Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000
Attempt to abduct had not been made an offence under The Ain of 2000. Trisha was lot abducted. Examination of Judicial confessional statements signifies that convict-appellants had intention to abduct Trisha. Since attempt to abduct has not been shaped an offence in The Ain of 2000 the question of commandeering of Jurisdiction by Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Tribunal did not and does not at all arise.
The State Vs Mehdi Hasan @ Modern & Ors. 13 BLT (HCD)-151
Section 9(1)
Story of Rape
In the instant case, the doctor P. W. 8 having failed to carry on radiological /chemical lamination to ascertain the rape and mere rupture of hymen the informant-victim in absence of any mark of injury on her body, as she was supposed to obstruct the accused-appellant during the occurrence, justify our findings that the rupture of hymen is not the proper proof in holding that there was rape in this particular case inasmuch as the facts and circumstances as well as the behavior and practice followed by the doctor— P. W. 8 in determining the rape without doing any radiological/ pathological examination followed by absence of chemical examination of wearing apparels of the informant -victim which she was wearing at the time of occurrence clearly justify that the story of rape so brought on is a motivated one inasmuch as it appears from the evidence on record that the father of the informant-victim is not a good man and admittedly 'Ganja' is often taken in his house wherein P.W.2 Bibek and other villagers shares.
Suren Bairagi Vs. The State 13 BLT (HCD) 483
Section -11 (Ka) read with Penal Code, 1860 Section -302
Whether the convict appellant can be graced with a verdict of acquittal when charge of section 11 (ka) of the Ain of 2000 could not be pressed into service against them
The case in hand, although, tried by a Tribunal constituted under The Ain of 2000 that Tribunal was, also, the Court of Sessions. In the Judgment learned Judge was described as District and Sessions Judge, Kustia as well as Nari-O.Shishu Nirjatan Daman, Bishesh Adalat, Kushtia. Judgment demonstrates that learned District and Sessions Judge had been, also, exercising the power and jurisdiction of Nari.O- Shishu Nirjatan Daman Tribunal. Fate of the convict-appellant and result of the case would have been the same whether it would have been tried either as a Nari-O- Shishu Case by the Tribunal or as a Sessions case by learned Sessions Judge and if section 11 (ka) of The Ain of 2000 was not attracted in respect of convict -appellant, the offence of section 302 of The Penal Code could be very much pressed into, service against the convict appellant and he could be conveniently tried and convicted for offence of section 302 of Penal Code.
The State Vs. Kamruzzaman alias Mantu 13 BLT (HCD)-403
Section-11 (Ka)
Demand of dowry
PWs. 1, 2 and 3 admittedly are relatives and they in unequivocal terms in their testimonies testified that after marriage demand of dowry of Taka 20,000/- had been put forth and there had been an agreement entered into between Informant party and accused party in the way that Taka 10,000/-would be paid as dowry to Ainul Haque and out of that amount Taka 8,000/- had been paid in two installments and for payment of rest Taka 2,000/- time had been sought. It, also, came out from evidence of PW3 that PW2 Abdur Rashid constructed a house for Ainul Haque. PW4, though, had been declared hostile from prosecution yet in cross-examination it emerged from his testimony that he heard that uncle of Hosna Nahar constructed a house for condemned prisoner. Demand of dowry, thus, had been established by cogent evidence of PWs 1,2 and 3.
The State Vs. Md. Ainul Haque 14 BLT (HCD)-234
Section-19 read with Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 Section 497
The Court has been given a positive guide line to consider the prayer for bail where guiding principle remains in section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Dr. Debesh Chandra Nandi Vs. The State 12 BLT (HCD)-140
Section -19 read with Section -25
Though the tribunal and the High Court division on appeal is empowered to grant bail under the general provision of the Code the power is limited and such power shouldbe exercised subject to specific condition] and restriction mentioned in section 19. This restricted power of bail prevails notwithstanding the general provision of section 25 of the Ain. No expressed] provision is made for granting bail to another person accused of any offence punishabld under this Ain only because bail has not been opposed by the informant or the informant party consents to bail.
Md. Shahid Malongi & Anr. Vs The State 13 BLT (HCD-302
Section 22 read with Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 Section 164
Section 22 of The Ain of 2000 is almost akin to section 164 of The Code of Criminal Procedure (Briefly The Code). Distinction which is marshalled is that in section 164 of The Code provision of recording confession along with statement has been supplied and in section 22 of The Ain of 2000 law of recording a confession had not been contributed.
Abu Taher Vs The State 14 BLT (HCD) 68
Section- 27(3)
Unless any of the offence becomes punishable under Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ai 2000 the learned Judge of the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of another offence punishable under general law.
Shamsunnahar Vs. State 14 BLT (HCD) 184
Section-28
Custody of child – the father of the victim is not a party to this case – whether this appeal maintainable
In the present case the appellant is not only the complainant, rather the impugned order also was passed on his prayer seeking custody of his daughter and this order has aggrieved this appellant only. It is well settled that an information can prefer an revision under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against a judgment of acquittal where the state does not prefer any appeal. The conferment of this very power on the informant has recognized the informant/ complainant as an aggrieved party, no doubt. So, my view is that by no stretch of imagination can the complainants or informants be excluded from the category of "?????????" or "aggrieved party" as stated in section 28 of Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000 .
Nannu Miah Vs The State & Ors 13 BLT (HCD) 245
Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain (Amended) 2003
Section-11(Ga) read with Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 Section-561A
Allegation that informant's Husband with Be active help of the Petitioners (Husband's brother and Sister) assaulted on her with intent to cause her miscarriage which caused simple injury on her Person After completing investigation Police recommending for discharging the present accused petitioner's from allegations as because during investigation police could gather any sorts of tangible evidence to connect this petitioner's -Held; we are of the view that there is no clear evidence or legal basis to justify the order of taking cognizance so far it relates to the accused petitioners under Section 11 (Ga) of the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain (Amended) 2003 ignoring the police report under section 173 Cr.P.C.-Rule is made absolute.
Jannatul Ferdous @ Kushum & Anr Vs. The State 14 BLT (HCD) 567
Section-31
Section 31 provides that of the Tribunal is of opinion that it is necessary to put any woman irrespective of her age or child in safe custody in course of trial it will be competent to direct to put such woman or child at any place selected for such purpose in the custody of the Government authority outside jail or in the custody of any person or organization considered to be proper in the opinion of the Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case- In the instant case the petitioner Merina Renu being still minor the tribunal has rightly ordered to give her in the custody of her mother.
Merina Renu Vs The State 14 BLT (HCD) 177
Section-31
Safe custody of the victim Minor girl
On plain reading of section 31 discretionary authority of the Tribunal to pass an order to put any girl in safe custody outside jail in the custody of Government authority or any person or organization in course of trial of an offence under the Ain is intended to ensure safety, security and welfare of the girl, when Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Tribunal by order dated 16.3.2006 directed for release minor girl Jannatun Noor Popy victim of an offence under the Ain and allowed custody of the minor to her mother no person or organization is authorised to question validity of the order under section 31 of the Ain.
Mostafa Kamal Vs. The State 14 BLT (HCD)-364
Section-31
No person or organization can ask for safe custody of victim girl or child as of right unless such custody is assigned or given to it at the sole discretion of the Tribunal.
Mostafa Kamal Vs. The State 14 BLT (HCD)-364
Section -31
Welfare of a minor girl
The Tribunal itself having found "since the victim is a minor she cannot make her choice" – the tribunal failed to consider that the minors refusal to go her father is irrelevant and the same is not a condition precedent for giving her custody to the father. It is settled that father as the well wisher of a minor daughter is entitled to her custody and a minor in her own interest should be given to her father's custody. It also decided by the Appellate Division that any observation made by the minor girl is a victim of a offence of abduction and rape and it is not at all desirable that she should be kept in jail for a long and indefinite period which will be detrimental to her welfare. In our view the welfare minor girl Ishrat Shirin will be best served if she is given to her father.
Nannu Miah Vs The State & Ors. 13 BLT (HCD)-245.