Criminal Trial

Criminal Trial

cannot be believed that hearing many calls from outside by police personnels
and other people for opening the door of the house, the appellant opened the
door keeping the bayonet on his waist under the lungi to have the same
recovered from his body which suffers from an inherent improbability and also
an infirmity of a serious nature.

Ali Kha vs State 3 BLC 206

is material contradiction as to recognition of accused persons and that the
investigation officer has failed to mention the place of occurrence in the
sketch map and he did not seize any blood stained earth and withholding of the
identifying constables of the dead body, torch light and the GD Entry made it a
case of no evidence and as such the appellants are entitled to be acquitted.

Mia and ors vs State 3 BLC 441

2-11-93 dusk commences at about 5- 00 PM and the alleged occurrence of
hijacking of Taka twenty thousand placing it covering with a polythene bag in
front of the cycle of the PW 1 took place at about 8-15 PM, that is, around 2
hours after the dusk which appears to be quite improbable and as such the
foundation of the prosecution case suffers from a serious doubt and the
‘osecution signally failed to prove the sale jwoceeds amounting to Taka twenty
thousand which PW I was alleged to carry
on the cycle towards the house.

alias Kamal Hossain and 2 others vs State 3 BLC 498.

is improbable that a sitting member will go to commit dacoity in the house of
his own chairman of the same village.

Ali Khan alias Pear Ali vs State, represented by the Deputy Commissioner 3 BLC

there is enough evidence for identification of the dead body of Bellal but no
such identification is necessary when the killing is proved.

vs Hemayet Khan & others 3 BLC 56.

the appellants remained in abscondance during whole trial and they were not
deprived of cross-examining the Investigating Officer and in such a situation
the non-examination of the Investigating Officer cannot be said to have caused
any prejudice to the appellants.

Ali and another vs State 1 BLC 386.

Fugitive from justice—

cannot be said that the accused person is a fugitive from justice as his
presence in trial Court on 27-11-93 is a surrender in the eye of law.

A Chowdhury vs Manzurul Huq & another 1 BLC 18.

the investigating officer was examined-in-chief and then he died but the
defence got an opportunity to cross-examine him but they took adjournment for
which the evidence given by him can be accepted under section 33 of the
Evidence Act and non- examination of the Investigation Officer will not vitiate
the trial.

Rahman vs State 1 BLC 215.

the night was dark and no torch light was recovered from the dacoits and in such
a situation the recognition of dacoit by unknown persons has become doubtful
when no other evidence is available on the record implicating the condemned
prisoner in the commission of dacoity.

vs Md Musa alias Mussaiya alias Shafir Bap 1 BLC 467.

is beyond human probabilities that the condemned prisoner would select the
house to kill her child and uproot the eyeballs when the PW 4 was already
standing there and saw the condemned prisoner entering the house and even
directing her not to enter the house and that it was not possible that blood
would come down from a dead person.

Ara Begum vs State 4 BLC 386

fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence is that the onus of proving
everything essential to the establishment of the charge against the accused
lies upon the prosecution, which must prove the charge substantially as laid;
that is, to prove to the hilt and beyond all reasonable doubt. The prosecution,
in the present case appears to have brought home the charge of guilt against
the accused Monir beyond any shadow of doubt. The learned trial judge duly
discussed and considered all aspects of the case and rightly found that Md
Monir Ahmed was guilty under section 302 of the Penal Code and convicted
thereunder and the conviction is well justified. No exception can be taken to
the said judgment of conviction.

vs Md Monir Ahmed 4 BLC 426.

Fugitive From Justice—

soon as the petitioner is apprehended to serve out the sentence imposed on him
then he cannot be termed as a fugitive and there is no bar for challenging such
conviction and sentence on any point of illegality and legal bar.

Khalique vs State 2 BLC 423.

the Investigating Officer shall have to be confronted on omission or
contradiction or on the place of occurrence, he should be examined after
examination of other local witnesses for ends of justice but where the
investigation officer is also an informant he should be examined twice.

Hoque Khan vs Aktaruzzaman Chowdhury & others 2 BLC 70

Non-seizure of the lantern—

of—It is very surprising that non-seizure of the lantern can be a material
consideration for holding that the eye-witnesses could not recognise the
accused at the time of occurrence. The learned Single Judge was absolutely
wrong in holding that recognition was highly doubtful by discarding the
positive evidence of the rye-witnesses and also the natural circumstances of
the time and place of occurrence.

vs Ful Mia 5 BLC (AD) 41.

red tap covering the hand bomb or cocktail, ‘jorda kowta’ and the plastic badna
as alamat of the case having not been produced at the trial, the sole oral
evidence of PW 1 the informant will not be enough for sustaining the order of
conviction of the appellant.

Bepari (Md) vs State 5 BLC 501.

there is a sharp contradiction as to the date of occurrence in the evidence of
the PWs, place of occurrence and manner of killing/murder of the deceased
victim and there are also suspicious, contradictory and discrepant evidence and
vital omissions and in such circumstances a punishment of death sentence is
totally unsafe and not maintainable.

vs Sarowaruddin 5 BLC 451.

Non-examination of the Investigating
Officer Effect of—

cannot be laid down as an inflexible rule that non-examination of the
Investigating Officer always vitiates the trial. It has to be shown that
because of such non- examination the defence has been prejudiced. In the
instant case, non-examination of the Investigating Officer has caused no
prejudice to the accused persons as there is even no suggestion from the
defence that there is contradiction in the evidence of the witnesses made
before the Court and the statements made by them before the Investigation

Rahman & ors vs State 5 BLC 298.

the evidence of PW 4 and the inquest report it appears that Biswajit did not
commit suicide rather somebody killed him and then tried to hang the dead body
in the cow-house in a sitting position.

Biswas and others vs State 5 BLC 278.