Section 3—PWs though relations they are natural and competent witnesses. Their evidence cannot be discarded only because they are relations. Shadat Ali vs State 44 DLR 217.
Section 3―The fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence is that circumstantial evidence should inevitably be to the conclusion that the accuseds and the accused only were the perpetrators of the offence and such evidence should be incompatible with the Innocence of the accused. Taslimuddin vs State 44 DLR 136.
Section 3―Murder of wife—explanation of the accused ordinarily an accused has no obligation to account for the death for which he is placed on trial. The murder having taken place while the condemned prisoner was living with his wife in the same house he was under an obligation to explain how his wife had met with her death. In the absence of any explanation coming from his side it seems none other than the husband was responsible for causing death in question. State vs Kalu Bepari 43 DLR 249.
Section 3―Mere relationship cannot be a ground for discarding the evidence of a witness unless he is found to be biased and resorting to any falsehood. Siraj Mal vs State 45 DLR 688.
Section 3—Circumstantial evidence—The rule as regards sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to be the basis for conviction is that the facts proved must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation by any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt. State vs Ali Kibria 43 DLR 512.
Section 3—The evidence by trap party is tainted in nature and as such corroboration from independent and neutral witnesses is very much necessary. AKM Mukhlesur Rahman vs State 45 DLR 626.
Section 3—Material consistent with innocence—When some material is brought on record consistent with innocence of the accused, which may reasonably be true, even though it is not positively proved to be true, the accused is entitled to acquittal. State vs All Kibria 43 DLR 512.
Section 3—Circumstantial evidence—Its sufficiency to prove guilt—In the instant case circumstantial evidence on which trial Court relied do not conclusively point to guilt of the accused—Mere movement of the accused near the place of occurrence may raise a suspicion against the accused but this cannot be the basis for their conviction. All Ahmed Malaker vs State 43 DLR 401.
Section 3—Circumstantial evidence— circumstances forming evidence in proof of the crime must be conclusively established—They must form such a complete chain that it was not only inconsistent with the guilt of the accused but was inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. State vs Ranjit Kumar Pramanik 45 DLR 660.
Section 3—As the wife was murdered while in custody of her husband the natural presumption is that he is responsible for her death. Ordinarily, an accused has no obligation to account for the death for which he is placed on trial. But the murder having taken place while this appellant was living with his deceased wife in the same house he was under an obligation to explain how his wife had met with her death and in the present case the appellant tried to explain that she committed suicide which was found to be a travesty of truth. In the absence of any satisfactory explanation and the explanation given found to be false we are of the view that none other than this appellant is responsible. Shamsuddin vs State 45 DLR 587.
Section 3—Conviction on circumstantial evidence—if it is proved beyond doubt that the deceased is seen last alive in the company of the accused, he is liable to offer satisfactory explanation as to the cause of death of the deceased or at least as to his company with the deceased. If circumstantial evidence leading to the irresistible conclusion that the accused alone caused the death of the victim is not considered sufficient for his conviction then there can never be any conviction on circumstantial evidence. In other words, the prosecution cannot prove its case by circumstantial evidence. Such a concept is contrary to time honoured principle of law regarding circumstantial evidence. Rezaul Huq vs State 42 DLR 440.
Section 3―A statement under section 342 CrPC is not evidence within the meaning of section 3 of the Evidence Act. Shah Alam vs State 42 DLR (AD) 31.
Section 3―Relationship of the witnesses with a party cannot be the sole ground of disbelieving their evidence unless contradiction and inherent infirmity are found in their evidence. Bachu Miah vs Samad Miah 50 DLR 564.
Section 3—Partisan evidence is no doubt suspect, but cannot be discarded without finding any inherent infirmity and/or contradictions therein making the same unworthy of credence. In the context of prevailing deteriorating law and order situation in the society where open threat is given to the witnesses not to depose in support of the prosecution case the difficulty of the prosecution to bring independent witnesses, and the rising tendency of witnesses giving testimony in the Court to favour the accused giving different versions of the occurrence from the one made to the investigation officer at the time of investigation, for the above reasons should be considered before finding fault with the prosecution for non-production of independent witnesses and relying on the evidence of the witnesses declared hostile by the prosecution without properly evaluating whatever evi4ence i available on record with a critical eye in the context of the respective cases of the parties. Dulal Miah vs Ruhul Amin 50 DLR 618.
Section 3—A witness has a tendency to exaggerate, embroider and also to implicate falsely some other person in addition to the real offender. The Court is to scan the evidence so as to come to a decision as to which part is acceptable and only in case of impossibility to separate the truth from falsehood, the Court will be justified in rejecting the evidence in to to. Masum vs State 49 DLR 349.
Section 3—Evidence adduced by the prosecution being of a circumstantial nature and there being a missing link in the chain of circumstances, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Nuru Miah vs State 49 DLR 97.
Section 3—In the absence of the practice of registration of birth in the official register kept by any public authority, one cannot really be sure of the date of birth of any particular person. Ultimately, it falls on the Court to determine the age of the victim girl based on the impression received, by her behaviour and appearance when brought before this Court. Nurunnahar Khatun vs State 46 DLR 112.
Section 3—Long delay in examining the material witnesses casts a doubt on the whole prosecution case. Syed Nazakat Hossain vs State 48 DLR 139.
Section 3—Circumstantial evidence—If the circumstances are not proved beyond all reasonable doubt by reliable and sufficient evidence and if at all proved but the same cumulatively do not lead to the inevitable conclusion or hypothesis of guilt of the accuseds alone but to any other reasonable hypothesis compatible with the innocence of the accused then it will be a case of no evidence and the accused should be given benefit of doubt. Bakul vs State 47 DLR 486.
Section 3—Circumstantial evidence must be so strong as to eliminate the possibility of innocence of the accused-person. State vs Balai Chandra Sarker 47 DLR 467.
Section 3—Tle statements under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure recorded before an authority other than the Judge who tried the case was not the statement of the witnesses produced before him, and, as such, this could not be treated as oral evidence. Such statements could not be used as substantive evidence for arriving at any finding as to the guilt or innocence of the accused. Babloo vs State 47 DLR 337.
Section 3—A witness for the prosecution does not become partisan per se nor an eyewitness can be disregarded merely because he has come to support the prosecution party. It was necessary to consider the whole evidence and then to assess the worth of the witnesses as a whole, State vs Abdul Khaleque alias Abdul Khaleq Howlader 49 DLR (AD) 154.
Section 3-Benefit of doubt to the accused would be available provided there is supportive evidence on record. For creating doubt or granting benefit of doubt, the evidence is to be such which may lead to such doubt. The law would fail to protect the community, if fanciful possibilities are admitted, thus, deflecting the course of justice. Al Amin vs State 51 DLR 154.
Section 3—পুলিশ সাক্ষীর সাক্ষ্য বিচার বিশ্লেষণ করে যদি তা বিশ্বাস যোগ্য মনে করেন তবে স্থানীয় সাক্ষী অভিযোগকারী পক্ষের সমর্থনে সাক্ষ্য না দিলেও বা সাক্ষ্য দিলে তা সত্য না হলে পুলিশ সাক্ষীর সাক্ষের উপর নির্ভর করে আসামীকে দোষী সাব্যস্ত করতে আইনতঃ কোন বাধা নেই। Abdul Razzak Talukder vs State, represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Barisal 51 DLR 83.
Section 3—There is no bar to find an accused guilty on the basis of testimonies of police personnels if their testimonies appear to be reliable. Nizam Hazari vs State 53 DLR 475.
Section 3—There is no authority of law to suggest that if a part of the evidence of a case is disbelieved, the remaining part cannot be believed without independent corroboration, particularly when it supported by the attending circumstances of the case. Hazrat Khan @ Hazrat Ali Khan vs State 54 DLR 636.
Section 3—If it is proved that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused in the absence of any other reasonable explanation as to the safe departure of the deceased from the company of the appellant no conclusion other than the guilt of the accused can be drawn. Bhola vs State 55 DLR 36.
Section 3—The confession of co-accused can be considered to lend support to the other evidence, if any, but in this case there is no other evidence so far appellant Idris is concerned other than the confessional statement of the co-accused. Therefore the conviction Idris is based on no evidence and is liable to be set aside. State vs Rafiqul Islam 55 DLR 61.
Section 3—Circumstantial evidence may be and frequently is more cogent than the evidence of eye-witnesses. It is not difficult to produce false evidence of eye-witnesses. It is, on the other hand, extremely difficult to produce circumstantial evidence of a convincing character and therefore, circumstantial evidence, if convincing, is more cogent than the evidences of eye-witnesses. State vs Moslem 55 DLR 116.
Section 3-There should not be exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt at the expense of social defence and course of justice cannot be allowed to be deflected on the concept of the rule of benefit of doubt. It is true to say with Viscount Simons that “miscarriage of justice” may arise from the acquittal of the guilty no less than the conviction of the innocent. State vs Md Awal Fakir 56 DLR 647.
Section 3-The only fact that the girl was found Tying dead while in custody of her husband, in absence of some other incriminating conduct of the appellant, is not sufficient to convict him. Emdadul Hoque vs State 57 DLR 21.
Secton 3-Because PW 2 had been declared hostile by prosecution, his testimony did not stand effaced and evidence remains admissible in trial and there is no legal bar to accept his testimony. Babul vs State 57 DLR 158.
Section 3—The murder having taken place while the appellant was living with his deceased wife in the same house he was under an obligation to explain how his wife had met with her death. Shahjahan Mizi vs State 57 DLR 224.
Section 3—”Interestedness”—This has been defined by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Nazir vs State PLD 1962 SC 269 = 14 DLR (SC) 159 in the terms that interested witness is one who has a motive for falsely implicating an accused person. State vs Anjuara Khatun 57 DLR 277.
Section 3—Credibility of a witness is accepted if it is corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses but credibility should be tested in the touchstone of the broad probabilities of the case. Montu vs State 57 DLR 504.
Section 3—Only because of relationship witnesses evidence cannot be thrown away unless the evidence is found to be untrue or tainted with motive. Yogeshwar Gope vs State 58 DLR (AD) 73.
Section 3—Conviction could be based solely on unimpeachable evidence of the police witnesses even if not corroborated by independent public witnesses. Hiru Mia vs State 58 DLR 607.
Section 3—Prosecution case rested on circumstantial evidence which require that prosecution is to prove each of the circumstances having a definite tendency pointing towards the guilt of the accused person and, though each of the circumstances by itself may not be conclusive but the cumulative effect of proved circumstances must be so complete that it would exclude every other hypothesis and unequivocally point to the guilt of the accused. State vs Md Kaloo 58 DLR 638.
Section 3-Conviction can be well based on the testimony of the Police personnel if it is supported by other evidence on record or if it inspires confidence. Faruq (Md) vs State 59 DLR 104.
Section 3— In order to judge credibility of a witness, the Trial Judge must look into the surrounding circumstances as well as probability of the contentions, so that he may form correct idea of truth or worthiness of a witness. If the evidence is inherently weak, basically suffers from absurdity, opposed to reason, logic, human conduct, natural course of events and no man of ordinary prudence can accept it, such witness must not be relied. State vs Kajal Ahmed Jalali 59 DLR 345.
Section 3—Long delay in recording statement of witness by the Investigating Officer renders his evidence unworthy of credit. State vs Kajal Ahmed Jalali 59 DLR 345.
Section 3—Circumstantial Evidence— Where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring the offences home beyond any reasonable doubt. Helal vs State 60 DLR 24.
Section 3—Written statement submitted by the appellant when he was examined under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not evidence within the meaning of section 3 of the Evidence Act. Such statement is to be considered along with the evidence and the circumstances and if the statement gets support from the evidence on record due weight may be given on it. [Vide 42 DLR (AD) 31]. Thus such statement cannot be the sole basis of conviction. Hasan Md vs State 60 DLR 56.
Section 3-Circumstantial Evidence—It is well settled law that last seen together is a weak type of circumstantial evidence on which to have a conviction, a link between the accused and the murder has to be proved. Bablu vs State 60 DLR 583.
Section 3—Circumstantial Evidence— Circumstances in respect of which an accused was not examined under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be used against him. Bablu vs State 60 DLR 583.
Section 3—There is no reason why the evidence of police personnel should be discarded simply because they belonged to the police force. They came before the Court and testified to the occurrence. They were fully cross examined. Their evidence is also evidence within the meaning of section 3 of the Evidence Act. Mohin Uddin vs State 61 DLR 35.
Section 3—If the evidence of the hostile witness fits in with the attending circumstances, then it may be accepted and considered along with other evidence. We received support of the above view in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs Chat Ram AIR 1985 (SC) 1543. Sahabuddin vs State 61 DLR 54.
Section 3—When there is neither any eyewitness nor any corroboration of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the deposition of the prosecution witnesses runs counter to the confessional statement, it is unsafe to sustain any conviction.. moreso, when such conviction is based primarily on the confessional statement of a co-accused. State vs Hamidul 61 DLR 614.
Section 3—Abscondence—Absconsion of the accused in certain cases can be vital circumstantial evidence, but it does not necessarily justify drawing an inference of guilt of the accused in each and every case. Ayub Ali Sheikh vs State 63 DLR 55.
Sections 3 and 5—Circumstantial evidence—Its conclusiveness—assessment of evidence— This is a case in which a minor boy, the victim of murder, was called away by and seen in the company of the two young accused for the last time before disappearance and then some time thereafter the body of the victim was found out. The fact of calling away of victim Khairul by accused Khasru was satisfactorily established as the first circumstance in support of the prosecution and witnesses have also satisfactorily proved that the victim travelled with the two accused from their village Noapara to a distant place called Takerhat by bus and got down there at 4-00/4-30 PM on 4-1-79. This is the second circumstance proved against the accused. From this point onward upto the time of recovery of the body of Khairul at about 3-00/3-30 PM on the following day the accused were alleged to have been seen along with the deceased, the third circumstance in the absence of ocular evidence of murder, by PWs 11 and 12. The High Court Division rejected their evidence due to apparent contradiction between their evidence and the statement made by them before the police and also for the reason that their identification of the accused in the TI Parade had lost all significance in view of the fact that they had chance to see the accused. There has been no violation of any norm or procedure in assessing the evidence of the said two witnesses for which the finding of fact made by the High Court Division could be disturbed. The position, therefore, comes to this that the third circumstance, that of, seeing the three boys together near the bank of the river where the victim’s body was found was not satisfctoriIy established. The circumstances of the case can never be said to be conclusive as to the guilt of accused Khasru and his brother Nowab. The High Court Division has correctly applied the rule as to circumstantial evidence in the facts of the present case. State vs Khasru @ Syed Mostafa Hossain 43 DLR (AD) 182.
Sections 3, 5 & 8—Ordinarily an accused has no obligation to account for the death for which he was placed on trial, but the murder having taken place while the accused was living with his deceased wife in the same house, he was under an obligation to explain how his wife had met with her death. Abul Kalam Mollah vs State 51 DLR 544.
Sections 3 & 30—Confession of coaccused—The confession of an accused is no evidence against the coaccused. Such confession cannot be taken into consideration against his coaccused and it can only be used to lend assurance to other legal evidence. But in the absence of any substantive evidence the confession of a coaccused is of no consequence against other accused persons. State vs Tajul Islam 48 DLR 306.
Sections 3 & 30—Confessional statement of coaccused by itself is not an evidence within the meaning of section 3 of the Act unless it is supported in material particulars by other evidence, at best it can be used against the maker. Abdus Sattar @ A. Sattar @ Sottar vs State 58 DLR 415.
Sections 3 & 30—It is true confession of an accused may be used as against other coaccused in the same trial. But this is for a limited purpose. Confession of a coaccused itself is not evidence but it may be used as such if it is found to be true and voluntary as against other coaccused not as a solitary basis but for the purpose of lending assurance to any other evidence found against him. Abul Hossain vs State 46 DLR 77.
Sections 3 & 30—Since the confessional’ statement is not required to be taken on oath and taken in presence of a coaccused and not tested by cross-examination it cannot be considered as substantive evidence against the co-accused. Mojibar vs State 51 DLR 507.
Sections 3 and 30—Confession-—Question of credibility when part of the occurrence is omitted or suppressed—It cannot be found nor it could be suggested by either the prosecution or the defence why throttling part of the occurrence was omitted or suppressed. Even if it be taken that accused Rina had deliberately suppressed the throttling part of the occurrence in her judicial confession that cannot mean that the confession was not true. Shahjahan Manik vs State 42 DLR 465,
Sections 3 & 32—Allegation made by the deceased prior to the occurrence cannot be treated relevant for the trial as it is not a substantive evidence like dying declaration related to the act of the murder. State vs Kajal Ahmed Jalali 59 DLR 345.
Sections 3 & 106—Death of wife—Special onus upon husband —In the case of death of wife in the house of the husband when the husband had been with wife the husband is under an obligation to account for the cause of death of his wife and special onus lies upon the husband. Kazi Mahbubuddin Ahmed alias Mahbub vs State, represented by the DC, Dhaka 57 DLR 513.
Section 5—The Court ought not to have rejected the evidence of witnesses merely on the ground that they were not disinterested witnesses when their examination-in-chief could not be shaken in cross-examination by the defence. Samad Sikdar vs State 50 DLR (AD) 24.
Section 5—In the instant case where bitter enmity between the parties is admitted, some sort of corroboration of the evidence of interested witnesses is required as a rule of prudence. Abdul Kader alias Kadu vs State 49 DLR 577.
Section 5—Where bitter enmity between the parties is admitted some sort of corroboration of the evidence of interested witnesses is required as a rule of prudence. Serajul Islam vs State 48 DLR 165.
Section 5—Courts must seek corroboration before acting upon interested witnesses in a criminal trial. It is the Court’s solemn duty to assess the evidence legally not only to secure conviction but also to record acquittal. State vs Khalilur Rahman 48 DLR 184.
Section 5-Police witnesses are partisan or interested witnesses in the sense that they are concerned in the success of the raid. Their evidence must be tested in the same way as the evidence of the other interested witnesses by the application of diverse considerations which must vaty from case to case. In view of the attitude as aforesaid of the earned Tribunal Judge regarding the police witnesses, we are at the outset required to settle the point. There cannot be any rigid consideration in this respect. In assessing oral evidence Judges may call in aid their experience in life and test the evidence on the basis of probabilities. Thus in a proper case, the Court may look for independent corroboration when it is found not safe to dispense with. Sirajul Islam vs State 48 DLR 301.
Section 5―An unreasonable delay in lodging the FIR inevitably gives rise to suspicion as to the trustworthiness or otherwise of the prosecution version of the case. State vs Tajul Islam 48 DLR 305.
Section 5—When the alleged eye-witnesses recognised the miscreants and disclosed their names to the informant before lodging the FIR and still then the informant does not mention their names in the FIR, the evidence of such witnesses must be kept out of consideration. State vs Tajul Islam 48 DLR 305.
Section 5—If there are admixture of falsehood so that it becomes impossible for the Courts to separate the grains of truth from mass of chaff, then such evidence of a witness must be rejected as a whole. Bazlu Talukder vs Deputy Commissioner Madaripur 48 DLR 509.
Section 5―When the witness has animus against the accused her evidence cannot be relied on except with strong corroborative evidence. State vs Raisuddin 48 DLR 517.
Section 5―Mere placing no reliance upon confessional statement of the accused and non- examination of the Magistrate who held TI Parade are no grounds for acquittal where the order of conviction and sentence is based on other sufficient and reliable legal evidence on record. Abdul Hashem vs State 52 DLR (AD) 117.
Section 5—Calling and taking away of the victim by the appellant Billal and co-convict Saiful from his residence half an hour before his murder, recovery of the body of the victim, Billal’s offer of love and threat to the PW 2 Mokseda, and abscondence of Billal immediately after the occurrence are circumstances to lead to the conclusion that he abetted the murder. Billal vs State 52 DLR (AD) 143.
Section 5—Even in case of non-examination of the seizure list witness or if the seizure list witnesses do not speak in terms of the prosecution case, the conviction cannot be set aside only for this reason. Moshfiqul Islam alias Bilu vs State 52 DLR 593.
Section 5—It is unfortunate that for not seizing the lungi of PW I the positive testimony of this witness and other witnesses who spoke about the presence of PW 1 in the occurrence have been discarded.
‘Evidence false in part is false in entirety”— As a matter of fact this maxim is not supported by any authority and has got no relevance in the present time. Mahmudul Islam alias Ratan vs State 53 DLR (AD) 1.
Section 5—When a wife met with an unnatural death while in custody of the husband and also while in his house the husband is to explain under what circumstance the wife met with her death. Ilias Hussain vs State 54 DLR (AD) 78.
Section 5—Mere relationship by itself cannot be a ground for rejecting testimony of a witness unless it is shown that the witness was biased and resorted to falsehood. Nure Alam vs State 54 DLR 242
Section 5—There is no reason to hold that the defence has been prejudiced for non-examination of the investigation officer, although non- examination of the investigation officer in a criminal case is usually viewed with disapproval. Karam Ali vs State 54 DLR 378.
Section 5—Non-examination of independent witnesses, particularly some of the neighbours, raised a presumption against the prosecution to the effect that had they been examined, they would not have supported the prosecution case. Nepoleon Khondker alias Lepu vs State 54 DLR 386.
Section 5—In the context of the existing enmity between the parties, it is wholly unsafe to rely on the uncorroborated testimony of informant. Altaf Hossain vs State 54 DLR 464.
Section 5—A close relative who is a material witness cannot be regarded as an interested witness. The term “interestedness” postulates that the witness must have some direct interest in having the accused somehow or the other connected for some animus or some other reasons. State vs Moslem 55 DLR 116.
Section 5-The murder having taken place where the accused person was living with his wife in the same house he was under an obligation to explain how his wife had met with her death. In the absence of any explanation coming from his side it seems none other than the husband was responsible for causing death in question. Dulal Mia vs State 56 DLR 65.
Section 5-If on consideration of the entire evidence and materials on record it appears to the Court that the prosecution case is doubtful, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused and he should be acquitted of the offence charged. Shahidul Islam vs State 56 DLR 35.
Section 5—Discrepancy has to be distinguished from contradiction. Whereas contradiction in the statement of the witness is fatal for the case, minor discrepancy or variance in evidence will not make the prosecution case doubtful. Shibu Pada Acharjee vs State 56 DLR 285.
Section 5—The evidence of an injured person carries much weight since the injured person does not usually allow the real culprit to escape and falsely implicate an innocent person. Ataur Rahman vs State 43 DLR 87.
Section 5—Defence version—Manner of occurrence—prosecution having failed to prove their version of the manner of occurrence, the defence version became probable and the appellants were acquitted of he charges. Gopal Rajgor vs State 42 DLR 446.
Section 5—Assessment of evidence by the Appellate Division—In the matter of assessment of evidence trial Court’s view is given great weight and when its finding is accepted as correct on reassessment by the Appellate Court, then the Appellate Division does not like to interfere. But when in accepting the evidence it is found that established principles of assessment of evidence have not been followed, then the Appellate Court’s finding cannot claim sanctity (per Shahabuddin Ahmed CJ concurred by MH Rahman and ATM Afzal JJ). Abu Taher Chowdhury vs State 42 DLR (AD) 253.
Section 5-Appreciation of evidence—if there is contradiction of a substantial kind or a big difference as to time as given by witness and proved by other circumstances, then the time as to the occurrence may become doubtful and the Court can disbelieve the prosecution case. The opinion of the doctor has been so narrowly construed as would betray even ordinary common sense. Considering all aspects of the matter, there has been a manifest disregard of the accepted principles of appreciation of evidence and consequently a miscarriage of justice. State vs Abdus Sattar 43 DLR (AD) 44.
Section 5-In the matter of observation, perception and memorisation, different witnesses, differ from each other. So weight is to be given to those which are of consensus as to the substance of their evidence. The standard of rural witness should not be comparable to that of urban witness in the matter of exactitude and consistency. Consideration in narration can not militate against the veracity of the core of testimony provided that there is an impression of truth and conformity in substantial fabric of the testimony so delivered. Ataur Rahman vs State 43 DLR 87.
Section 5-It is settled principle that when injured witness marked assailants it cannot be said that he would give up real assailant and falsely implicate person with whom there was no enmity. Ataur Rahman vs State 43 DLR 87.
Section 5—Chance witness—He is found to be at the place of occurrence by chance or coincidence at the time the offence was committed. His evidence need not be rejected outright, but it is to be weighed with caution and may be viewed With suspicion if witnesses are partisan or inimically disposed towards the accused. State vs Md Shafiqul Islam 43 DLR (AD) 92.
Section 5-Wife-killing case—In such a case, there could be no eye-witness of the occurrence, apart from inmates of the house who may refuse to tell the truth. The neighbours may not also come forward to depose. The prosecution is, therefore, necessarily to rely on circumstantial evidence. State vs Md Shafiqul Islam 43 DLR (AD) 92.
Section 5—Evidence of persons falling in the category of interested witnesses must be closely scrutinized. They should not be accepted on their face value. Their evidence cannot be rejected outright simply because they are interested witnesses. Nowabul Alam vs State 45 DLR (AD) 140.
Section 5—It is well-settled that the prosecution case is never proved by suggestions made by the defence to prosecution witnesses. The Court cannot accept what is favourable to the prosecution and ignore the true purpose of suggesstion: Per Mustafa Kamal J writing the majority Judgment. Nowabul Alam vs State 45 DLR (AD) 140.
Section 5—When discrepancies in testimony were mere discrepancies, and not contradictions, they did not affect the truth of what was stated in Court. State vs Ranjit Kumar Pramanik 45 DLR 660.
Section 5—Demeanour of witnesses—The observation of the demeanour of witness by the trial Court is not dismissed lightly by the Appellate Court, unless there are intrinsic weaknesses and blatant contradictions in his evidence. Abdul Hal Sikder vs State 43 DLR (AD) 95.
Section 5—Credibility of witness—Judges of the High Court Division have not considered the material discrepancies, contradictions and omissions of eye-witnesses for which an error has crept in the judgment resulting in the conviction of the appellants. On consideration of the evidence particularly of the eye-witnesses, the appellants are held to be entitled to the benefit of doubt and acquitted. Nurul Islam vs State 43 DLR (AD) 6.
Section 5—Interested witness—Conviction cannot be based on the uncorroborated testimony of the informant who is a police officer and is vitally interested in the result of the case. Mati Miah vs State 44 DLR 554.
Section 5—Demeanour of witness, appreciation of—when a finding of fact is based upon the credibility of evidence involving appreciation of the demeanour of witnesses, the view of the trial Court is entitled to great weight. State vs MM Rafiqul Hyder 45 DLR (AD) 13.
Section 5—PWs 8 and 9 categorically stated that they heard of the occurrence from the victims who disclosed the names of accused Habib and Ripon but they did not disclose the names to investigation officer—Their belated disclosure of the names of accused is nothing but subsequent embellishment and, as such, the same cannot be relied. Shaheen (Md) vs State 59 DLR 23.
Section 5—When PWs do not give the whole truth—We find no corroboration in the evidence of the PWs by any reliable and independent source. As a result, an element of doubt looms large and leads to the inevitable impression that the prosecution did not give out the whole truth for unknown reasons. In the face of the clear and definite evidence on record it is impossible to conclude with any amount of certainty that the death of Abdur Rahman was caused by appellant Abdul Hannan. Abdul Hannan vs State 60 DLR 590.
Section 6—Statement made by the victim of an offence, when it can have evidentiary value— In the absence of examination of the alleged victim, her statements allegedly made to the police or to the Magistrate cannot be treated as evidence against the accused. As neither the victim girl nor the Magistrate was examined, the statements recorded by the latter is not even a secondary evidence and in that view it is no legal evidence to prove the prosecution case. Abul Kashem vs State 43 DLR 420.
Section 8-No motive of causing death of the deceased by the accused husband was attributed and proved through in a case based on circumstantial evidence proof of motive is of great importance. There is no evidence that the relationship between the appellant and his deceased wife was strained and on any occasion before the occurrence the appellant beat his deceased wife. Abu Taher vs State
58 DLR 34.
Section 8—Motive—If the prosecution assigns a particular motive in proof of its case, then the motive has to be established by the prosecution failing which the prosecution must suffer on that account, not the defence. Khelu Mia vs State 43 DLR 573.
Section 8—Motive—Prosecution is not obliged to suggest any motive where there is direct evidence but in a case which depends on circumstantial evidence motive is an important factor. if motive is suggested in any case by the prosecution, it accepts the burden to discharge for making the suggested motive plausible one. Farid Karim vs State 45 DLR 171.
Section 8-Motive is not always necessary to prove murder, but if it was established, it would be a corroborative circumstance leading to complicity of the accused in the offence. State vs Nurul Hoque 45 DLR 306.
Section 8—Murder charge resting on circumstantial evidence—Accused’s motive in calling out and accompanying the victim boy— There is absolutely no material on record to show that anybody had at any stage expressed any suspicion that the accused might have had any evil motive in calling out the victim. All that the father said at the trial was that the motive for murder was to give him pain. This is no motive. He did not say why the young accused would cause him pain. There is also no material to suggest even that there might have been some immediate and on-the-spot reason for the accused to cause violence to the victim or that they were acting at some others’ behest—Per ATM Afzal 3 with whom Shahabuddin Ahmed CJ and MH Rahman J concurred. State vs Khasru @ Syed Mostafa Hossain 43 DLR (AD) 182.
Section 8—Abscondance—guilty mind— it is true mere abscondance is not sufficient to hold the accused guilty. But in this case his wife was in his house and her body was recovered from the nearby jute field. He neither informed her parents nor brought the matter to the notice of the police—he simply vanished from his house and remained absconding for months. From these circumstances there can be no other hypothesis except that of his guilt. Abdul Khaleque vs State 45 DLR 75.
Section 8—Motive—Failure to prove motive does not always affect prosecution case. State vs Ranjit Kumar Pramanik 45 DLR 660.
Section 8—Abscondance—Abscondance by itself was not conclusive either of guilt or of guilty conscience. State vs Ranjit Kumar Pramanik 45 DLR 660.
Section 8—Abscondance—Corroboration of evidence—Abscondance of an accused though can be treated as corroboration of the direct evidence of eye-witnesses connecting the accused with the crime but the abscondance cannot be treated to be corroboration of the confessional statement of another accused so as to base thereon the conviction of the absconding accused. Sanwar Hossain vs State 45 DLR 489.
Section 8—Prosecution is not generally required to prove any motive behind a crime. But if some motive is assigned, the prosecution needs to prove it. Gadu Mia vs State 44 DLR 246.
Section 8—Motive for murder—Though motive is one of the important factors for a murder, prosecution is not always bound to allege motive, and if alleged, need not prove it and for the absence of motive or proof thereof the prosecution will not fail, if the guilt of the “accused is otherwise proved by reliable and cogent evidence. Taslimuddin vs State 44 DLR 136.
Section 8-Motive (by majority): Evidence of motive, when necessary—there is no reference at all in the dying declaration to any fact or circumstances for which it can be even remotely inferred that there was any reason whatever for which the appellant was likely to make an attempt on the life of the deceased nor is there any reason for the deceased to suspect the appellant as his possible killer. In a case of this nature based only upon the dying declaration there should have been some evidence of motive although motive may not be proved in case of direct evidence or as an ingredient of the offence. Sk Shamsur Rahman vs State 42 DLR (AD) 200.
Section 8-Mere abscondance for some time without any guilty mind cannot be an incriminating circumstance against the accused to be relied upon for basing his conviction. Shahjahan vs State 46 DLR 575.
Section 8—In a case where bitter enmity is admitted between the parties, it is required as a rule of prudence that there should be some corroboration of the evidence of the interested witness. Amir Hossain Dhali vs State 49 DLR 163.
Section 8—As the condemned accused absconded from the very beginning of the case, it appears that the learned Sessions Judge has been influenced for the same in awarding the capital sentence against him which is against the decided principle of law. From the conduct of a person for absconding after commission of the offence may sometimes be evidence to show that he was concerned with the offence. But it is usually a very small item in the evidence on which a conviction can be based. State vs Balai Chandra Sarker 47 DLR 467.
Section 8—Abscondance—Though the fact that the accused absconded soon after the crime is not an evidence itself but it may lend weight to other evidence. Ashraf All Munshi vs State 48 DLR 590.
Section 8—The deceptive conduct of accused petitioner to turn into a fugitive by jumping the bail is a clear indication of his guilty conscience. Babar Hossain vs State 52 DLR 326.
Section 8—In view of the evidence as to motive of the condemned prisoner, his previous attempt to assault the victim, comes within the purview of section 8 of the Evidence Act and this said conduct is relevant for determination of the issue of the case. State vs Md Khosbar Ali 52 DLR 633.
Section 8—Unless the Court is told what exact words were used by the accused persons it cannot act on the inference supplied by the witnesses from what they have heard or not heard. Abul Khair vs State 55 DLR 437.
Section 8—Accused remained absconding with clear guilty knowledge about his overt act in the occurrence resulting in the murder and, as such, his absconsion will create adverse opinion against him. Zakir Hossain vs State 55 DLR 137.
Section 8—Abscondence by itself does not prove any offence against any person unless such abscondence is substantiated by evidence in favour of his guilt incompatible with his plea of innocence. Zahid Hossain Paltu vs State 55 DLR 160.
Section 8—Abscondence of the condemned prisoner furnished strong corroboration to prosecution case that he is the culprit. State vs Moslem 55 DLR 116.
Section 8—Absconsion itself is not an incriminating matter inasmuch as even an innocent person implicated in a serious crime sometimes absconds during the investigation to avoid repression by the police. Abul Kashem vs State 56 DLR 132.
Section 8—Abscondence sometimes may not be an incriminating circumstance for drawing inference of the guilt of an accused person but, in the case in hand, long abscondence of the accused-appellant is an important circumstance to fasten him. Babul Sikder vs State represented by the DC 56 DLR 174.
Section 8-Motive—Motive, if proved, affords a key to scan the evidences of the case in its proper perspective and motive proved indicates the high degree of probability and provides a link in the chain to connect the accused with the offence. State vs Abdul Hatem 56 DLR 431.
Section 8-For lack of motive, the ocular evidence of injured witnesses and other eyewitnesses should not be discarded, specially in view of the fact that their evidence has not at all been shaken in the cross-examination. Ershad Ali Sikder vs State 57 DLR (AD) 75.
Section 8-The Court does not, subscribe to the view of the learned Counsel that for every offence the prosecution must prove the motive if otherwise there is reason to believe as to the guilt of the accused. State vs Kh. Zillul Bari 57 DLR (AD) 129.
Section 8—Abscondence—Abscondence of an accused leads to no decisive implication, nevertheless, it has utility to form a link to concatenate the full chain in finding guilt of an accused person. Kazi Mahbubuddin Ahmed alias Mahbub vs State 57 DLR 513.
Section 8—The failure to discover the motive of an offence does not signify its nonexistence. The failure to prove motive is not fatal as a matter of law, proof of motive is never indispensable for conviction when facts are clear, it is immaterial that no motive has been proved. Khalilur Rahman vs State 59 DLR 227.
Section 8—Abscondence——This itself cannot be the sole criteria to reach a finality of guilt. It is only corroborative in nature—Something more together may merit conviction—It is a fit case where the appellants are entitled to have benefit of doubt. Jaju vs State 59 DLR 499.
Section 8—It is well settled that abscondence of an accused is not conclusive proof of his guilt and cannot be the sole basis of his conviction without any corroborative evidence. State vs Al Hasib Bin Jamal alias Hasib 59 DLR 653.
Section 8—Where the testimony of the witnesses are mere hearsay, the case, becomes one of no evidence against the appellant. The appellant cannot be convicted merely on hearsay evidence as the hearsay evidence has no basis and thus the Court of law cannot rely on the hearsay evidence. Abdul Kader vs State 60 DLR 457.
Section 8—Failure to prove motive does not necessarily affect the prosecution case. Bablu vs State 60 DLR 583.
Sections 8 and 9—Abscondence of an accused person in some circumstances may not be an incriminating circumstance against him in respect of his guilt but long abscondence is an important circumstance against him and furnishes corroboration of the prosecution case. State vs Saiful Islam 56 DLR 376.
Sections 8 and 106—When the wife is killed in the house of the husband, the irresistible conclusion which flows is that it is the husband who is responsible for her death. State vs Md Delwar Hossain Faraji 57 DLR 264.
Sections 8 and 106—It was not denied by the appellant that victim Shefali was his wife and living with him in the same house just before her alleged missing. If that be so, he is under the obligation to explain what has happened to Shefali who was with him before her missing. Abdul Majid vs State 55 DLR 486.
Section 8(j)—Prosecution for rape—Question of corroboration. It has long been a rule of practice for insisting on corroboration of the statement of the prosecutrix. If the Judge feels that without corroboration in a particular case the conviction can be sustained then he should give indication that he had the rule of caution in his mind and then should proceed to give reasons for considering it unnecessary to require corroboration and for considering that it was safe to convict the accused without corroboration. Saidur Rahman Neuton vs State 45 DLR (AD) 66.
Sections 8 & 9—Nowhere the accused mentioned anything why he avoided trial and remained in abscondance in spite of execution of Proclamation and Attachment and Warrant of Arrest for securing his attendance. This conduct of the accused is a relevant fact which should be taken into consideration as a circumstance in determining his guilt. Rajab Ali ZuIfiqar vs State 45 DLR 705.
Section 9—Long abscondance and non- submission to the process of the Court speaks a volume against the accused persons and clearly suggest their involvement in the crime. Abscondance of the accused persons furnished corroboration of the prosecution case and evidence. AlAmin and 5 others vs State 51 DLR 154.
Section 9—The nonholding of the Test Identification Parade cannot affect the identification of the accused Shamim Hossain by the victims at the time of trial and the statement made by the witnesses are the legal and substantive evidence in the eye of law. AlAmin vs State 51 DLR 154.
Section 9—It was the duty of appellant to follow the position of the case. No duty was cast upon Tribunal to run after a fugitive to post him with day-to-day proceeding against him. Nizam Hazari vs State 53 DLR 475.
Section 9—Abscondence of accused is a relevant fact under section 9 of the Evidence Act and unless accused explains his conduct abscondence may indicate his guilt. Nizam Hazari vs State 53 DLR 475.
Section 9—Abscondence of an accused cannot be treated to be corroboration of the confessional statement of another accused person so as to base thereon conviction of the absconding accused. Nizam Hazari vs State 53 DLR 475.
Section 9—It is the facts and circumstances of the case which decides whether abscondence is due to any guilty knowledge or to any intention toavoid harassment by police. Nizam Hazari vs State 53 DLR 475.
Section 9—TI Parade—The credibility of Test Identification Parade is dependable upon 3 conditions, firstly, the accused should be unknown to the identifying witness by name, secondly, the witness must not have any opportunity to see the accused after the occurrence in connection with which he is put up for identification and thirdly, the identifying witness makes no mistake to recognise the offender. Ibrahim vs State 58 DLR 598.
Section 10—Fixing the period of conspiracy is important as the provisions of section 10 of the Act would apply only during the existence of the conspiracy. (Per SK Sinha J). Major Baziul Huda vs State 62 DLR (AD) 1.
Section 10—Common Intention—When a criminal conspiracy for committing murder has been established there is no need to award a conviction in the aid of section 34 for, in an offence of criminal conspiracy anythirjg said, done or written in reference to their common intention after the intention was entertained is relevant against all the accused. When specific acts done by each of the accused have been established showing their common intention they are admissible against each and every other accused. Though an act or action of one accused cannot be used as evidence against other accused but an exception has been carved out in section 10 of the Evidence Act in case of criminal conspiracy. If there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together in the light of the language used in 120A of the Penal Code, the evidence of acts done by one of the accused. can be used against the other. Major Baziul Huda vs State 62 DLR (AD) 1.
Section 11—’Alibi-—-lt is a convenient term used for the defence taken by an accused that when the occurrence took place he was so far away from the place of occurrence that it is highly improbable that he would have participated in the crime. Kazi Mahbubuddin Ahmed alias Mahbub vs State, represented by the DC, Dhaka 57 DLR 513.
Section 24—It is only when the statement of the accused can be read as a plenary admission of guilt in clear terms that it can be taken as a confession of the crime. State vs MM Rafiqul Hyder 45 DLR (AD) 13.
Section 24—Confession should not only be voluntary but it also must be true—For the purpose of establishing its truth examination of the confession and its comparison with remaining evidence of the prosecution and probability of the case would be relevant. State vs Ali Kibria 43 DLR 512.
Section 24—Retracted confession—It is a rule of prudence that a retracted confession needs corroboration inasmuch as it is always open to suspicion and cannot be acted upon unless corroborated by independent and credible evidence. State vs Ali Kibria 43 DLR 512.
Section 24—The statement admittedly made by the appellant while in custody of the Customs officials cannot be considered as evidence and it is barred under section 24 of the Evidence Act. MM Rafiqul Ryder vs State 41 DLR 274.
Section 24—Confessional statement—There being no corroboration on any material particular of the confessional statement, it is unsafe to maintain conviction of the respondents under sections 302/34. Penal Code thereon, though respondent Abid All implicated himself in the statement to be an offender. State vs Shafique 43 DLR (AD) 203.
Section 24—Since the confessing prisoner neither filed any petition from jail nor directly filed any petition in Court nor made any oral allegation retracting from the confession his last moment retraction cannot be entertained. State vs Kamal Ahmed 49 DLR 381.
Section 24—Extra-judicial confessions are not usually considered with favour but it does not mean that such a confession coming from a person who has no reason to state falsely and to whom it is made in the circumstances which tend to support his statement should not be believed. Syed Ahmed vs Abdul Khaleque 51 DLR 43.
Section 24—A conviction can also be rested on extra-judicial confession subject of course to the fact that such statements are corroborated by other materials on record. State vs Moslem 55 DLR 116.
Section 24—Extra-judicial confession—such confession made before a person in authority cannot be relied upon as evidence without any independent corroboration. Mobarak Ali Gazi vs State 55 DLR 325.
Section 25—The record of one proceeding is not to be treated as a part of the record of another proceeding and the record of each proceeding should be self-contained and complete. State vs Ershad Ali Sikder 56 DLR 185.
Sections 25 & 26—No confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence under section 25 of the Evidence Act. The criterion for excluding the confession under this section is the answer to the question, to whom was the confession made? If the answer is that it was made to a police officer, the confession is inadmissible; and cannot be proved either by the evidence of the police officer, or by any other evidence, as the medium by which it is sought to prove an inadmissible confession does not alter its inadmissibility. A confession made to a police officer must be ruled out of evidence even if it was made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate as the terms of section 25 are not qualified or controlled by section 26. Bura Yunus vs State 59 DLR 549.
Sections 25 and 27—An information even by way of confession made in police custody which relates to the fact discovered is admissible in evidence against the accused.
Police Officer may be allowed to say that he went to the place and found the knife, but any statement as to confession of murder is inadmissible. Secondly, a fact already known to the police cannot be re-discovered on the state-ment of an accused so as to make the accused’s conduct of pointing out a place admissible in evidence. Thirdly, when a discovery is made in consequence of information received from more than one person, but it cannot be determined who first made the crucial statement, it is no discovery and the joint information or joint production is not admissible against any one. Joint information, however, should not be confused with similar information given simultaneously leading to discovery. Bashir All vs State 45 DLR 63.
Section 27— It is not the distance by which the place of occurrence is shifted is material but it is the prosecution case which has been different because of shifting of the place of occurrence and this has cast a suspicion on the prosecution case. Abul Kashem vs State 56 DLR 132.
Section 27—If after an examination of the whole evidence, the Court is of opinion that there is a reasonable possibility that the defence put forward by the accused might be true, it such a view reacts on the whole prosecution case. In these circumstances, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt, not as a matter of grace, but as of right. Abul Kashem vs State 56 DLR 132.
Section 27—Discovery of the dead bodies in pursuance of the confessional statement—Effect of. The statements of the two condemned prisoners not only corroborated each other, the discovery of dead bodies in pursuance of the statement having been corroborated evidence lead us to believe that confessional statements of the condemned prisoners are voluntary and true as well. Hazrat Ali and Abdur Rahman vs State 42 DLR 177.
Section 27—Statement of condemned prisoner leading to the discovery of dead bodies— Effect of. Hazrat Ali and Abdul Rahman vs State 42 DLR 177.
Section 27—Information received from accused—Its language—It may not be incumbent on the part of the police officer to record the statement of the accused in custody giving information leading to discovery of certain fact but if such information is recorded it must be done in the language of the accused. Farid Karim vs State 45 DLR 171.
Section 30—Confession by co-accused— Its worth in the absence of corroboration—A confession made by a co-accused in a joint trial for the same offence affecting himself and others may be taken into consideration. The confession of such an accused may lend assurance to the other evidence on record. Babor Ali Molla vs State 44 DLR (AD)10.
Section 30—Confession—Joint trial— Where more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, a confession made by any one of them affecting himself and any one of his co-accused can be taken into consideration by the Court not only agaihst the maker of the confession but also against the co-accused. It may not be an evidence within the strict meaning of the term, but it lends assurance to other evidence on record. State vs Abul Khair 44 DLR 284.
Section 30—Evidence adduced by prosecution—For appreciation of its quality and worth —Broad facts of the case recounted. Appreciation of oral evidence—So-called confession by a coaccused (appellant Daud) relied upon by the trial Court—that confession is no confession in the eye of law as it was a testimony against the other accused without the maker having involved himself. Ibrahim Mollah vs State 40 DLR (AD) 216.
Section 30-if the principal evidence in the case namely direct oral evidence does not qualify to be trustworthy the alleged confession is of no avail to the prosecution for sustaining the order of conviction. Ibrahim Mollah vs State 40 DLR (AD) 216.
Section 30—Examination and analysis of oral evidence—High Court Division failed to give due and proper consideration to the well established principles governing appreciation of evidence in a case where there is possibility of false implication because of existing dispute and enmity between the parties—Where the witnessess are related and partisan and have a strong motive to depose falsely, their evidence must be put to the strictest scrutiny having regard to the attendant circumstances. Ibrahim Mollah vs State 40 DLR (A D) 216.
Section 30-Neither the trial Court nor the High Court Division scanned the evidence in an analytical manner. After all these infirmities on the side of the prosecution the trial Court and the High Court Division should have entertained reasonable doubt as to the alleged participation of the appellants in the throwing of bombs. Ibrahim Mollah vs State 40 DLR (AD) 216.
Section 30-No conviction can be made solely on the basis of a confessional statement of a co-accused unless it is corroborated by some other independent evidence. State vs Mokammel Hyeath Khan 58 DLR 373.
Section 30-A confession, judicial or extra- judicial, whether retracted or not, can in law validly form the sole basis of conviction, if the Court is satisfied and believes that it was true and voluntary and was not obtained by torture, coercion or inducement. State vs Mokammel Hyeath Khan 58 DLR 373.
Section 30-The confession of an accused is not a substantive piece of evidence against the coaccused who did not confess and such evidence alone, without any substantive corroborative evidence, cannot form basis of conviction of coaccused. Mofazzal Hossain alias Mofa vs State 58 DLR 524.
Section 30—Consideration of confession— Confession affecting person making it and others—When confessional statement of an accused is found to be voluntary and partly exculpatory and partly inculpatory, the exculpatory part being improbable, contrary to reason and ordinary human conduct is liable to be rejected and the inculpatory part can be relied on even if the confession is subsequently retracted. Inculpatory part of the confession can also be used against the other accused. Abdul Kashem vs State 42 DLR 378.
Section 30—The confession is sufficient to find accused Rina guilty of the charge under sections 302/34 Penal Code inasmuch as she participated in the murder starting from hatching of conspiracy for killing her husband in order to marry accused Manik to allowing the latter to bring in poison and mix it with the drinking water of her husband’s jug and then to see the husband drinking that water, then after his death to hang the body and raising a feigned cry. Besides, the circumstances showed there was no scope for anyone to enter the room to kill her husband without her co-operation. Shahjahan Manik vs State 42 DLR 465.
Section 30-Confession of a co-accused cannot be the sole basis for conviction. State vs Nurul Haque 45 DLR 306.
Section 30—Confession—retraction—an order of conviction can be passed solely on the basis of a confession, whether retracted or not, if it is considered and found to be true and voluntary. Though there is no compulsion that a confession need be materially corroborated yet it is prudent that a Court should look for it. We are to examine the confessional statement in the light of the circumstances under which it is made and the other evidences on record corroborating the chain of circumstances as narrated by the accused before the Magistrate in his confessional statement and this corroborating need not always be in material particular as even a general corroboration or corroboration by medical evidence would be considered to be enough. Abdur Rahman Syed vs State 44 DLR 556.
Section 30—Confession—When not voluntary and true—The condemned prisoner was in police custody for 2 days with no explanation. This coupled with allegation of police torture shows the confession to be not voluntary, Confession containing exculpatory materials outweigh the inculpatory materials and then the statements having not been corroborated, the confession cannot be said to be true as well. Farid Karim vs State 45 DLR 171.
Section 30-In a joint trial of several persons the Court may take into consideration confessional statement of an accused against himself and other accused. Md Azad Sheik vs State 41 DLR 62.
Section 30-The extra judicial confession made in Police Station in presence of constables who had arrested the confessing accused and the police officer who had investigated the ease is inadmissible in evidence. Mofazzal Hossain Mollah vs State 45 DLR (AD) 175.
Section 30-Extra-judicial confession—If at all made appears to be wholly untrue—No reliable evidence of corroboration of the alleged extrajudicial confession and it is not at all safe to rely and act upon such extra judicial confession. The alleged extra-judicial confession if at all made by the said accused also appears to be wholly untrue. So, in the whole analysis of the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record and the alleged extra-judicial confession of the condemned prisoner, we find that there is no reliable evidence of corroboration of the so-called alleged extra-judicial confession and it is not at all safe to rely and act upon such extra-judicial confession and convict the accused on that basis. Hence the conviction of the condemned prisoner Badsha Mollab on the basis of alleged extra- judicial confession cannot be sustained in law. State vs Badshah Mollah 41 DLR 11.
Section 30—Mere absconding cannot always be a circumstance to lead to an inference of guilt of the accused. Mere abscondance cannot always be a circumstance which should lead to an inference of guilt of the accused. Sometimes out of fear and self-respect and to avoid unnecessary harassment even an innocent person remains absconding for some time. State vs Badshah Mollah 41 DLR 11.
Section 30—Abscondance was not with any guilty mind. Existence of enmity is not disputed. Accused has been falsely implicated in this case out of grudge and enmity. State vs Badshah Mollah 41 DLR 11.
Section 30—In this case the condemned prisoner Badsha remained absent or absconding for some time but subsequently he surrendered himself in Court before the commencement of the trial. It appears, this abscondance was not with any guilty mind. So, this circumstance cannot be treated as a discriminating one. State vs Badshah Mollah 41 DLR 11.
Section 30—There being no independent evidence except the confessional statement of appellant Farook Mahajan against the other accused appellants. The trial Court was wrong in finding all the appellants guilty. A retracted confession, like the onewhich is not retracted, may form the sole basis of conviction of the maker if the Court believes it to be voluntary and true. But as against the coaccused, the evidentiary value of a retracted is practically nil and in the absence of strong independent evidence, it is totally useless. Faruque Mahajan vs State 49 DLR 47.
Section 30—Confessional statement of one accused cannot be used as evidence against another coaccused unless there is any independent corroboration. Sohel Monir, son of MA Monir of Dhaka vs State 49 DLR 407.
Section 30—The evidentiary value of a retracted confession is practically nil in the absence of strong independent evidence. Sohel Monir son of MA Monir of Dhaka vs State 49 DLR 407.
Section 30-The confession of a co-accused may be used only to lend assurance to other evidence on recorded in support of the guilt of the accused but the same cannot be used as a substantive evidence. Moslemuddin vs State 48 DLR 588.
Section 30—No statement that contains selfexculpatory matter can amount to confessional statement if the exculpatory statement is of some fact which if proved would negative the offence confessed. The statement of accused Bachchu in his confessional statement as quoted are the admission and not confession as confession involved a voluntary acknowledgment of guilt. From the admission of accused Bachchu it cannot be said that he was aware that Khairul would be murdered by the other accused. He, therefore, cannot be said to have abetted that offence of murder. State vs Md Bachchu Miah @ Abdul Mannan and 5 others 51 DLR 355.
Section 30—If confession falls short of plenary acknowledgment of guilt it would not be a confession even though the statement contained some incriminating fact. Jabed Ali (Md) alias Jabed All vs State 51 DLR 397.
Section 30—It is very risky to rely on the statements of the two confessing accused so as to convict accused Mohammad Au as there is absence of any corroborative evidence to identify Mohammad as Mohammad Ali. Mohammad Ali vs State 52 DLR 245.
Section 30—The confessional statement of an accused can very well be the basis of conviction provided the same is true and voluntary. Hasmat Ali vs State 53 DLR 169.
Section 30—Prolonged police custody immediately before recording of the confessional statement is sufficient, if not otherwise properly explained, to render it as involuntary. Hasmat Ali vs State 53 DLR 169.
Section 30—The conviction cannot be based solely on the basis of confessional statement of a co-accused unless it is corroborated by some other independent evidence. State vs Lieutenant Colonel Syed Farook Rahman 53 DLR 287.
Section 30—The alleged solitary confinement was after the recording of the confessional statement and does not affect the confession as involuntary. State vs Lieutenant Colonel Syed Farook Rahman 53 DLR 287.
Section 30—Confession of a co-accused cannot by itself be the basis of conviction of another co-accused nor even against himself if the same is not substantiated by satisfactory evidence proving the guilt of its maker. Zahid Hossain Paltu vs State 55 DLR 160.
Section 30-Conviction can be based on judicial confession if it is established that it is true and voluntary and is substantiated by other evidences, whether direct or circumstantial and materials on record. State vs Moslem 55 DLR 116.
Section 30—Conviction can be based on the sole confession of the accused although retracted subsequently if it is found to be true and voluntary. Zakir Hossainvs State 55 DLR 137.
Section 30-Conviction of the confessing accused based on a retracted confession even if uncorroborated caunot be said to be illegal if the court believes that it is true and voluntary. State vs Rafiqul Islam 55 DLR 61.
Section 30—The trial Court first has to find the confessional statement to be true and voluntary and then only may place reliance on it. State vs Rafiqul Islam 55 DLR 61.
Section 30—The confession of one coaccused cannot be used for corroborating the confession of another co-accused as both are tainted evidence, much more so when they are retracted, for, then the maker himself repudiates the correctness of his earlier statements—the confession of a co-accused could not be sustained and further the confession of one co-accused could not be said to be corroborated by the confession of another co-accused. Rezaul Karim (Md) alias Rezaul Alam Rickshawa vs State 55 DLR 382.
Section 30—Confession of an accused is not a substantive piece of evidence against the coaccused, so such evidence alone without substantive corroborative evidence cannot form the basis of conviction of a co-accused. Rezaul Karim (Md) alias Rezaul Alam Rickshawa vs State 55 DLR 382.
Section 30—Confession of a co-accused can be taken into consideration and on the strength of that confession another co-accused can be convicted provided the said confession is corroborated by any other evidence, either direct and circumstantial. State vs Mir Hossain alias Mira and others 56 DLR
Section 30—Conviction on the basis of a confessional statement upon the maker can be very much based even if the confessional statement had been retracted at a later stage. State vs Anjuara Khatun 57 DLR 277.
Section 30—Very brevity of dying declaration in the circumstances of the case far from being a suspicious circumstances was an index of its being true and free from the taint of tutoring. Tenseness of statement itself can be characterised as the guarantee of truth. State vs Anjuara Khatun 57 DLR 277.
Section 30—A Judicial confession not furnished voluntarily and out of free will is quite unreliable, more so, when such a confession is retracted. Kazi Mahbubuddin Ahmed alias Mahbub vs State, represented by the DC, Dhaka 57 DLR 513.
Section 30—A retracted confession can constitute sufficient basis for conviction of its maker provided the same is found true and voluntary. Khalilur Rahman vs State 59 DLR 227.
Section 30—The confessions being:out and out exculpatory are not confessions in the eye of law and, as such, completely inadmissible and those cannot be considered under section 30 of the Evidence Act as against the co-accuseds. State vs Al Hasib Bin Jamal alias Hasib 59 DLR 653.
Section 30—It appears from the evidence on record that the accused Kader in collusion with Kamran and Imran took Sahad from his house with a preplan to take revenge of the previous enmity. Subsequently, the conduct of the accused Kader i.e. leaving his house immediately after occurrence and his spontaneous surrender before the police also clearly corroborates the confessional statement. As regard the extra-judicial confession, the witnesses in whose presence he confessed his guilt, they deposed in the Court. Furthermore, the recovery of dead body and the recovery of ‘Bothi’ and other materials at the pointing out of Kader also clearly indicate the corroboration of confessional statement. Moreover, the Magistrate who recorded the confessional statement has come before the Court and deposed that the accused Kader made the confessional statement voluntarily and he certified the confessional statement as true and voluntary. State vs Abdul Kader 60 DLR 420.
Section 30—A confessional statement must not only be voluntary, but it must be true at the same time. The veracity of the confessional statement must not be tested in a vague and hypothetical manner, but in a concrete and logical manner in light of the evidence adduced by the prosecution. State vs Hamidul 61 DLR 614.
Section 30—The confessional statement neither fits with the prosecution version of the event nor does it corroborate the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and on this score, the confessional statement cannot be taken to be true. In the absence of any other credible evidence by which the complicity of the appellant in the case can be established, his conviction becomes equally unsustainable. State vs Hamidul 61 DLR 614.
Section 30—It appears from the order No. 141 dated 12-4-1997 that the accused Aktaruzzaman Chowdhury Babu was granted bail by the Court of Sessions, and thereafter the High Court Division cancelled his bail on 27-5-1993 and directed him to surrender before the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate by 12-6-1993, but the accused flouted the order and absconded and remained in abscondence for over 3 years till his surrender before the trial Court. This conduct of Babu appears to be culpable in nature and is a circumstance that goes against him. State vs Md Faziur Rahman Tonmoy 61 DLR 169.
Section 30-The general principle is that the evidence of an approver should be accepted or rejected as a whole. By making a departure from established legal principle, the Court below acquitted Babu on some untenable and unsustainable grounds. State vs Md Fazlur Rahman Tonmoy 61 DLR 169.
Section 30—The confession of an accused person against a co-accused is not evidence in the ordinary sense of the term. Such a confession can only be used to lend assurance to other evidence against a co-accused. The judge may call in aid the confession and use it to lend assurance to the other evidence. Khalil vs State 62 DLR 309.
Section 30—Confession of a co-accused can-not be the sole basis to convict the other of the co-accused, in absence of other corroborative evidence. Nuru Miah vs State 63 DLR 242.
Section 30—Confession of a co-accused cannot be resorted to under any guise as substantial evidence to convict another but may be used as a relevant fact only to lend assurance to any other evidence. State vs Moksed Ali 63 DLR 346.
Sections 30 & 3—Confession of co-accused —The confession of an accused is no evidence against the coaccused. Such confession cannot be taken into consideration against his coaccused and it can only be used to lend assurance to other legal evidence. But in the absence of any substantive evidence the confession of a coaccused is of no consequence against other accused persons. State vs Tajul Islam 48 DLR 306.
Sections 30 & 3—It is true confession of an accused may be used as against other co-accused in the same trial. But this is for a limited purpose. Confession of a coaccused itself is not evidence but it may be used, as such, if it is found to be true and voluntary as against other co-accused not as a solitary basis but for the purpose of lending assurance to any other evidence found against him. Abul Hossain vs State 46 DLR 77.
Sections 30 & 3—Since the confessional statement is not required to be taken on oath and taken in presence of a coaccused and not tested by cross-examination it cannot be considered as substantive evidence against the co-accused. Mojibar vs State 51 DLR 507.
Sections 30 and 114(b)—Court may take into consideration the confessional statement of a co-accused under section 30 of the Act against the one who did not confess but an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless he is corroborated in material particulars. Nazrul Islam vs State 45 DLR 142.
Section 32—There appears some vagueness in the alleged verbal dying declaration and that is why before relying upon such dying declaration it is the rule of prudence that necessitates the corroboration of the same by reliable evidence Gadu Miah vs State 44 DLR 246.
Section 32—Expectation of imminent death is not a requirement for treating the declaration as a dying declaration. What is relevant is whether the declaration is voluntary or under pressure from any outside quarter. Conviction can be based on such declaration. Nurjahan Begum vs State 40 DLR 321.
Section 32—Dying declaration—If it stands the normal test for judging its veracity it becomes a wholly reliable piece of evidence, but if it does not, it is far worse than an ordinary statement of a witness. The value of dying declaration depends in a case on its own facts and the circumstances in which it is made.
If a dying declaration is found to be false in material particulars it must re-act on its genuineness as a whole because in the case of dying declaration the veracity of the contents is presumed on the basis that it happens to be the words of a dying man, who on normal human behaviour would not at the close of his life like to tell a lie. Therefore, if a single matter is introduced in the dying statement which has a bearing on the result of the case and is found to be false, it will hit the whole dying declaration. It cannot then be said that it is the statement of a truthful person who has made the statement in realisation of his obligations to adhere to the truth while he is quitting his worldly existence to join his Creator, to Whom he is answerable for his deeds. Babu vs State 45 DLR 79.
Section 32—Hearsay evidence—The witness stated that he had heard from the deceased that the accused hired his van and were taking him to Jessore. This part of the evidence, though hearsay, is admissible in evidence being circumstances of the transaction resulting in the death of the deceased. Abul Kashem vs State 42 DLR 378.
Section 32—Dying declaration—Conditions to act upon such declaration—The court is to see whether the victim had the physical capability of making such a declaration, whether witnesses who had heard the deceased making such statement heard it correctly, whether they reproduced names of assailants correctly and whether the maker of the declaration had an opportunity to recognise the assailants. Hafizuddin vs State 42 DLR 397.
Section 32—Dying declaration—A dying man incapable of making any statement may by some gesture, sign or symbol express something which may be interpreted as his statements admissible under the law. But it is to be seen whether his expressions intrinsically ring true or not.
Dying declaration may be judged from several standpoints; whether the victim had physical capacity to recognise the assailant or whether he had the opportunity to recognize the assailant or whether there is any chance ofmistake as to the identity of the assailant or whether it was free from outside prompting and lastly, if the evidence could be relied upon under the given facts and circumstances of the case. A Alim vs State 45 DLR 43.
Section 32—It is not required for a dying declaration that the maker should be in expectation of his immediate death nor it is restricted to homicidal death. Humayun Matubbar vs State 51 DLR 433
Section 32—There is nothing in the evidence that after recording the dying declaration in English any person present at the time of recording of dying declaration translated the same in Bengali and that explained the statement to the maker and that the maker admitted the correctness of the same. This being the position the correctness of the dying declaration is very much doubtful. State vs Babul Hossain 52 DLR 400.
Section 32—To make the Dying declaration the basis for sentencing an accused to death or any other sentence the same is required to be found reliable. State vs Babul Hossain 52 DLR 400.
Section 32—An injured person under the impediment of death, while making oral or written dying declaration, will not falsely implicate even the persons inimical to him. Miloon @ Shahabuddin Ahmed vs State 53 DLR 464.
Section 32—The first information report is a matter of special importance when its maker died shortly after he made it. The FIR is clearly admissible in evidence. This may also be treated as a dying declaration in view of the fact that victim himself dictated the ejahar at a time when his condition was really critical. State vs Rashid Ahmed 54 DLR 333.
Section 32—If the Court can unhesitatingly accept it and act upon it, a dying declaration by itself can form the basis of conviction under given circumstances. State vs Rashid Ahmed 54 DLR 333.
Section 32—Identification by torch light or hurricane light, at dead of night is not sufficient unless the distance is in close proximity and when there is a background of enmity and the witnesses are chance witnesses and not natural witnessess and natural and independent witnesses were not produced, it is unsafe to rely on the chance witnesses to connect the accused with the crime. Nepoleon Khondker alias Lepu vs State 54 DLR 386.
Section 32—The dying declaration of victim has not been reduced to writing, yet when it has been proved by overwhelming ocular evidence to prove the guilt of accused appellant, the dying declaration of victim itself stands out as a strong piece of evidence proving the guilt of the appellant. Salim vs State 54 DLR 359.
Section 32—When a dying declaration of the victim is stated by the witnesses and the declaration is not taken exactly in the own words of the deceased, but is merely a note of the substance of what had stated, it cannot be safely accepted as a sufficient basis for conviction. State vs Kabel Molla 55 DLR 108.
Section 32—A dying declaration enjoins almost a sacrosanct status as a piece of evidence as it comes from the mouth of a person who is about to die and at that stage he is not likely to make a false statement. Court’s duty is to scrutinise the statement and to separate grain from the chaff of the said statement. Babul Sikder and others vs State represented by the DC 56 DLR 174.
Section 32—Dying declaration—If the dying declaration is acceptable as true conviction can be based upon the dying declaration alone in the absence of corroborative evidence on record. State vs Abdul Hatem 56 DLR 431.
Section 32—A dying declaration may be recorded by any person who is available and it may be written or it may be verbal; it may also be indicated by signs and gestures, in answer to questions, if the person making it is not in a position to speak. There is no requirement of law that a dying declaration should be recorded by a Magistrate as in the case of the confessional statement of an accused under section 164(3) CrPC. Sahabuddin vs State 61 DLR 54.
Section 32—Dying Declaration—In the absence of a medical certification that the injured was in a fit state of mind at the time of making the declaration, it would be very much risky to accept the subjective satisfaction of a Magistrate who opined that the injured was in a fit state of mind at the time of making declaration. Sahabuddin vs State 61 DLR 54.
Section 32—Dying Declaration—Dr Kamrul Ahsan had not been produced in the Court by prosecution and he was withheld. In the event of his offering evidence in support of Dying Declaration, fitness of deceased Shah Alam Babul and his capability to make declaration could be tested by way of cross-examination. Sahabuddin vs State 61 DLR 54.
Sections 32 and 157—The evidence of the doctors and the report of the postmortem examination cannot be substantive evidence, but can only be corroborative evidence. Uzzal alias Elias Hossain vs State 59 DLR 505.
Sections 32 & 157—A fundamental rule in the law of evidence is that in any given case the evidence must be direct and to that extent the rule against hearsay is an exclusionary rule. The hearsay rule excludes evidence because the evidence given in Court is not direct evidence. The main reason for excluding such evidence, inter alia, is that the person who is said to have made the statement is not before the Court and cannot be subjected to cross-examination and thus the veracity of that statement could not be tested. Uzzal alias Elias Hossain vs State 59 DLR 505.
Section 32(1)—Unless the dying declaration as compared to other evidence appears to be true, it cannot by itself form the basis of conviction of the accused. State vs Tota Mia 51 DLR 244.
Section 32(1)—Deceased Shajneen, on two occasions, reactd sharply against conduct of culprit Hasan. Her utterances made then unfold a bitter relationship between her and Hasan. Such reactions of Shajneen a few hours before the occurrence are admissible in evidence. These facts fall in the category of “statement” of the deceased “as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in her death”. The proximity of the reaction are relevant and therefore falls under the purview of section 32(1) Evidence Act. State vs Shahidul Islam alias Shahid 58 DLR 545.
Section 32(1)—Conspiracy is a secretive activity and it can hardly be seen. It may be perceived and may also be inferred from the circumstances of a particular case. State vs Shahidul Islam alias Shahid 58 DLR 545.
Section 32(1)—Dying declaration need not be identical and of the same but if substance of the same fulfils other conditions to act upon such declaration, then it is admissible in evidence. A detailed statement cannot necessarily lead to the inference that the statement is fabricated one. It is now well settled that a dying declaration, oral or written, when established as true can form the sole basis of conviction. State vs Moinul Hoque 60 DLR 298.
Section 32(1)—Dying declaration—Its probative value (by majority): A dying declaration although a piece of substantive evidence has always been viewed with some degree of caution as the matter is not liable to cross-examination. It stands on the same footing as any other piece of evidence and has to be judged in the light of surrounding circumstances and common human experience. When there is a record of such statement of the deceased the Court has to satisfy itself, in the first place, as to the genuineness of the same keeping in view all the evidence and circumstances in which the statement of the deceased was said to have been recorded. The alleged dying declaration, the only piece of evidence against the appellant, having not been free from reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Sk Shamsur Rahman vs State 42 DLR (AD) 200.
Section 32(1)—Dying declaration— Statement of a person about the cause of his death or circumstances leading to his death is substantive evidence under section 32(1) of the Evidence Act—If found reliable, it may by itself be basis for conviction even without corroboration. Statement falling under section 32(1) of the Evidence Act is called a “dying declaration” in ordinary parlance—A dying declaration may be recorded by any person who is available and it may be written or it may be verbal or it may be indicated by signs and gestures in answer to questions even—There is no requirement of law that a dying declaration should be recorded by a Magistrate as in the case of the confessional statement of an accused under section 164(3) CrPC. Nurjahan Begum vs State 42 DLR (AD) 130.
Section 32(1)—Legislature in its wisdom has put a dying declaration at par with evidence on oath for the simple reason that a man under the apprehension of death is not likely to speak falsehood and involve innocent persons in preference to his assailant. When a Probationer Officer actually recorded the statement in presence of, and under the observation of the Superior Officer (PW 9), there was hardly any wrong in his Evidence that he recorded it in presence of the witnesses. Nurfahan Begum vs State 42 DLR (AD) 130.
Section 33—When the concerned witness could not be produced in the dock for further cross-examination for the fault of the accused it cannot be said that the evidence of the witness is inadmissible. Bakul vs State 47 DLR 486.
Section 33—A case of prejudice likely to be suffered by an accused must depend on the facts of the case and no universal straitjacket formula would be laid down that non-examination of investigating officer per se vitiates a criminal trial. Babul Sikder and others vs State represented by the DC 56 DLR 174.
Section 33—Relevancy of evidence—Right and opportunity to cross-examine—It is the right to cross-examine and not the exercise of such right that is material for the purpose of application of the provision under section 33 Evidence Act. Shaikh Baharul Islam vs State 43 DLR 336.
Section 33—Evidence of the recording Magistrate was not placed before the trial Court under section 33 of the Evidence Act—Hence this cannot be used as evidence. But that statement of the Magistrate recorded in the earlier case cannot be taken into consideration in this case as it was not recorded in the presence of accused appellant and also because he did not have the opportunity to cross-examine the said Magistrate. This appellant was then a witness. So the evidence of the recording Magistrate cannot be considered in this case and the confessional statement cannot also be used against the appellant. Angur vs State 41 DLR 66.
Section 33—Burden of proof—Prosecution to discharge its burden by producing unimpeachable evidence of reliable witnesses—Benefit of doubt goes to the accused if doubt arises. State vs Manik Bala 41 DLR 435.
Section 34—It was incumbent on the Courts below to properly scrutinise the material circumstances for determining whether the chain of circumstantial evidence is so complete as to lead to the only conclusion of the appellant’s guilt. Osman Gani vs State 54 DLR (AD) 34.
Section 34—Circumstantial evidence— When such evidence can be relied upon—Circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution must be cogent, succinct and reliable. The circumstances must be of an incriminating nature or character. All the proved circumstances must unequivocally point to the guilt of the accused and exclude any hypothesis consistent with his innocence. Mostain Mollah vs State 44 DLR 295.
Section 34—The exception taken by the Counsel for non-examination of all or reasonable number of witnesses cited in the prosecution report is of no merit since it is for the prosecution to decide amongst the cited witnesses how many it will examine for establishing its case against the accused persons. Zahed Ali Foreman (Driver) vs State 56 DLR (AD) 29.
Section 34—Circumstantial evidence—In a case based on circumstantial evidence before any hypothesis of guilt is drawn up on the circumstances the legal requirement is to prove the circumstances themselves like any other fact beyond reasonable doubt. State vs Resalder Moslemuddin 61 DLR 310.
Section 35—A seizure list, a post mortem report, a confessional statement recorded under section 164 of the CrPC or any statement of any person recorded under section 161 of the Code not being in public or other official book, register or record, they are not admissible under section 35 of the Evidence Act. State vs Ershad Ali Sikder 56 DLR 185.
Section 45-Medical evidence is only corroborative in nature—Ocular evidence of the eyewitness which substantially corroborates the major injuries on the person of the deceased must be accepted. Abdul Quddus vs State 43 DLR (AD) 234.
Section 45-Deposition of a doctor giving certain opinion formed by examining certain facts is not an absolute truth. Abdur Rahman Syed vs State 44 DLR 556.
Section 45-The opinion of a doctor, unless supported by reliable evidence, does not carry any value. Siraj Mal vs State 45 DLR 688.
Section 45-Opinion of expert—evidence and opinion of expert deserve consideration like any other evidence but such evidence has to be received with great caution. Sheikh Salimuddin vs Ataur Rahman 43 DLR 18.
Section 45—The High Court Division rightly found that it was unsafe to convict the accused persons on the uncorroborated opinion of handwriting and fingerprint expert. State vs Raihan Ali Khandker 50 DLR (AD) 23.
Section 45—The Court was not justified in convicting the accused without examination and comparison of the disputed signature on the back of the cheque by handwriting expert with his specimen signatures. Khadem Ali Akand vs State 49 DLR 441.
Section 45—Naither the finger prints forwarded to the expert were taken as per order nor in presence of the Court. Under the facts and circumstances conviction based solely on expert report is liable to be set aside. Sobha Rani Biswas vs State 52 DLR 293.
Section 45—Medical evidence, is only corroborative in nature, the ocular evidence of the eye-witness which substantially corroborates the major injuries on the person of the deceased be accepted. State vs Md Shamim alias Shamim Sikder 53 DLR 439.
Section 45—Where the direct evidence is not supported by expert evidence, and evidence is wanting in the most material part of prosecution case it would be difficult to convict the accused on the basis of such evidence. Nepoleon Khondker alias Lepu vs State 54 DLR 386.
Section 45—Medical evidence—The material obtained on the swab must be preserved and forwarded for examination by the expert for the presence of human spermatozoa which is a positive sign of rape. It seems that the doctor examined the external part of the injuries of vagina and failed to make detail dissection so as to ascertain to prove the actual occurrence of rape. State vs Harish 54 DLR 473.
Section 45—The evidence of an expert cannot alone be treated and used to form basis to find an accused guilty and to form basis of his conviction independent of the substantive evidence of the PWs in the case. Kalu Sheikh alias Kalam Sheikh and others vs State 54 DLR 502.
Sections 45 & 73—The expert’s opinion is not a substantive piece of evidence. The Courts below were quite competent to arrive at their own conclusion as to whether or not the signatures appearing on Ext 3 series were those of the petitioner. Nurul Huq alias Md Nurul Hoque vs State 50 DLR (AD) 88.
Section 55—It is necessary that the testimony of interested witness must be viewed with high decree of caution and the Court should also look for independent corroboration. Pashan Ali vs State 60 DLR 602.
Sections 57 & 60—The Appellate Division will set no example before the Courts to make reference to booklets of unknown origin. State vs Abdul Khaleque alias Abdul Khaleq Howlader 49 DLR (AD) 154.
Section 60—There is no evidence that the victim made any statement as regard the incident to anybody other than PW 8. So the claim of PW 4 that victim stated to him about the incident of setting fire in her body by the condemned convicts can hardly be considered reliable. State vs Babul Hossain 52 DLR 400.
Section 60—PW 1 has not implicated the accused with any overt act on the basis of charge but reiterated the statement as to derivative knowledge of involvement as mentioned in the FIR and in the charge-sheet which is an inadmissible evidence. State vs Lieutenant Colonel Syed Farook Rahman 53 DLR 287.
Section 60—Hearsay evidence—In the absence of examination of Abdus Sattar, the Evidence of PW I narrating the story as was told by the former is inadmissible in evidence. Akhtar Hossain vs State 44 DLR 83.
Section 65—Newspaper report cannot be admitted into evidence unless the correspondent of such a report comes to the witness box to vouchsafe in support of the report on oath. Osena Begum alias Babuler Ma vs State 55 DLR 299.
Secitons 67 and 68—Registration, attaches a statutory presumption which extends to the registration of the deed only. Such presumptiinis never intended to extend to the genuineness of the transaction or to prove execution andlor recitals in the deed. Kamaluddin vs Md Abdul Aziz 56 DLR 485.
Sections 73 & 45—The expert’s opinion is not a substantive piece of evidence. The Courts beLow were quite competent to arrive at their own conclusion as to whether or not the signatures appearing on Ext 3 series were those of the petitioner. Nurul Huq alias Md Nurul Hoque vs State 50 DLR (AD) 88.
Section 80—Non-examination of the Magistrate who conducted the TI parade renders the memorandum drawn by him inadmissible as it is not a judicial proceeding and that cannot be presumed genuine unless proved by the evidence. Mizanur Rahman vs State 49 DLR 83.
Section 80—It is not always necessary that the Magistrate who recorded the confessional statement should be produced in Court as a witness. Section 80 provides that even without production of the Magistrate such statement may be taken into consideration and presumed to be genuine. Abul Khayer vs State 46 DLR 212.
Section 80—It dispenses with the necessity of a formal proof of a confession duly recorded by a Magistrate in accordance with the provisions of section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In such a case the examination of the recording Magistrate is not imperative. State vs Tajul Islam 48 DLR 305.
Section 80—It was injudicious to rely upon confession without calling the Magistrate as a witness. The Court is required to see not only that the forms under sections 164 and 264 CrPC were complied with but the substance underneath the law equally adhered to. Bimal Chandra Das vs State 51 DLR 466.
Section 80—Presumption as to confession— Even though provision is there for making certain presumption in respect of a confession by an accused person produced before a Court taken in accordance with law and purporting to be signed by a Magistrate, having regard to the acts of the case it was injudicious to rely upon such confession without calling the Magistrate as a witness. In respect of a confession the Court is required to see not only that the forms under sections 164 and 364 CrPC were complied with but the substance underneath the law was equally adhered to—There must not be any reason for doubt as to the truth of he statements, be it circumstantial or proved otherwise. In this particular case it is difficult to deny accused appellants an opportunity to cross-examine the Magistrate who allegedly recorded their statements. Babul vs State 42 DLR (AD) 186.
Section 80—In the attending facts and circumstances of the case when the veracity of the confessional statement is questionable, the same enjoys no presumption of correctness under section 80 of the Evidence Act. Belal alias Bellal vs State 54 DLR 80.
Section 80—High Court Division wrongly applied the provisions of section 80 to admit into evidence a statement of a witness recorded under section 164 during investigation stage and not in a judicial proceeding. Hossain @ Foran Miah vs State 56 DLR (AD) 213.
Section 80—It is true no child was produced and examined by the prosecution during trial by the defence but it does not render the prosecution unbelievable as contended. In this case, factum of release of child Feroze and Emran in the custody of their mother, and release of child Haider to his father on their production before the Magistrate, Dinajpur by order dated 5-6-97 is a matter of record and this fact has not been challenged by the defence. As such, Courts shall presume the correctness of the record until the contrary is established according to the provision of section 80 of the Evidence Act. Naimuddin vs State 59 DLR 314.
Section 80-The Court is required to see not only that the forms under sections 164 and 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were complied with but the substance underneath was equally adhered to. There must not be any reason for doubt as to the truth of the statements, be it circumstantial or proved otherwise. In the circumstances it is difficult to deny the accused an opportunity to cross-examine the Magistrate who allegedly recorded the statements. Sadeque vs State 61 DLR 498.
Section 101—Even if the defence fails to establish its case that will not make the prosecution case proved as the burden of proof on the prosecution never shifts. Shadat Ali vs State 44 DLR 217.
Sections 101 & 106—Since no special knowledge of the relevant fact as to committing of the crime could be attributed to the accused the provisions of sections 101 & 106 of the Evidence Act have no applicability in the case. Kawsarun Nessa vs State 48 DLR 196.
Sections 101 & 106—Section 106 does not relieve the prosecution of the duty to discharge its onus of proving a case as has been imposed by section 101 of the Evidence Act. Shahjahan Talukder Manik vs State 47 DLR 198.
Section 102—There is no further burden of proof when the assertion of PW 1 remains unchallenged. Ratan Kha vs State 40 DLR 186.
Section 102—Burden of proof—Wrong allocation of burden of proof on the accused appellants to prove their innocence is a dangerous proposition—Conviction cannot be based on materials produced by prosecution. Abdul Khaleque vs State 41 DLR 349.
Section 102—In the instant case the defence has taken the alibi that the victim Jesmin loved Pashan Ali and she went to him and married him having registered kabinnama. When the accused has taken the plea of alibi, in such case the burden of proof lies on the appellatnt who substantially asserts that the victim Jesmin loved him and she went with him voluntarily. Pashan Ali vs State 60 DLR 602.
Section 103—Since the defence asserted that while the informant attempted to assault his wife, then the victim went to save her and at that time the informant pushed the victim down from varanda to courtyard whereby he was injured. As per the provision of this section, the defence is to prove this alibi. Sheikh Abdul Quddus vs Akram Sheikh @ Akram 57 DLR 650.
Section 103—Burden of proof—Act of sodomy is not done in presence of others who might be eye-witness—But prosecution is not absolved of the burden of proving the offence. Nur Mohammed vs State 41 DLR 301.
Section 103—Burden of proof heavily lies on the prosecution to prove the alleged act by reliable and convincing evidence. Nur Mohammed vs State 41 DLR 301.
Section 103—Burden of establishing the guilt of the accused—Prosecution to prove every link in the chain of evidence to connect the appellant with the crime. Nasir Ahmed vs State 42 DLR 89.
Sections 103 & 106—Burden of proving alibi in wife-killing case—It is true that the burden of proving a plea of alibi or any other plea specifically set up by an accused-husband for absolving him of criminal liability lies on him. But this burden is somewhat lighter than that of the prosecution. The accused could be considered to have discharged his burden if he succeeds in creating a reasonable belief in the existence of circumstances that would absolve him of criminal liability, but the prosecution is to discharge its burden by establishing the guilt of the accused. An accused’s burden is lighter, because the court is to consider his plea only after, and not before, the proseciii leads evidence for sustaining a conviction. When the prosecution failed to prove that the husband was in his house where his wife was murdered, he cannot be saddled with any onus to prove his innocence. State vs Mafuzzal Hossain Pramanik 43 DLR (AD) 64A.
Section 105—Where the testimony of witnesses are mere hearsay, the case becomes one of no evidence against the, appellant. The appellant cannot be convicted merely on hearsay evidence as the hearsay evidence has no basis and the Court of law cannot rely on the hearsay evidence. Abdul Hannan vs State 60 DLR 590.
Section 105—An act of a person of unsound mind, who at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of his mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, is not an offence. The burden to prove insanity lies upon the defence. State vs Nazrul Islam @ Nazrul 57 DLR 289.
Section 105-If the accused wants to bring his acts within any one or more of the general exceptions enumerated in Chapter IV of the Penal Code, it is for him to prove that his acts are so covered under any of those general exceptions. Nikhil Chandra Halder vs State 54 DLR 148.
Section 105-The burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within the exception lies on the accused. State vs Abdus Samad @ Samad Ali 54 DLR 590.
Section 105-Accused’s pleading of self defence need not be proved if he establishes facts which on the test of preponderance of probabilities makes his defence acceptable. Hasan Rony vs State 56 DLR 580.
Section 105-Burden of Proof—In criminal law, the onus of establishing all the ingredients, which could make a criminal offence, lies always on the prosecution and this burden never shifts upon the accused. Hasan Rony vs State 56 DLR 580.
Section 105—Section 105, Evidence Act casts a burden upon the accused to prove the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any special exception or proviso contained in any other part of the Penal Code. There has been complete failure on the part of the defence to prove those circumstances. Abdul Majid Sarkar vs State 40 DLR (AD) 83.
Section 105—Even if the accused is not able to substantiate his defence by producing evidence yet if his version gets support from the prosecution to the extent of being reasonably possible, then the accused is certainly entitled to acquittal. State vs Md Shahjahan 58 DLR 203.
Section 105—Defence plea—There is a basic rule of criminal jurisprudence that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in a case f circumstantial evidence, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the Court should adopt the view favourable to the accused. If we consider the entire evidence we can safely conclude that the prosecution has totally failed to prove its case, moreso, the version put forward by the defence has a reasonable possibility of being true. Hence the accused is entitled to get benefit of doubt, not as a matter of grace but as a matter of right. Atahar vs State 62 DLR 302.
Section 106—Alibi—Since the prosecution hopelessly failed to prove the minimum requirement of presence of the accused in his house at the time when his wife was killed there is no obligation on the part of the defence to prove the alibi. Abdul Mannan alias Mona Miah vs State 58 DLR 91.
Section 106-Husband of the deceased was found absconding without any explanation. He neither gave any information to the police nor to his mother-in-law that her daughter has died or to any local people. He thus failed to fulfil the requirement of law and the natural expectation about the cause of death of his wife. Joynal Bhuiyan vs State 52 DLR 179.
Section 106-Burden of proof—Section 106 fixes the liability of proving the facts on the accused when the same is especially within his knowledge. Shaikh Baharul Islam vs State 43 DLR 336.
Section 106-The murder having taken place while the accused was living with his wife in the same house, the accused husband under section 106 of the Evidence Act is under obligation to explain how his wife had met with her death. In absence of any explanation coming from his side, none other than the accused husband was responsible for causing such death. Sudhir Kumar Das vs State 60 DLR 261.
Section 106-The burden of proving the plea of alibi is on the accused person. Helal vs State 60 DLR 24.
Section 106—In the absence of evidence as to the presence of the condemned-petitioner in the occurrence house with his family, the condemned petitioner cannot be taken to be liable to prove the fact as to how his wife and 3(three) year old daughter met their death by invoking section 106 of the Evidence Act. The onus of proof that it was the condemned petitioner and none else who killed his wife and daughter was all along on the prosecution and it never shifted on the condemned petitioner in the absence of any proof beyond reasonable doubt that he was present in the occurrence house when the occurrence took place. Hasan Malik vs State 61 DLR 303.
Section 106—The definite and specific defence plea being within the special knowledge of the accused a burden was cast upon him to discharge it, more so, when the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused by convincing and overwhelming evidence. Jamal Uddin alias Md Jamal Uddin vs State 52 DLR 330.
Section 106—Section 106 Evidence Act is attracted in exceptional cases where a relevant fact is pre-eminently within the knowledge of the accused. Hasmat Ali vs State 53 DLR 169.
Section 106—In a case where the wife is proved to have died of assault in the house of the husband there would be strong suspicion against the husband that at his hand the wife died. To make the husband liable the minimum fact that must be brought on record either by direct or circumstantial evidence is that he was present in the house at the material time. Hasmat Ali vs State 53 DLR 169.
Section 106-The recovery of the bloodstained axe and lungi belonging to the convict constituted a strong circumstantial evidence, con-clusive enough so as not to admit any hypothesis of his innocence. Hasmat Ali vs State 53 DLR 169.
Section 106—Joynur was strangulated to death while living with her husband Kalam in the same house—In view of such circumstances the husband is under obligation to explain the death. Abul Kalam vs State 59 DLR 61
Section 106-in the absence of evidence as to the presence of the condemned-petitioner in the occurrence house with his family the condemned- petitioner cannot be taken to be liable to prove the fact as to how his wife and 3(three) year old daughter met their death. Mukter Hossain Khan vs State 60 DLR (AD) 44.
Section 106—Normally, there is no burden on the accused to offer the reason of death of a person for which he is tried. But when the deceased is living with the accused in the same house he is to explain how the death occurred. State vs Khandker Zillul Bari 57 DLR (AD) 129.
Section 106—Presence of the accused in the house at the material time is not disputed. No plea of alibi has been taken. Moreover, presence of the accused at the material time is supported by the evidence on record. The death of the deceased was in the special knowledge of the accused. State vs Azam Reza 62 DLR 399.
Section 114—There is always a presumption that government action is in public interest. The Court will not easily assume the action taken by the government is unreasonable or without public interest. It is for the party challenging authority to show that it is wanting in public interest. This burden is heavy and has to be discharged by the party concerned. Akramuzzaman vs Bangladesh 52 DLR 209.
Section 114—Tendering of vital witness amounts to withholding of material witnesses and adverse presumption ought to have been drawn against the prosecution. Hobi Sheikh vs State 56 DLR 383.
Section 114—If the defence version lends support from the prosecution witnesses in course of their cross-examination or any indication is inferred in course of their cross-examination, the accused is entitled to get the benefit of doubt. State vs Nazrul Islam @ Nazrul 57 DLR 289.
Section 114(g)—The prosecution ought to gave examined the investigating officer as a witness to dispel the mystery around the two charge-sheets on the self-same occurrence, although for non-examination of investigating officer prosecution case will not fail in every case. Abdus Sobahan Howlader vs State 45 DLR (AD) 134.
Section 114(g)-The principle laid down in the said case along with the provision of 114(g) of the Evidence Act is applicable in the present case where the prosecution suffers for non-examination of disinterested and independent witnesses as though the occurrence is alleged to have taken place in the broad day light on the busy pathway. Alamgir Hossain vs State 49 DLR 590.
Section 114(g)—Nonexamination of independent witnesses, especially some of the close neighbours calls for a presumption against the prosecution. This view finds support from the case reported in 25 DLR 398. Kawsarun Nessa vs State 48 DLR 196.
Section 114(g)—The Deputy Attorney- General could not offer any explanation for non- filing of the GD Entry nor could he controvert the argument of the defence lawyer regarding leaving of the police station by the police personnel for arrest of a dacoit without any command certificate and any arms whatsoever. Nor the prosecution could offer any explanation regarding non- examination of the SI, a vital witness in the case. All these facts create a strong doubt about the truth of the prosecution story. State vs Mukul @ Swapan 58 DLR 40.
Section 114(g)-Withholding of chargesheet witnesses—In a case where there is no eyewitness or circumstantial evidence, it is essential that nextdoor neighbours or those living near the place of occurrence be examined. Momin alias Md Mominul Huq vs State 48 DLR 282.
Section 114(g)—Witnesses, as Bantham said, are eyes and ears of justice. Non-examination of material witnesses shall give rise to a strong presumption against prosecution case. Kazi Mahbubuddin Ahmed alias Mahbub vs State, represented by the DC, Dhaka 57 DLR 513.
Section 114(g)—When an action is taken by maintaining a file, the file must be produced to show that the act was done properly. As the relevant file has been withheld in this case presumption under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act shall apply. Chowdhury Mahmood Hasan vs Bangladesh 4 DLR 537.
Section 114(g)-Benefit of doubt—It was the failure on the part of the investigating officer to detect all the 5 assailants who had entered inside the jail, otherwise. none of them could deserve any sort of lenient attitude from the Court because of their involvement in such a horrendous crime, but these 2 condemned prisoners namely Dafader Marfat Ali Shah and LD Dafader Abul Hashem Mridha cannot be connected with the crime beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the two condemned prisoners are entitled to be acquitted on the principle of benefit of doubt. State vs Resalder Moslem uddin 61 DLR 310.
Section 114(g)—Defence was obviously deprived of scope to cross-examine investigation officer on vital aspects and it is obvious that defence was prejudiced seriously due to non- examination of the investigation officer. Prosecution offered no explanation as to non- examination of some CS witnesses including investigation officer and it will give rise to presumption under section 114G Evidence Act. Mokbul Hossain vs State 55 DLR 396.
Section 114(g)-Non-examination of the maids, driver and security guards of the house of the accused and the key maker is not fatal for the prosecution in the case. It cannot be expected that they will give evidence against the accused. Moreover, the accused in order to discharge his obligation could examine them. All of them are his men. But he did not do so. No adverse presumption against the prosecution should be drawn for their non-examination by the prosecution. State vs Azam Reza 62 DLR 399.
Section 114(g)—Benefit of doubt—High Court Division has committed fundamental error in giving the accused the benefit of doubt despite the fact that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge beyond shadow of doubt. State vs Keramat Ali 63 DLR (AD) 102.
Seciton 115—Mere offer and decline to offer do not constitute any waiver in law in order to act as an estoppel to deny preemption. Kamaluddin and others vs Md Abdul Aziz and others 56 DLR 485.
Section 115—If any wrong is committed by one political party—Government the another political party—Government cannot be estoppels to rectify that wrong. Begum Khaleda Zia vs Government of Bangladesh 63 DLR 385.
Section 115—Estoppel—The doctrine of estoppel cannot be pressed into service for the simple reason that there cannot be any estoppel against law. Bangladesh vs Abdul Aziz 63 DLR 405.
Section 118—Even a child witness can be relied on if he/she is capable of understanding and replying to the question intelligently. Abdul Quddus vs State 43 DLR (AD) 234.
Section 118—Child witness, competency of—PWs 12 and 13 though of tender age gave intelligent answers to questions and were found to be natural and normal witnesses. Person who can understand questions and can give rational answers to them is a competent witness. Abut Kashem vs State 42 DLR 378.
Section 118—The competence of a child as a witness is beyond question. The only thing that requires to be done is to scrutinise his evidence with care and caution to see whether it suffers from any inconsistency. To base conviction upon his evidence it is prudent to seek corroboration. Gadu Mia vs State 44 DLR 246.
Section 118-All persons, who can understand the questions put to them or can give rational answers to those questions are competent to testify before a Court.
It is not imperative for the Court to subject a child witness to preliminary examination before reception of his evidence. The Court may satisfy itself during the progress of the evidence in Court that the witness is capable of understanding the questions put to him and of giving intelligible reply. In case of such satisfaction, the evidence becomes admissible. It is, desirable that the Court should make an endorsement about its satisfaction. Seraj Miah vs State 49 DLR 192.
Section 118—Though a child witness, PW 2 received injuries in the hands of the appellants when his father was done to death and the witness having testified about the factum of the occurrence and the same having not been shaken in cross-examination, the witness, though a child, should be believed in the facts of the case. Forkan alias Farhad vs State 47 DLR (AD) 149.
Section 118—In a case of carnal offence the prosecution is to be believed in awarding conviction to the offender even without material corroboration, if the victim’s evidence is found believeable and trustworthy and does not suffer from any infirmity and inherent disqualification. Shamsul Haque vs State 52 DLR 255.
Section 119—In case of a witness who is dumb, provisions of section 119 of the Act is applicable. Such witness may make statement in writing or by using signs. But in case of a witness who is both deaf and dumb, there is no scope of giving any evidence, as such, witness cannot hear any question. Morshed (Md). @ Morshed @ Md Morshed Alam vs State 53 DLR 123.
Section 133— In a case where bitter enmity is admitted between the parties it required as a rule of prudence that there should be some such corroboration of the evidence of the interested witness as may inspire confidence in the mind of the court. Abul Kashem vs State 56 DLR 132.
Section 133—This section makes evidence given by a witness in a judicial proceeding admissible in a subsequent judicial proceeding where the question in controversy in both proceedings is identical and where the witness is dead, or cannot be found, or is incapable of giving evidence. State vs Ershad Ali Sikder 56 DLR 185.
Section 133—Though conviction of an accused on the testimony of an accomplice cannot be said to be illegal, Courts will, as a matter of practice, not accept the evidence of such a witness without corroboration in material particulars. State vs Ershad Ali Sikder 56 DLR 305.
Sections 133 and 114(b)—Though the conviction of an accomplice cannot be said to be illegal yet the courts will, as a matter of practice, not accept the evidence of such a witness without corroboration in material particulars. State vs Ershad Ali Sikder 56 DLR 185.
Sections 133 and 114(3)—The combined effect of sections 133 and 114(b) is that though a conviction based upon accomplice’s evidence is legal, the Court will not accept such evidence unless it is corroborated in material particulars. The corroboration must connect the accused with the crime. State vs Ershad Ali Sikder 56 DLR 185.
Sections 133 & 144—Testimony of accomplice—It is dangerous to base a conviction on such evidence alone. The Court almost invariably starts with the presumption against the trustworthiness of the accomplice and unless circumstances are quite exceptional the Court refuses to convict on the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice. Ator Ali vs State 44 DLR 478.
Section 134—In order to convict an accused solely on the basis of a solitary witness like the police officer or the person who made the search and seizure, the Judge must ensure that such witness is disinterested and the evidence is unimpeachable and the other witnesses to the search who are alleged to have resiled from their previous stand are unworthy of credit. Talebur Rahman vs State 49 DLR 167.
Section 134—Even on the basis of a single witness a conviction can be maintained but such a witness must be fully reliable, above reproach and not shaken. Ashok Kumar Saha vs State 46 DLR 229.
Section 134—Law does not require any particular number of witnesses to prove a case and conviction may be weilfounded even on the testimony of a solitary witness provided his credibility is not shaken. AlAmin vs State 51 DLR 154.
Section 134-It is true that under section 134 of the evidence Act conviction can be based on the evidence of a single witness but the evidence of that witness must be of unimpeachable character. Bimal Chandra Das vs State 51 DLR 466.
Section 134-Non-examination of nearby people not fatal to the prosecution case when there are eye-witnesses of the occurrence. Milon @ Shahabuddin Ahmed vs Stale 53 DLR 464.
Section 134—Corroborative evidence is not an imperative component in every case of rape. The rule is not that corroboration is essential before there can be a conviction. Shibu Pada Acharjee vs State 56 DLR 285.
Section 134-The well-known maxim which is a Golden Rule that “evidence has to be weighed and not counted” has been given statutory placement in section 134 of The Evidence Act which provides that no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact. Shibu Pada Acharjee vs State 56 DLR 285.
Section 134—Court as a rule of prudence and caution and in order to exclude every possibility of involvement of innocent person in a case by prosecution along with guilty person or persons always looks for corroboration by some reliable witness to create probable basis for basing conviction. Babul vs State 57 DLR 158.
Section 134-It appears that the accused persons “are daredevils of the locality”. No one was willing to come forward to depose against them. In such circumstances, there should not be insistence that more witnesses should have been examined. Even the quality of the evidence of a single witness is sufficient to prove the case. Sheikh Abdul Quddus vs Akram Sheikh @ Akram 57DLR 650.
Section 134 —From the record it is revealed that 13 other local witnesses did not turn up in the Court despite issuance of all the legal processes. The Additional Sessions Judge has taken the view that their non-appearance will not discredit the evidence of the two reliable eye-witnesses. This is agreeable in view of section 134, of the Evidence Act and the facts and circumstances of the case. Ismail Howlader vs State 58 DLR 335.
Section 134—Conviction can be based on the testimony of even a single witness if his evidence is found reliable and trustworthy. In this case prosecution produced 22 out of the 74 witnesses cited in the charge-sheet and their evidence as discussed found to be reliable and credible for conviction of the accused. State vs Shahidul Islam alias Shahid 58 DLR 545.
Section 134—The accused persons did not deny the occurrence but they denied their participation. Apart from PW 2 and PW 7 there are independent eye-witnesses like PW 6 who appeared at the scene immediately after the occurrence and PW 8 who deposed and corroborated the informant. In the case of Khoka vs State reported in 4 BLC (AD) 86 this Division held that believing only one eye witness conviction is legally permissible and conviction can be based on the sole evidence of only one witness. Zakir Hossain vs State 61 DLR (AD) 70.
Section 134—Even if one prosecution witness is fully reliable then conviction of an accused can be based upon his evidence. Shadat Ali vs State 44 DLR 217.
Section 134—Number of witnesses for proof of fact—It is true in view of section 134 conviction of an accused can be based even upon the evidence of a single witness. But that witness must be wholly reliable. PW 2, the only eyewitness in the present case, in the facts thereof, is not wholly reliable, if not wholly unreliable, and as such sufficient corroboration of her evidence is necessary to base conviction. Ashrafuddin vs State 42 DLR 511.
Section 134—A Judge may convict an accused solely on the basis of the unimpeachable and unshaken evidence of the officer or person who made the search and seizure disbelieving the evidence, if any, of any witnesses of search and seizure holding it to be unworthy of credit. Yunus Ali vs State 61 DLR 793.
Section 134—Number of witnesses— Conviction of the appellants can safely be based on the solitary evidence of the eye-witness PW 1. His evidence is full, complete and self-contained. It may not have received corroboration from other witnesses, but it stands fully corroborated by the circumstances of the case and the medical evidence on record. Its fullness and completeness are enough to justify the conviction. Abdul Hai Sikder vs State 43 DLR (AD) 95.
Section 134-The testimony of the solitary eye-witness could not be shaken in any manner by the defence in cross-examination for which it is difficult to disbelieve her testimony as she narrated the prosecution case in details. Abdul Quddus vs State 43 DLR (AD) 234.
Section 134-Solitary witness—True it is that conviction can be based on a solitary witness and it is not necessary to seek corroboration always from independent sources but in the instant case PWs 1-3 being close relations and their evidence being inconsistent, it is not safe to maintain the conviction. Bulu vs State 45 DLR 79.
Section 134-Recovery of arms and ammunition after hot pursuit of the accused moving with the same—Whether evidence of a single witness without corroboration is sufficient to convict the accused—Victim PW 2 is a disinterested witness and can be relied upon and he has been corroborated in material particulars by the evidence of PWs 1 & 4. Mahbubur Rahman Khan vs State 45 DLR 117.
Section 134-It is not enjoined that the prosecution is to examine certain definite number of witness. Kazi Motiur Rahman vs Din Islam 43 DLR 128.
Section 134—In a case of sexual offence, when the victim girl is a minor, her evidence, if otherwise found to be reliable, may be sufficient for conviction of the accused even without independent corroboration. Siraj Mal vs State 45 DLR 688.
Section 134—Quality and not quantity of evidence is acceptable. There is no impediment in law in conviction being based on the testimony of single witness if it is honest and trustworthy, veracity of eye-witness cannot be doubted unless reason for false implication is given. Ataur Rahman vs State 43 DLR 87.
Section 137—Statements elicited from a witness in cross-examination are a very important part of evidence before a Court Before drawing any inference from the testimony of a witness, the Court must consider the statements made in the examination-in-chief and those made in cross- examination by putting them in juxtaposition and see whether that witness has stood the test. Wajear Rahman Moral vs State 43 DLR (AD) 25.
Section 137—Contention as to facts—The defence cannot make an ingenuous argument that the prosecution story cannot be believed as they did not mention about the connecting doors in between the rooms as the defence did not put any suggestion as to non-existence of the same. Abdul Quddus vs State 43 DLR (AD) 234.
Section 137—Objection to the manner of cross-examination put to PWs 2 and 3 in a lump and similarly to the 10 PW 9—Objection rightly taken when there was no such statement in the examination-in-chief of the witness. Taleb Ali vs State 40 DLR (AD) 240.
Section 137—Court is to consider the evidence of witnesses in their examination-in- chief in juxtaposition with their cross-examination. Abut Khair vs State 55 DLR 437.
Section 137—The wife at the relevant time of occurrence was at her husband’s house and that she is subsequently found dead an obligation is cast upon the defense to account for the circumstances leading to the death of the deceased failing which the husband will be responsible for the death of the deceased. Giasuddin vs State 55 DLR 328.
Section 137—Cross-examination of witnesses is the greatest legal engine for discovery of truth. It is the most effective of all means for extracting truth or falsehood. It is both a sword of attack and a shield of defence. Kazi Mahbubuddin Ahmed alias Mahbub vs State, represented by the DC, Dhaka 57DLR 513.
Section 145—Statements made under section 161 CrPC are not substantive evidence. Such statements can only be utilized under section 162 CrPC to contradict the witness in the manner provided by section 145 of the Evidence Act. Abdus Subhan vs State 46 DLR 387.
Section 145—A statement of a witness recorded under section 161 CrPC couldn’t be used as substantive evidence. It can only be utilised under section 162 CrPC to contradict such witness in the manner provided by section 145 of the Act. State vs Nazrul Islam @ Nazrul 57 DLR 289.
Sections 145, 155 and 157—It appears that the learned Judge solely relying upon the statement of the PWs given before the Magistrate at the time of the judicial inquiry convicted the appellants. Those statements were taken as evidence and on the basis of that statement the convict appellants were awarded conviction. This is absolutely illegal and without jurisdiction, inasmuch as it is not permissible by law to award conviction and sentence on the basis of the statement made during judicial inquiry which is not evidence. Mahatab Gandari vs State 60 DLR 383.
Sections 145 & 155—The trial Court illegally referred to and considered the statements of witnesses recorded under section 161 Criminal procedure Code, which could only be used to contradict or corroborate the witness. Abu Bakker vs State 49 DLR 480.
Sections 145 & 155—Statement of a person recorded under section 164 CrPC is not a substantive piece of evidence of the fact stated therein. Such statements recorded by a Magistrate under section 164 CrPC can only be used for contradicting the maker of it under sections 145 and 155 of the Evidence Act or for the purpose of corroborating him under section 157 of the Act. Seraj Miah vs State 49 DLR 192.
Sections 145 & 155-The Tribunal appears to have used 164 statement of PW 60 as a piece of evidence. This is a gross illegality. Such statement was recorded by the Magistrate behind the back of the accused persons, it can never be used as substantive evidence against them in any way. State vs Kajal Ahmed Jalali 59 DLR 345.
Sections 145 and 157—Statement recorded behind the back of the accused the same cannot be treated as substantive evidence against him. Such statement can be used to corroborate or to contradict a statement made in the court in the manner provided in sections 145 and 157 of the Evidence Act. Hobi Sheikh vs State 56 DLR 383.
Section 146—Mere relationship of the witness should not be a ground for discarding his evidence unless he is found to be biased and lying. Sarwardy Kamal vs State 48 DLR 61.
Section 154—Even if there is some discrepancy in the evidence of a witness with regard to some part of the case, for that his entire evidence on the remaining part should not be discarded. Abdus Sukur Mia vs State 48 DLR 228.
Section 154—Evidence of the witness, who has been declared hostile, would ipso facto not be of any worth for the prosecution, rather if on consideration of the evidence of such kind of witness it is found that evidence on record either has established the case of the prosecution or that prosecution case does not stand scrutiny then whatever order in any respect is made by the Court the same is very much sustainable in law. Mobarak Hossain alias Mobarak vs State 56 DLR (AD) 26.
Section 154—Hostile witness (by minority): The evidence of the two hostile witnesses cannot be rejected in whole or in part but the whole of the evidence so far as it affects both sides must be taken into consideration. Sk Shamsur Rahman vs State 42 DLR (AD) 200.
Section 154—Hostile witness—A witness is not necessarily hostile if he reveals the truth. Established practice, now forming a rule of law, regarding the evidence of a hostile witness is that the whole of his evidence so far as it affects both the parties, favourably or unfavourably, must be considered and the Court which gets the opportunity to observe his demeanour is at liberty to make assessment of the evidence. If corroboration from other sources is available to the evidence of hostile witness, there is no reason why his evidence shall be rejected outright. If the evidence of the hostile witness fits in with the attending circumstances, then it may be accepted and considered along with other evidence. Siddique Munshi vs State 44 DLR (AD) 169.
Sections 154 & 155—The evidence of a witness is not to be rejected either in whole or in part simply because of being cross-examined by the party calling him, but the whole of the evidence as far as it affects both parties, favourable or unfavourable, must be taken into account and assessed like any other evidence. Amir Hossain Dhali vs State 49 DLR 163.
Sections 154 & 155—Evidence by eyewitness—Vital omission in FIR and statement to the Investigation Officer make their substantive evidence unreliable. Babor Ali Molla vs State 44 DLR (AD) 10.
Section 155—Contradictory statement as to the presence of convict Captain Kismat Hashem at Road No. 32 in the house of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman casts a great doubt. State vs Lieutenant Colonel Syed Farook Rahman 53 DLR 287.
Section 155—The prosecution witnesses having not been declared hostile their evidence cannot be discarded only because they are favourable to the accused. State vs MM Rafiqul Hyder 45 DLR (AD) 13.
Section 156—The testimony of the victim of sexual assault is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the Court should find no difficulty in acting on the testimony of a victim of sex crime alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable.
One must remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape no self respecting woman especially a college girl would come forward in a Court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour and dignity such as involved in the commission of rape upon her. The Court must not cling to fossil formula and insist a corroborative testimony, even if, taken as a whole the case spoken to by victims of sex crimes strikes a judicial mind as probable Judicial response to Human Rights cannot be blunted by legal bigotry. AlAmin vs State 51 DLR 154.
Section 157—Absence of corroborative evidence does not necessarily mean lack of legal evidence, Ayub Ali vs Abdul Khaleque 56 DLR 489.
Section 157—Previous statement, use of— The statement of a witness made under section 164 CrPC is meant for binding him down to the statement made during investigation. The defence may use it to contradict the witness, whereas the prosecution may use it to corroborate him when he gives evidence in Court (Per Shahabuddin Ahmed CJ concurred by MR Rahman & ATM Afzal JJ). Abu Taher Chowdhury vs State 42 DLR (AD) 253.