Acid Aparadh Daman Ain, 2002

 

 

Acid Aparadh Daman Ain, 2002

Section-5(Ka)

In view of the injuries found on the person of the victim by the Medical Experts and also by the Tribunal Judge himself at the time of examination of the victim as PW2, and upon consideration of the provisions of law that if somebody by] throwing acid causes injuries on some other person damages eyesight or hearing partly or completely or deface or damages breast or sex organs shall be punished under Section 5(Ka) of the said Ain, and since the Medical Experts found the victim's eyesight and hearing organs have been damaged and his chest and the lower body organs are also damaged by acid, we have no doubt that the instant case comes within the preview of Section 5(Ka) of the Ain.

Md. Alamgir Vs The State 13 BLT (HCD) 304

Section 5(Ka) (Kha)

Belated disclosure of material facts

It is well settled that when an eye witness to the occurrence that took place at night does not disclose the names of the assailants he allegedly recognized, the means of recognition and other material facts to the witnesses who came to the scene immediately after the occurrence was over t the earliest opportunity and there is no justifiable reason for non disclosure of the al facts, belated disclosure of the al facts render his evidence/testimony ill. In such a case Court should reasonably infer that the story of recognition the assailants was a subsequent embellishment.

Abdul Haq & Ors Vs. The State 14 BLT (HCD) 476

Section 5(Ka) (Kha)

Admittedly the occurrence took place at t BLT there was no clear evidence about means of recognition although P.W.2 testified that in her room there was a 'cane and P.W.  1  testified that he recognized the accused by torch light BLT the was not produced to the investigation r or he took any step for seizing the hurricane and torch light as means of ignition.  In  a case  like  this when occurrence took place at night the question recognition is  vital importance. In absence of any evidence or means of ignition the identity of the accused is not established beyond reasonable doubt. So in case it is unsafe to convict accused.

Abdul Haq & Ors Vs. The State 14 BLT (HCD) 476

Section -11(3)

Period of investigation or further investigation

The Tribunal by such provision is not empowered to increase or enlarge statutory schedule of time fixed, by the legislature beyond extended time, for the purpose of investigation or further investigation.

Mokbul Hosen & Ors. Vs The State 13 BLT (HCD) 564

Section -20

The Tribunal has no locus standi to withdraw earlier Order for further investigation by C.I.D. and decided to hold Judicial enquiry by itself.

Section 22 provides that provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure is. applicable in the matter of institution, investigation and trial of any case and the Tribunal constituted under the Acid Domon Ain is a Sessions Judge and will exercise all the power of Sessions Judge in trial of the offence under the Ain and accordingly Tribunal decided to hold a judicial inquiry as prayed for Sessions Judge into acid offence alleged in the F.I.R. and in doing so Tribunal is not required to withdraw or recall its earlier order dated 17.8.2004 for further investigation inasmuch as additional tenure of time not exceeding fifteen days to complete further investigation as mandated under Sub-section (3) expired on 1.9.2004 and, therefore, lost its force automatically.

Mokbul Hosen & Ors. Vs The State 13 BLT (HCD) 564

Acid Aparadh Daman Ain, 2002



Acid
Aparadh Daman Ain, 2002


Section
23(2)

Government by notification in the Official gazette shall
establish Tribunal or Tribunals to try the cases arising out of the Ain, 2002.
In fact, the Government in exercise of powers conferred under section 23(1) of
the Ain, 2002 established one Tribunal in each District for of the cases
arising out of the Ain, 2002. From the gazette notification published in
Bangladesh Extraordinary Gazette dated 3rd April 2002, we find that in exercise
of powers conferred under section 23(1) of the Ain, 2002, the Government
established one Tribunal for each District to try the cases arising out of the
Ain, 2002.

State vs Nitish Mondal 60 DLR
334.


Section
23(4)

The question of jurisdiction the Court is not a mere
technicality, but it is fundamental in nature. Our this view gets support from
a decision of the case of Managing Director, Rupali Bank Limited vs Tafazal
Hossain, 44 DLR (AD) 260.

State vs Nitish
Mondal 60 DLR 334.