Appellate Division Cases
(Criminal)
PARTIES
Bokkor alias Md. Bokkor……………… Petitioner.
-Vs-
The State………………… Respondent.
JUSTICES
Md. Ruhul Amin CJ
Mohammad Fazlul Karim J
M. M. Ruhul Amin J
Md. Tafazzul Islam J
Md. Joynul Abedin J
Md. Hassan Ameen J
Md. Abdul Matin J
Judgment Dated: 4th May 2008.
Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Bishesh Ain, 1995, Section 10(1)
The Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 342
Accused Bokkor cut the throat of Rangila to death for dowry. On getting such information, he went to Bokkor’s house and saw the slaughtered dead body of Rangila lying on the floor. He saw the wearing apparel of Bokkor soaked with blood ……….(3)
The critical analysis of the evidence on record, it appears that the prosecution successfully proved the bad relationship of the condemned-prisoner with the deceased inasmuch as she (deceased) was in the house of the condemned-prisoner on the date of occurrence together with demand of dowry as alleged by the prosecution. It further appears that the defence took the plea of alibi but failed to establish the same by good and satisfactory evidence ……………(10)
A. B. M. Bayezid, Advocate,………………… For the Petitioner
Zahirul Hoque Zahir, Deputy Attorney General……………. For the Respondent
Jail Petition 16 of 2004
With
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.87 of 2004
(From the judgment and order dated 04-042004 passed by the High Court Division in
Death Reference No. 12 of 2001 with Criminal Appeal No.852 of 2001)
JUDGMENT
Md. Hassan Ameen J : Condemned-prisoner, Bokkor alias Md. Bokkor seeks leave to appeal from jail by filing petition against the judgment and order dated 4th April,2004 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court Division accepting the Death Reference No. 12 of 2001 upon dismissing Criminal Appeal No.852 of 2001.
2. The learned Judge of the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Bishesh Adalat, Natore hereinafter shall be referred to as Adalat by the judgment and order dated 28-022001
sentenced the condemned prisoner Bokkor to death in Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Case No.40 of 1998.. Thereafter the Adalat made the above reference. Condemned-prisoner, Bokkor also preferred an appeal against the conviction and sentence. These matters have been disposed of by the judgment and order dated 04-04-2004 passed by the of the
High Court Division.
3. The prosecution case as has been narrated by P. W. 1, the informant, that condemned-prisoner Bokkor was the husband of Rangila, the victim. About one year prior to the occurrence Rangila was given marriage to Bokkor. At the time of marriage, the accused was given a dowry of Tk. 10,000/-. After the marriage, he demanded a further dowry of Tk. 10,000/. As the informant refused to give any dowry, the accused used to torture the victim. During the last Ramadan Eid, the informant brought Rangila and Bokkor to
his house. On the following day, Bokkor left his house leaving Rangila there and after 7 days Nazrul, elder brother of the accused, took the victim by giving assurance that the accused would not torture her. On 21-02-1998, accused Bokkor cut the throat of Rangila to death for dowry. On getting such information, he went to Bokkor’s house and saw the slaughtered dead body of Rangila lying on the floor. He saw the wearing apparel of Bokkor soaked with blood. Thereafter, he lodged the F.I.R. narrating the incident whereupon Lalpur Police Station Case No. 12 dated 22-02-1998 was started.
4. The police took up investigation, visited the place of occurrence, prepared sketch map with separate index of the place of occurrence, prepared inquest report of the dead body of the deceased and sent it to the morgue for holding postmortem examination, seized alamats by preparing seizure list, examined the witnesses and recorded their statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, produced the accused-petitioner
for recording his confessional statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before a competent Magistrate and finally submitted charge-sheet against
the condemned prisoner under Section 10 (1) of the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman
Bishesh Ain, 1995.
5. The case record ultimately came to the file of Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Bishesh Adalat, who framed charge against the accused-petitioner under Section 10(1) of the said Ain and read it over to the accused on dock who pleaded not guilty and demanded trial.
6. The prosecution examined 19 Pws. including the informant, the Magistrate, who recorded the confessional statement of the condemned-prisoner, the doctor, who held post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased and the investigating officer, who were duly cross-examined by the defence.
7. After close of the prosecution witnesses, the accused on dock was examined under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to which he repeated his innocence.
8. The defence case as could be gathered from the trend of cross-examination was total innocence and inter-alia case is that the victim had developed an elicit affair with Shamsul Huq and that he may have been killed by her paramour on entering into the house by breaking the window of the P.O. room inasmuch as the condemned-prisoner was not at home in the night of occurrence.
9. The prosecution examined the doctor (P.W. 18) who held post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased found one incised cut throat injury over middle portion of anterior and Rt. lateral throat, phaynex and cartoid vessels (Rt.) C/D of the mentioned injury above the skin, muscles and vessels of injured area were found injured with presence of antemortem clotted blood. He opined that the death was “due to hemorrhage and shock as a result of the above mentioned injuries which were antemortem and homicidal in nature.”
10. We have heard Mr. A. B. M. Bayezid, the learned Advocate for the petitioner and perused the evidence and other materials available in record. The critical analysis of the evidence on record, it appears that the prosecution successfully proved the bad relationship of the condemned-prisoner with the deceased inasmuch as she (deceased) was in the house of the condemned-prisoner on the date of occurrence together with demand of dowry as alleged by the prosecution. It further appears that the defence took the plea of alibi but failed to establish the same by good and satisfactory evidence.
11. In view of the above findings, the High Court Division rightly found the condemned prisoner guilty for the offence charged and the defence failed bring out any inconsistency thereof nor there is anything to show that the condemned-prisoner was not at home in the night of occurrence.
12. Considering all these facts and circumstances of the case, we one of the view that the learned Judges of the High Court Division correctly arrived at a decision after considering all material facts available in the record. We find no reason to interfere with the findings of the High Court Division. Accordingly, both the Jail Petition and Criminal Miscellaneous Petition are dismissed.
Source : V ADC (2008),711