Nari-O-Shishu Nirjaton Daman (Bishesh Bidhan) Ain, 1995

 

 

Nari-O-Shishu Nirjaton Daman (Bishesh Bidhan) Ain, 1995

 

Jurisdiction

The (Bishesh Bidhan) Adalat under the Nari -O- Shishu Nirjayan (Bishesh Bidhan) Ain, 1995 could not try an offence under the Penal Code and the order of conviction and sentence under section 304 of the Penal Code, without jurisdiction.

Asiman Begum Vs. The State 6 BLT (AD)-279

Section -6(1)

Reasonable doubt — it appears that there are many contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws and in between the statement of the First Information Report and the evidence as adduced in the court and in absence of the of rape in the medical report and non-examination of the wearing trousers by the chemical expert made the whole case most doubtful one and the prosecution is totally failed to prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt.

Md. Tariqul Islam Vs. The State 14 BLT (HCD)-407

Sectiion-6(3) read with Section-14

True it is that the husband Saiful Islam might not have actively participated in commission of the crime but the occurrence did not happen suddenly, rather, the beastly intentions of the assailants, were within definite prior knowledge and only his resistance or even protest or at least time" intimation to others could have saved her honour and life. This was not much to expect from a husband. But his failure to response to render this bare minimum help to his own wife when she was frantically trying to save her honour and life in front his very eyes, makes him an accessory to the whole crime, although perpetrated by others since there was no definite evidence that he instigated the murder of his wife, the victual also the offence of the condemned prisoner Saiful Islam does not come within S section-4 of Section-6 read with Section-of the Act but comes within Sub-section-3 Section-6 read with Section-14 of the Act.

The State Vs. Md. Joynal Abedin & Ors. 8 BLT (HCD)-376

Section- 6 and 14

Bail —the main allegation is against Shah Alam and it has only been alleged in the FIR that with  the help of including the petitioner appellant Shah kidnapped the victim girl and committed rape but statement of the victim recorded under section 164 Cr. P. C. Wherein the victim has clearly stated that Shah Alam Kidnapped her and took her to a house and committed rape on her and with the help of other girl he took the naked picture of the victim with Shah Alam and threatened her not disclose the matter to anybody—Held : Having perused the FIR and 164 statements of – victim we are of the view that the petitioner should be granted bail.

Farid Ahmed Vs. The State 8BLT (HCD)-61

Section – 9

For bringing accusation of kidnapping a woman for accomplishment of one of the purposes as mentioned in Section 9 of the Act or to put a person on trial to answer the accusation of kidnapping a woman for one the purposes mentioned in the Section Te must have kidnapping of a woman for lone of the purposes or in other words there t have kidnapping with a mind to accomplish one of the purposes mentioned the Section.

Younus Ali & Ors. VS. The State 7 BLT (HCD)-46

Section-9(Kha) and Section-14

The alleged occurrence  took  place on 05.07.1999 at night about 3.00 a.m. and the maternal uncle of the victim PW-1 lodged the first information report on 11.07.1999 at about 14.15 hours without any reasonable explanation for delay in lodging the FIR. It appears that the victim Selina Akhter not eventually abdicated inasmuch as the way of taking away she (PW-2, Selina Akhter) managed to come with the informant leaving the accused petitioners Besides. PWs.8-1 1. testified in one voice hat there was a love affairs between accused Jewel Miah and Selina Akhter, out their love affairs Selina Akhter used to go to Jewel (petitioner ) and the so-called victim Selina Akhter was not abducted by the accused Jewel Miah and other, indeed -Held; we have no hesitation to hold that the ingredients of the offence section 9(Kha)/14 of the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Bishesh Bidhan Ain, 1995 do not attract in the facts and materials of the present case.

Jewel Miah & Anr Vs. The State 15 BLT (HCD)-234

Sections-9 (Ga) & 14

Essential ingredients—in the instant case there was neither forceful abduction nor any forceful intercourse—appeal allowed.

Shah Alam & Ors. Vs. The State 9 BLT (HCD)-86

Section -10(1) read with Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain 2000 Section-11 (Ka) read with Penal Code, 1860 Section -302

It appears from the record that the alleged occurrence of murder took place in the night following on 9.2.2000 and a U.D case in the matter was started on 10.2.2000. The post­mortem examination of the victim was held on 11.2.2002 and, on receipt of the post­mortem report, the F.I.R was lodged on 15.6.2000 with explanation for the delay. The Gazette Notification publishing Nari- o-Shishu Nirjatan Daman (Bishes Bidhan) Ain 2000 was made on 14.2.2000. Thus the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman (Bishesh Bidhan) Ain, 1995 came to an end after the date of occurrence. No retrospective effect has been or could be given the aforesaid Ain which provides for trial of the pending cases under the repealed Ain by the Tribunals constituted thereunder as if the same has not been repealed. Thus it is apparent that the accused ought to have been charged under section 10(1) of the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman (Bishesh Bidhan) Ain, 1995 provisions of which are similar to the provision of section 11 (Ka) of the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000 for which the accused was charged. The provision of both the sections of the aforesaid 2 Ains being similar, the accused has not been prejudiced on being charged under section 11 (Ka) of the Ain, 2000 but in the instant case we do not find anything against the condemned prisoner that he demanded any dowry and as such we are unable to alter the order of conviction under section 11 (Ka) of the Ain to one under section. 10(1) of the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 1995 bur we are of the view that the condemned prisoner ought to have been convicted under section 302 of the Penal Code for the offence of murder committed by him.

The State Vs Md. Habey Miah 13 BLT (HCD)-500

Section-12

PW2 Shahinoor Begum in support of prosecution case gave evidence that condemned prisoner Abul Kahsem came from Dhaka, and made a request to her to give her son to him for educational purpose and, also, for doing some household affairs. Her further testimony was that he heard that Abul Kashem showing victim Rubel as his son trafficked her son to Dubai. Evidence of this witness is nothing but a hearsay evidence. PW 3 Md. Dudu Miah, father of pw 2 Shahinoor Begum by way cross-examination made a disclosure that he was not at home at the time of taking away of victim Rubel. Testimony of PW 2 in respect of taking away of victim Rubel by condemned prisoner Abul Kashem remains totally uncorroborated by any other evidence. No clinching evidence came forth that condemned prisoner Abul Kasheni trafficked victim Rubel to Dubai and soldi him there for purpose of being used as camel jockey in camel race—benefit of doubt, thus, must be given to condemned Prisoner Abul Kashem.

The State Vs. Abul Kashem 12 BLT (HCD)-165

Section -14

A mere alleged attempt to commit any one of  the  offences,  except  mentioned in Sections 7 and 10(2) of the Act at the instigation of another has been made a offence under the Act, nor has any provision has been made in the Act for the punishment! of the person at whose instigation attempt] was made by a person to commit any one of the offences except mentioned in Sections 7 and 10(2) of the Act.

Younus Ali & Ors. VS. The State 7 BLT (HCD)-46

Sections- 20 Read with Section- 24

The learned tribunal could not conclude the trial in time, the Tribunal received the case record on 17-7-1996 but the prosecution failed to produce any prosecution witness. The case was fixed on 30-1-1997 for examination of PWs, but on that date also no prosecution witness appeared, ends of justice will be meet if the appellant are enlarged on bail.

Kazal Chandra Das & Ors. Vs. The State 6 BLT (HCD)-29

Section – 28

In the medical examination report of victim of Rina Akter, Doctor opined that from the physical dental, Radiological pathological Examination no recent evidence of forceful sexual intercourse was found on her body which apparently proved that the case is false and concocted. Moreover he further submits that the victim was married to younger brother of the appellants Jalal Sarder against the will and sentiment of the family on 01.09.2002 and thus the case was initiated just to create pressure upon them to give recognition on her marriage.

Held : It appears that the appellant has good arguable case since there is no recent sign of rape as it apparent from the medical report and thus we accept the submissions made by die appellants lawyer and in view of the matter we are inclined to charge the appellant Jalil Sarder alias Jalil and Salim Sarder on bail.

Jalil Sarder & Ors. Vs. The State 11 BLT (HCD)-523.

Disclaimer:

The information contains in this web-site is prepared for educational purpose. This site may be used by the students, faculties, independent learners and the learned advocates of all over the world. Researchers all over the world have the access to upload their writes up in this site. In consideration of the people’s participation in the Web Page, the individual, group, organization, business, spectator, or other, does hereby release and forever discharge the Lawyers & Jurists, and its officers, board, and employees, jointly and severally from any and all actions, causes of actions, claims and demands for, upon or by reason of any damage, loss or injury, which hereafter may be sustained by participating their work in the Web Page. This release extends and applies to, and also covers and includes, all unknown, unforeseen, unanticipated and unsuspected injuries, damages, loss and liability and the consequences thereof, as well as those now disclosed and known to exist.  The provisions of any state’s law providing substance that releases shall not extend to claims, demands, injuries, or damages which are known or unsuspected to exist at this time, to the person executing such release, are hereby expressly waived. However the Lawyers & Jurists makes no warranty expressed or implied or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product process or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favouring by the Lawyers & Jurists. The views and opinions of the authors expressed in the Web site do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Lawyers & Jurists. Above all, if there is any complaint drop by any independent user to the admin for any contents of this site, the Lawyers & Jurists would remove this immediately from its site.