CRUELTY TO WOMEN (DETERRENT PUNISHMENT) ORDINANCE [LX OF 1983]

Section 4—

When the victim girl, Anjali Rani as Court witness says that she is aged 20 years and the medical report dated 18-5-94 submitted on the basis of a report prepared by a Radiologist shows that Anjali Rani was of 161/2 to 171/2 years of age which was proved by two doctors and as such on the date of occurrence the age of Anjali Rani was about 16 years.

Haren Halder vs Md Akkas Ali & ors 3 BLC 455

Section 4(b)—

There are series of contradictions in the evidence of the PWs when neither any tenant nor any disinterested neighbour nor microbus driver nor the owner of the house No.6 Mirpur was examined which creates a serious doubt about the whole
prosecution case and hence the trial Court was not justified in convicting and sentencing the appellants.

Mahmud-al Kader and anr vs State 4 BLC 224

Section 4(b)(c)—

On a close scrutiny and analysis of the evidence and the materials on record it transpires that the prosecution signally failed to bring home the charge against the respondents of kidnapping or abducting the victim girl.

Haren Halder vs Md Akkas Ali & ors 3 BLC 455.

Section 4(c)—

Merely because the victim of a sexual assault could not be produced in the witness box for non-availability of whereabouts cannot be ground to record a judgment of acquittal upon the offenders of commission of rape. Corroborative evidence is not an imperative component of judicial credence in every case of rape. Corroboration as a condition of judicial, reliance on the testimony of a victim of sex crime is not a requirement of law but merely a guidance of prudence under a given circumstances but not a requirement of law.

Harun-or Rashid and another vs State and another 5 BLC 524.

Section 4(c)—

The appellant was the prime kidnapper and he forcibly had sexual intercourse with Mahinur and that the other convicts are entitled to get the benefit of doubt as has been rightly found by the High Court Division as such finding is based on
proper appreciation of evidence on record and hence no interference is warranted.

Bazlu Talukder vs State 5 BLC (AD) 159

Section 4(c)—

As the PWs contradicted each other as to who accompanied the appellant Bazlu in kidnapping the girl aged 15 years who was raped by only one convict who is none other than Bazlu but the other convicts are full brother and bhaista of him and
it is highly improbable that all those persons together would commit sexual intercourse on the girl when they are not professional or hardened criminals and hence other convicts are entitled to get benefit of doubt.

Bazlu Talukder and others vs State 1 BLC 261

Section 4(c)—

In a sex-offence case there is no legal bar in believing the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, nay, she must prima facie be believed, except in the rarest of rare cases where she is found unreliable the necessity of corroborative evidence will arise and that the legal custom of insisting on corroboration in every case or alternatively of stating the reason for waiving such corroboration is not applicable in our country and accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

Jahangir Hossain vs State 1 BLC 292.

Section 9—

As the FIR disclosed a prima facie case of abetment punishable under section 9 of the Ordinance, the Special Tribunal committed no illegality in framing charge against the appellant.

Anowara Begum vs Sultana Jesmine Khan (Shoapa) and State 2 BLC 241.