Appellate Division Cases
Abdur Rahim Chowdhury @ Jashim………………… Petition.
The State ……………………………………………Respondent.
Mohammad Fazlul Karim. J.
Syed J.R. Mudassir Husain. J.
Md. Hamidul Haque. J.
JUDGEMENT DATE: 7th December 2003.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 374,342. The Penal Code, Sections 302, 26,307 and 309 .
The learned Judges of the High Court Division having meticulously considered and
assessed the evidence of prosecution witnesses and other materials on record accepted the death reference and rejected the jail appeal, we find no illegality or any legal infirmity or any defect of law at any stage of the proceeding for our interference and as such we are fully in agreement with the findings and decisions arrived at by the High Court Division ………………………(7)
Jail Petition No.3 of 2003. (From the judgment and order dated 26tn October, 2002 passed by the High Court Division in Death Reference No. 17 of 1999 with Appeal 2023 of 1999.)
1. Syed J. R. Mudassir Husain, J: This Jail petition is filed by convict-petition, Abdur
Rahim Chowdhury against the judgment and order dated 26Tn October, 2002 passed by the High Court Division in Death Reference No. 17 of 1999 with Jail Appeal No. 2023 of 1999 accepting the reference and dismissing the jail appeal.
2. The briefly stated facts for disposal of the Jail-petition are that the condemned-prisoner
have been convicted under Section 302 of the penal Code and sentenced him hereunder to
Suffer death by judgment and order dated 2-51999 passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Camilla in sessions Case No. 60 of 1998. Against which the convict-petitioner filed Jail
Appeal No. 2023 of 1999 and learned Sessions Judge also made reference being Death
Reference No. 17 of 1999 under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal procedure.
3.The prosecution Case is that Sub Inspector of police, Md. Muzibar Rahamn Mazumdar of Chauddagram police Station, lodged an F.I.R. on 4-3-1998 at about 8.25 P.M. Which was registered as P.S. Case No. 3/56 wherein informant alleged that deceased Abdus
Sattar Chowdhury had four sones ans seven daughters. The eldest son Salim Chowdhury
and youngest son Rabiul Awal are abroad while informant Abdul Karim Chowdhury being second son £erved in power development Board, Chittagong as Sub-Assistant Engineer. The accused Abdur Rahim alias Jashim Chowdhury being third son of deceased used to reside at home in the same courtyard along with his father (deceased) after coming from abroad. He went abroad two or three times but came back at short interval. Thereafter, the accused started demanding money from his father by selling
land for going abroad again and for non compliance he created pressure on his father and had been threatening to kill his father. Once, he assaulted his father and accordingly his father made a G.D. entry with the local police Station on 5-2-1998 alleging that accused might cause harm to him or to his wife or to his children at any time. Informant, inter alia, alleged that on 4-3-1998 at 2 p. M while the deceased after taking meal was standing in front of “north Bhiti hut,” the accused came there with sharp cutting Chheni dhao’ and dealt the same on the person of his father indiscriminately and thereafter cut down the head from his body and his father died instantaneously. Deceased’s daughter-in-Law,
Nazmun Nahar Nahid (Pw.2), while came to resist, the accused tried to run away and took shelter at the house of her uncle-in-law, Shahid. Informant also alleged that accused at that time caused bleeding injury on the person of Tisha and Nisha who are daughters of pw.2, aged about 3 and 5 years respectively. After hearing hue and cry of deceased’s wife and pw.2 neighboring people came and heard about the occurrence and then carried the victim, Tisha and Nisha to the Hospital for treatment. Informant then alleged that on getting information he came from Chittagong and heard about the occurrence from his mother, pw.2 and others and then lodged the ejhar (Exhibit -1) with the local police Station.
4. On receipt of post mortem report of deceased and after completion of investigation
police found prima-face case and submitted charge-sheet against the convict-petitioner and thereafter the convict-petitioner was placed on trial and charge was framed under Sections 302/326/307 and 309 of the penal code to which he pleaded not guilty. After examination and cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, the convict-petition was examined under Section 342 of the code of criminal procedure to which he repeated his innocence. The defense examined no witnesses.
5. The defense was of total denial, plea of enmity and of previous grudge was also taken
and it was his defense that deceased had many enemies and might have been killed by his enemies.
6. The convict-petitioner was first defended by the state defense lawyer and thereafter a private lawyer in the trial Court. The learned Sessions Judge upon consideration of evidence on record as well as the facts and circumstances of the case found the convict-petitioner guilty under Section 302 of the penal code and convicted him there under and sentenced him to death. Against the aforesaid judgment of the trial Court, the convict-petitioner preferred Jail Appeal and the learned Session Judge also made a reference for confirmation of death sentence of the petitioner. Both the appeal and death reference were heard by the Division Bench of the High Court Division and learned Judges of the High Court Division having considered and assessed the evidence on record passed the impugned order as aforesaid.
7. We have perused the Judgment of the learned Session Judge as well as the impugned
Judgment of the High Court Division and we have also perused the grounds taken by the convict-petitioner in this petition for jail appeal. The learned Judges of the High Court Division having meticulously considered and assessed the evidence of prosecution witnesses and other materials on record accepted the death reference and rejected the jail appeal, we find no illegality or any legal infirmity or any defect of law at any stage of the proceeding for our interference and as such we are fully in agreement with the findings and decisions arrived at by the High Court Division. In such view of the matter, this jail petition merits no consideration and accordingly it is dismissed.
Source: I ADC (2004), 304