Cruelty to Women (Deterrent punishment) Ordinance, 1983

 

 

Section-4(b)

The age of a victim is not a material consideration for a offence under Section 4(b) of the Cruelty to Women (Deterrent Punishment) Ordinance 1983.

Mozibur Rahman Vs. The State & Anr. 7 BLT (AD)-143

Section-4(b) & 4(c) read with Evidence Act, 1872, Section-114(g)

The only allegation against the accused appellant is that he abated the offence of kidnapping of Habibur Rahman and Booting of money from his room during the occurrence. But none of the P.Ws including the victim Habibur Rahman himself did not state that the accused appellant ever kidnapped him or looted away the money in question. It appears that there is a reservation in the FIR that accused appellant Liakat Ali was with the two other accused persons who kidnapped Habibur Rahman. But during trial save and except a formal statement about fastening of the mouth of the victim Habibur Rahman by Gamsa/towel by the accused appellant there is no other evidence whatsoever in the matter of kidnapping the victim Habibur Rahman or looting of money from his room. P.Ws. 7 and 8 who have categorically said about recovery of the victim Estemera from the nearby house are totally silent about the connection of the accused appellant Liakat Ali. It further appears that none of the close neighours who have admittedly got their houses by the four sides of the P.W. house have not been examined in this case. The non examination of those neighbours in this case together with absence of towel/Gamsa which was allegedly fastened by the accused Liakat in the mouth of the victim Habibur Rahman at the time of his kidnapping has made the entire prosecution case suspicious and in their absence the benefit of Section-114(g) of the Evidence Act must go in favour of the defence.

Mohd. Liakat Ali Vs. The State 9 BLT (HCD)-110

Section-4(C)

Prayer for bail- Accused petitioner is in custody for 31/2 years. Four accused persons have been named in the F. I. R. but excepting the accused- petitioner all the other three accused persons are absconding and there is no possibility of an early disposal of the case- Held: We must observe that if the trial of the four accused persons has still not begun or if there is no immediate possibility of an early disposal of the case the Special Tribunal will have to either split up the case and proceed with the trial of only the accused petitioner or consider a fresh prayer for bail of the accused- petitioner.

Mohammad Sharif Vs. The State 4 BLT (AD)-17

Sections-5 read with Penal Code, 1860 Section-457/376/511

The Special Tribunal had only jurisdiction to try cases as -numerated in the schedule of the Special Power Act and not beyond that. An offence under section 457/354/511 of the Penal Code which is not included in the schedule of the Special Powers Act cannot be the basis of conviction as the same is a non-schedule offence.

Dulal Miah @ Shah Alam Vs. The State 12 BLT (HCD)446

Section-6 & 9

On perusal of the First Information Report and relevant papers it appears that there is no allegation against the appellant that she abetted the causing or attempted to cause death or grievous hurt to the informant of the case for dowry. The allegation appears to be that she instigated the husband of the informant to demand/realise dowry from the informant -appeal is allowed.

Anowara Begum Vs. The State & Anr 12 BLT (AD)-230

Cruelty to Women (Deterrent Punishment) Ordinance, 1983

Cruelty
to Women (Deterrent Punishment) Ordinance, 1983

 

Section 4C of the Schedule – When
charge is proved beyond all reasonable doubt Conviction
and sentence upheld.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898

Section 339D – Revival of the
proceedings not illegal – Minor discrepancies in evidence to be ignored. Contradiction
of evidence is fatal for the prosecution.

When charge is well established by cogent and reliable evidence the conviction
and sentence based thereon are held perfectly justified.

Sree Nipu @ Nipen Chandra Vs. The
State ii MLR (2006)
(HC) 360.

 

Cruelty to Women (Deterrent Punishment) Ordinance, 1983


Cruelty to Women (Deterrent Punishment) Ordinance [LX of 1983]


Section 4—

When
the victim girl, Anjali Rani as Court witness says that she is aged 20 years
and the medical report dated 18-5-94 submitted on the basis of a report
prepared by a Radiologist shows that Anjali Rani was of 161/2 to 171/2 years of
age which was proved by two doctors and as such on the date of occurrence the
age of Anjali Rani was about 16 years.

Haren
Halder vs Md Akkas Ali & ors 3 BLC 455


Section 4(b)—

There
are series of contradictions in the evidence of the PWs when neither any tenant
nor any disinterested neighbour nor microbus driver nor the owner of the house
No.6 Mirpur was examined which creates a serious doubt about the whole
prosecution case and hence the trial Court was not justified in convicting and
sentencing the appellants.

Mahmud-al
Kader and anr vs State 4 BLC 224


Section 4(b)(c)—

On a
close scrutiny and analysis of the evidence and the materials on record it
transpires that the prosecution signally failed to bring home the charge against
the respondents of kidnapping or abducting the victim girl.

Haren
Halder vs Md Akkas Ali & ors 3 BLC 455.


Section 4(c)—

Merely
because the victim of a sexual assault could not be produced in the witness box
for non-availability of whereabouts cannot be ground to record a judgment of
acquittal upon the offenders of commission of rape. Corroborative evidence is
not an imperative component of judicial credence in every case of rape.
Corroboration as a condition of judicial, reliance on the testimony of a victim
of sex crime is not a requirement of law but merely a guidance of prudence
under a given circumstances but not a requirement of law.

Harun-or
Rashid and another vs State and another 5 BLC 524.



Section 4(c)—

The
appellant was the prime kidnapper and he forcibly had sexual intercourse with
Mahinur and that the other convicts are entitled to get the benefit of doubt as
has been rightly found by the High Court Division as such finding is based on
proper appreciation of evidence on record and hence no interference is
warranted.

Bazlu
Talukder vs State 5 BLC (AD) 159


Section 4(c)—

As
the PWs contradicted each other as to who accompanied the appellant Bazlu in
kidnapping the girl aged 15 years who was raped by only one convict who is none
other than Bazlu but the other convicts are full brother and bhaista of him and
it is highly improbable that all those persons together would commit sexual
intercourse on the girl when they are not professional or hardened criminals
and hence other convicts are entitled to get benefit of doubt.

Bazlu
Talukder and others vs State 1 BLC 261


Section 4(c)—

In a
sex-offence case there is no legal bar in believing the sole testimony of the
prosecutrix, nay, she must prima facie be believed, except in the rarest of
rare cases where she is found unreliable the necessity of corroborative
evidence will arise and that the legal custom of insisting on corroboration in
every case or alternatively of stating the reason for waiving such
corroboration is not applicable in our country and accordingly the appeal is
dismissed.

Jahangir
Hossain vs State 1 BLC 292.


Section 9—

As
the FIR disclosed a prima facie case of abetment punishable under section 9 of
the Ordinance, the Special Tribunal committed no illegality in framing charge against
the appellant.

Anowara
Begum vs Sultana Jesmine Khan (Shoapa) and State 2 BLC 241.