Abdul Manna alias A. Mannan Vs. Mosammat Nurbanu

Appellate Division Cases

(Criminal)

PARTIES

Abdul Manna alias  A. Mannan …………………………..Petitioner

Vs

Mosammat Nurbanu & another …………………………… Respondent

JUDGES

K. M. Hasan C J

Eazlul Karim J

Md. Hamidul Haque J

Abdul Mannan

Md. Tafazzul Islam J

Date of Judgment

8th November 2003

The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1980 Section 4.

Law does not require that independent witnesses are necessary to prove the allegation against the accused and law permits conviction and sentence of an accused on the basis of evidence even of a single trust worthy witness and also held that except the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2, there are other circumstantial evidence that is the petition for compromise filed by the accused petitioner in Criminal Case No. 199 of 1997 in which he promised not to make any further illegal demand of dovvery to the informant and also promised to live with her peacefully and the contents of the said petition supports the evidence of IMVs 1 and 2 strongly (5)

ADVOCATES

Obaiilur Rahman Mustafa, Advocate instructed by Sufia Khatun, Advocate-on-Rccord I-‘or fhe Petitioner .Not Respondent Respondent

JUDGMENT

1. Md. Tafazzal Islam J:- This criminal petition for leave to appeal by accused petitioner is against the Judgment and order date 07.05.03 passed by the Single Bench of the High Court Division in Criminal Revision No. 1156 of 2000 discharging the Rule and directing the accused petitioner to surrender before the trial court to serve the remaining period of sentence.

2. The prosecution case is that the informant Mosammat Nurbanu got married to the accused petitioner A Mannan @ Abdul Mannan at a dower of TK. 17.000. After the marriage the informant lived with the accused petitioner peacefully for few days and thereafter the accused petitioner demanded down’ to TK. 1.01)00/- and asked the informant to fetch the above amount from her mother. Then the mother of the informant, who is a poor lady, assured the petitioner that she will meet the above demand little by little. In the meantime the informant delivered a baby daughter after which the accused petitioner started pressing hard for the dowry and started assaulting the informant now and then on one day in the course of such assault the baby dauther fell from the lap of the informant and received injury and informant herself also became senseless. After the mother oi the informant came to know about this incident, she got the informant hospitalized. After recovery, the informant lodged Criminal Case No. 199 of 1997 before” the Court of  Magistrate, Thakurgaon on 15.10.97 where-i upon the accused petitioner approached the i informant for compromise and filed a comi promise petition on 15.10.97 promising to treat her well and not a make any illegal demand from her and also agreed that he would take the informant and the baby daughter to his house and in view of above compromise, the informant withdrew to his house and in view of above compromise, the informant withdrew the above case On 15.10.97 and thereafter on 16.10.97, the informant and her mother accompanied the accused petitioner by bus for going to his house but after getting down at the bus station the accused petitioner declined to take back the informant to his house and the next day saying that he has some urgent talk with the informant. Accordingly, on the next day the informant along with the baby daughter and her mother went to the house of the accused petitioner but the accused petitioner refused to take back the informant unless the dowry of TK. 10.000/- was paid and thus the informant was forced to come back to house of her mother with the baby daughter.

3. The trial Court convicted the accused petitioner under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1980 and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one yearBeing aggrieved, the accused petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2000 before the Court of Sessions Judge, Thakurgaon and on contest the appeal was dismissed on 01.11.2000. Thereafter on 03.11.97 the accused petitioner divorced the informant and then on 27.11.2000 filed the above Criminal Revision No. 1156.2000 before the High Court Division.

4. Mr. Obaidur Rahman Mustafa, the I learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner submits that the trial Court passed the order of convictin only on the basis of the evidence of the informant and her mother and no other independent witnesses were examined and the learned Session Judge as well as the High Court Division did not at all consider this aspect of the matter.

5. It appears that the High Court dismissed the Criminal appeal on the finding that there are sufficient evidence on record to hold that the accused petitioner committed offence under section 4 of the Dowcry Prohibition Act, 1980 and regarding non-examination of the any other neighboring or independent witness, the High Court Division took the view that law does not require that independent witnesses are necessary to prove the allegation against the accused and law permits conviction and sentence of an accused on the basis of evidence even of a single trust worthy witness and also held that except the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2, there are other circumstantial evidence that is the petition for compromise filed by the accused petitioner in Criminal Case No. 199 of 1997 in which he promised not to make any further illegal demand of dowcry to the informant and also promised to live with her peacefully and the contents of the said petition supports the evidence ofP.Ws 1 and 2 strongly. We find no infirmity in the Judgment and order of the High Court Division. Accordingly, the criminal leave petition is dismissed.

Source : III ADC (2006), 418.

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.