[XI of 2002]
From the evidence discussed above it is found that the accused along with his associates created terror and panic in the place of
occurrence and assaulted the nephew of the informant victim Shibli Sadik mercilessly in order to get illegal subscription from them. These activities of the accused-petitioners clearly fall under definition of Ain Sringkhola Bignokari Aparadh.
Montu vs State 57 DLR 504.
When factum of recovery has not been proved by independent and disinterested witness, it is unsafe to find guilt of the accused under
section 4(1) of the Ain.
Dr. Md Rahmat Ail vs State 63 DLR 452.