It 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.

Sukkur Ali Kha vs State 3 BLC 206

There 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.

Sanu Mia and ors vs State 3 BLC 441

On 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.

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

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

Pear Ali Khan alias Pear Ali vs State, represented by the Deputy Commissioner 3 BLC 555.

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

State vs Hemayet Khan & others 3 BLC 56.

Admittedly 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.

Gohar Ali and another vs State 1 BLC 386.

Fugitive from justice—

It 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.

Minhaz A Chowdhury vs Manzurul Huq & another 1 BLC 18.

As 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.

Abdur Rahman vs State 1 BLC 215.

Admittedly 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.

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

It 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.

Bilkis Ara Begum vs State 4 BLC 386

The 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.

State vs Md Monir Ahmed 4 BLC 426.

Fugitive From Justice—

As 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.

Abdid Khalique vs State 2 BLC 423.

As 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.

Zahirul Hoque Khan vs Aktaruzzaman Chowdhury & others 2 BLC 70

Non-seizure of the lantern—

Effect 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.

State vs Ful Mia 5 BLC (AD) 41.

The 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.

Harun Bepari (Md) vs State 5 BLC 501.

As 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.

State vs Sarowaruddin 5 BLC 451.

Non-examination of the Investigating Officer Effect of—

It 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 Officer.

Abdur Rahman & ors vs State 5 BLC 298.

Considering 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.

Gulzar Biswas and others vs State 5 BLC 278.