Appellate Division Cases
(Criminal)
PARTIES
Md. Dulal Mia …………………….Petitioner.
-Vs-
The State ………………………..Respondent
JUSTICES
Md. Ruhul Amin CJ
Mohammad Fazlul Karim J
M. M. Ruhul Amin J
Md. Tafazzul Islam J
Md. Joynul Abedin J
Md. Hassan Ameen J
Md. Abdul Matin J
Judgment Dated: 4th May 2008
Nari-O-Shisu Nirjaton (Bishes Bidhan) Ain, 1995, Section 10(1)
The Cede of Criminal Procedure, Section 342
Accused killed the deceased for dowry……………….(2)
He found some marks of injuries on the neck, chest and finger of deceased Hazera. He thereafter sent the dead body to Mymensingh Medical College morgue for post-mortem examination through constable No.811 Motiur Rahman. P.W.12 Doctor Abul Monsur held autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Hazera Khatoon and opined in the postmortem report that the death was due to cardiogenic shock resulting from injuries found on the dead body which was ante-mortem and homicidal in nature. P.W.ll Rafiqul Islam after investigation submitted charge-sheet dated 12.8.1997 under section 10(1) of Nari-O-Shisu Nirjaton (Bishes Bidhan) Ain, 1995 against accused Dulal and Julekha who were respectively the husband and the mother-in-law of the deceased Hazera Khatoon…………………. (2)
The learned Judge of the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Tribunal on consideration of the evidence and materials on record found that accused Dulal murdered his wife, deceased Hazera Khatoon, in his hut for dowry and his mother accused Julekha was not responsible for the murder and accordingly Dulal was convicted for murder and awarded death sentence and Julekha was acquitted by the judgment and order dated 27.9.2000……………….. (4)
ABM Bayezid,. Advocate……………… For the Petitioner
Abdur Rouf, D.A.G. …………………..For the Respondent
Jail Petition No. 6 of 2004
With
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.57 of 2004
(From the judgment and order dated 11.8.2003 passed by the High Court Division in Death Reference No.41 of 2000.)
JUDGMENT
Md. Joynul Abedin J: The petitioner i.e. the condemned accused Md. Dulal Mia by filing a petition dated 21.3.2004 from Jail seeks leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 11.8.2003 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court Division accepting the Death Reference No.41 of 2000 from the Judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 27.9.2000 recorded by Nari-O-Shishu Nirjaton Daman Bishesh Adalat,
Mymensingh in Nari-O-Shishu Case No. 149 of 1997.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the deceased Hazera Khatoon aged about 22 years was given in marriage with accused Md. Dulal Mia about five years prior to the occurrence. One daughter was born in the wedlock. Accused Dulal Mia and his mother, accused Julekha Khatoon, used to demand dowry from the deceased Hazera Khatoon. On 3.2.1997 accused Dulal Mia drove his wife, the deceased Hazera Khatoon, to her parent’s house for bringing Taka.5,000-/ from her father as dowry for purchasing a rickshaw. After about 3 months, all on a sudden accused Dulal Mia and his mother accused Julekha
came to the father’s house of the deceased Hazera and after staying there for two days they along with the deceased Hazera went to their house at village Sotiya Khaly under Kotwali Police Station, Mymensingh on 30.4.1997 in the afternoon. On the night following 30.4.1997 the aforesaid accused killed the deceased for dowry. In the following morning P.W. 3 Idris Ali, father of the victim, got the death news of his daughter Hazera.
Accordingly, he went to the house of accused Dulal Mia and found the dead body of his daughter Hazera with injuries on her neck and chest lying in the hut of accused Dulal Mia. Thereafter P.W. 3 lodged the F.I.R. on 1.5.1997. Consequently Mymensingh Kotwali P.S. Case No.l dated 1.5.1997 was started against accused Dulal and his mother
]ulekha Khatoon. P.W.I 1, Sub-Inspector of Police Rafiqul Islam, the investigating officer held inquest on the dead body of Hazera Khatoon. He found some marks of injuries on the neck, chest and finger of deceased Hazera. He thereafter sent the dead body to Mymensingh Medical College morgue for post-mortem examination through constable No.811 Motiur Rahman. P.W.I2 Doctor Abul Monsur held autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Hazera Khatoon and opined in the postmortem report that the death was
due to cardiogenic shock resulting from injuries found on the dead body which was ante-mortem and homicidal in nature. P.W. 11 Rafiqul Islam after investigation submitted charge-sheet dated 12.8.1997 under section 10(1) of Nari-O-Shisu Nirjaton (Bishes Bidhan) Ain, 1995 against accused flulal and Julekha who were respectively the husband and the mother-in-law of the deceased Hazera Khatoon.
3. At the commencement of the trial a charge under section 10(1) of Nari-O-Shisu Nirjaton (Bishes Bidhan) Ain, 1995 was framed against the accused Dulal and Julekha who pleaded not guilty thereto and claimed trial in accordance with law. The prosecution in order to prove the charge examined 9 witnesses and tendered three. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when they again maintained their innocence and declined to adduce
any evidence in their defence. The defence however took up a plea that the victim Hazera succumbed to the shock-injury caused by fear when she went out of her hut in the night of occurrence in response to the call of nature.
4. The learned Judge of the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Tribunal on consideration
of the evidence and materials on record found that accused Dulal murdered his wife, deceased Hazera Khatoon, in his hut for dowry and his mother accused Julekha was not responsible for the murder and accordingly Dulal was convicted for murder and awarded death sentence and Julekha was acquitted by the judgment and order dated 27.9.2000.
5. Subsequently a Division Bench of the High Court Division on receipt of the aforesaid Death Reference Case again carefully scrutinized the evidence and materials on record and found that the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Tribunal was in accordance with Law and thus accepted the reference by the impugned judgment dated 11.8.2003. Hence the present jail petition by the accused petitioner.
6. Mr. ABM Bayezid, the learned Advocate for the accused petitioner strenuously submits that in the absence of any direct evidence as well as strong and conclusive
circumstantial evidence both the Tribunal and the High Court Division have erred in law in convicting the accused petitioner for murder of his wife for dowry and as a result there has been a failure of justice.
7. We have heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner, considered the Jail Petition
and the connected papers including the Impugned judgment and order of the High Court Division. The High Court Division upon correct assessment of the evidence and materials on record arrived at a correct decision and committed no error in accepting the reference. There is therefore no warrant in law to interfere with the same.
8. Accordingly, the Jail Petition and the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition are dismissed.
Source : V ADC (2008),714