hostile, would ipso facto not be of any worth for the prosecution, rather if on consideration of the evidence of such kind of witness it is found that evidence on record either has established the case of the prosecution or that prosecution case does not stand scrutiny then whatever order in any respect is made by the Court the same is very much sustainable in law. Mobarak Hossain alias Mobarak vs State 56 DLR (AD) 26. |
Mobarak Hossain alias Mobarak vs State | 56 DLR (AD) 26 |
Section 155(3) |
Previous statement should be confronted to the witness to impeach his
credibility—
|
Ahmed Impex (Private} Ltd. and others Vs. Mocjbul Ahmed being dead his heirs Ferdous Ara Begum and another | 13 MLR (AD) 129 |
Section 155 |
The prosecution witnesses having not been declared hostile their evidence cannot be discarded only because they are favourable to the accused. State Vs. MM Rafiqul Hyder 45 DLR (AD) 13. |
State Vs. MM Rafiqul Hyder | 45 DLR (AD) 13 |
Section 155(3) |
In the instant case except asking the PW 1 about filing of the written statement, the content thereof with which the PW 1 presently making any inconsistent statement was not put to him in order to enable the respondents to explain the circumstances against him. In that view of the matter, the content of written statement though contradictory to the defendant's own case of transfer, could not be produced and relied in order to contradict PW 1. Ahmed lmpex (Private) Ltd & others vs Moqbul Ahmed 56 DLR (AD) 92. |
Ahmed lmpex (Private) Ltd & others vs Moqbul Ahmed | 56 DLR (AD) 92 |
Section 157 |
The court is bound to reject the statements of those witnesses who did not
furnish the complicity of the accused person ‘at or about the time’ of
the occurrence. The discloser must be at once or at least shortly after the
event when a reasonable opportunity of making it present itself.
|
M.A. Kader -Vs.- The State | 9 ALR (AD) 57 |
Section 157 |
The Evidence Act, 1872;
|
Shamim Uddin =VS= The State | 15 LM (AD) 184 |
Section 157 |
Previous statement, use of— The statement of a witness made under section 164 CrPC is meant for binding him down to the statement made during investigation. The defence may use it to contradict the witness, whereas the prosecution may use it to corroborate him when he gives evidence in court (Per Shahabuddin Ahmed CJ concurred by MH Rahman & ATM Afzal J). Abu Taher Chowdhury Vs. State 42 DLR (AD) 253. |
Abu Taher Chowdhury Vs. State | 42 DLR (AD) 253 |
Section 162 |
When the witness departure from the original version, it is very difficult
to rely on his/her as a trustworthy witness.
|
M.A. Kader -Vs.- The State | 9 ALR (AD) 57 |
Section 162 |
Court's power to determine the validity of privilege—
|
Government of West Pakistan Vs. Begum AKarim (1969) | 21 DLR (SC) 1 |
Section 167 |
Retrial when can not be ordered—
|
Jamaluddin and others Vs. Md. Abdul Majid and others. | 3 MLR (AD) 102 |
Section 167 |
Section 167 of the Evidence Act provides that if there is sufficient evidence to justi1r the decision then improper admission or rejection of the evidence will be no ground for a new trial. [Para- 14] Jamaluddin & Ors. Vs. Abdul Majid & Ors. 6 BLT (AD)-137. |
Jamaluddin & Ors. Vs. Abdul Majid & Ors. | 6 BLT (AD) 137 |
Section 180 |
read with
|
Aminul Islam Bulbul -Vs.- The State | 8 ALR (AD) 101 |
Circumstances evidence– |
Circumstances evidence–
|
M.A.Kader =VS= The State | 4 LM (AD) 408 |
Evidence– |
Evidence– Discrepency always occurs even in the evidence of the truthful
witnesses–
|
State =VS= Dafader Marfoth Ali Shah & ors. | 4 LM (AD) 430 |
Circumstantial evidence– |
Circumstantial evidence–
|
Sheikh Zahid =VS= The State | 10 LM (AD) 705 |