Section 3—
There is complete chain of circumstances that the appellants assaulted deceased victim Biswajit severely and dealt fatal blows causing his death when appellant Gulzar participated in the occurrence most actively and he was found by PW 4 for the last time with the deceased victim when Gulzar was chasing by the eastern side of the khal and the circumstances of the case taken cumulatively are forming a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that the murder of victim Biswajit was committed by the accused appellant Gulzar and his associates and none else.
Gulzar Biswas and others vs State 5 BLC 278.
Section 3—
As the prosecution has failed to prove the motive to commit the heinous offence murder it cannot be said that the six accused persons or all the fourteen inmates of the house are jointly liable for the murder.
Zahirul Alam Kamal and another vs State 1 BLC 325
Section 3—
As the prosecution has failed to prove his case either by direct evidence or by indirect evidence or by any other circumstantial evidence in fixing liability for causing murder of Chapa by a particular inmate or inmates of the house, it is difficult to maintain the conviction and sentence and, as such, the convicts-appellants are entitled to acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt.
Zahirul Alam Kamal and another vs State 1 BLC 325.
Section 3—
As the 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 for which the appellants are given the benefit of doubt.
Nuru and another vs State 1 BLC 582.
Section 3—
Last seen—If the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 are read along with the evidence of PW 5 it is found that the victim Seru Mia was last found in the company of the accused persons including the appellant Md Salim which amply proves strong circumstantial evidence pointing to the guilt of the accused persons for committing the offence of kidnapping of the victim and as such they are guilty of the offence under section 364 of the Penal Code.
Md Selim vs State 4 BLC 261.
Section 3—
When the vital piece of information regarding the condemned prisoner was seen standing and then carrying the victim girl on his shoulder on the bank of the river was not mentioned in the First Information Report lodged by PW 1, 13 days after the incident which belies the evidence of PW 3 regarding happening of such incident and hence the evidence of PWs 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 and 15 cannot be relied on and hence the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the condemned prisoner beyond reasonable doubt and as such he is entitled to get
benefit of doubt and is acquitted.
State vs Syed Habibur Rahman @ Rocket 4 BLC 545.
Section 3—
As the prosecutrix did not sustain any injury on her face, cheeks or breasts at the time of commission of the alleged rape and the Medical Board also did not detect any trace of sexual violence on the two victims the offence under section 376 of the Penal Code is not proved beyond all reasonable doubt for which the appellants are entitled to get benefit of doubt.
Abdul Aziz (Md) and another vs State 2 BLC 630.
Sections 3 & 8—
Admitted enmity between the parties and the absence of corroboration of the evidence of the interested witnesses do not inspire confidence that the prosecution has proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt.
Babu Mollah and ors vs State 4 BLC 559
Section 5—
The evidence of eyewitnesses cannot be discarded on the ground that they are interested witnesses and such evidence is admissible in evidence if they are found to be truthful witnesses and telling the truth.
State vs Ful Mia 5 BLC (AD) 41.
Section 5—
Although PWs 1, 2 and 4 are relations and interested witnesses but near relationship is not enough to discard their testimonies unless there is some internal marks of falsehood in their testimonies. Considering their testimonies it appears that they do not suffer from any defect but the rule of prudence requires corroboration of such evidence where bitter enmity is admitted between the parties when neutral and independent witnesses namely, the PWs 3, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16 and 21 have corroborated them.
Babul Mia and 2 others vs State 5 BLC 197.
Section 5—
When all the PWs being police persons and members of the police force are not disinterested witnesses as they are interested in the result of the case where on some facts with one another, if any, cannot be accepted as independent corroboration as required under law to prove the charge beyond doubt when no independent impartial disinterested neighbour witnesses as required under section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could be examined to prove the recovery and seizure list and also to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt the recovery and seizure of the seized articles from the actual possession and control of the convict appellants who are entitled to get benefit of doubt and also are entitled to get acquitted.
Jewel and another vs State 5 BLC 248.
Sections 5 and 24—
In view of the confessional statement coupled with circumstantial evidence and the evidence of the PWs the prosecution has proved the case of committing double murder by the condemned prisoner which she did intentionally and such intention is apparent from the nature of the injuries proved by PWs 9 and 10 and hence the accused has rightly been convicted under section 302 of the Penal Code by the trial Court.
State vs Romana Begum @ Nomi 5 BLC 332
Sections 5 and 24—
Unretracted inculpatory confessional statement giving a true account of the prosecution case, excepting the allegation of attempt to commit rape on the minor girl but admitting removing the salwar of the minor girl and killing her by throttling, and rape was committed on the. victim girl before she was strangulated as testified by the doctor who held post-mortem examination coupled with extra-judicial confession made in presence of the witnesses on the night of occurrence before arrival of the police is relevant and admissible in evidence when both confessional statement and extra-judicial confession are voluntary and true supporting the prosecution case can form the basis of conviction.
State vs Azad Miah @ Md Azad 5 BLC 304.
Section 6—
What a witness heard from the crowd cannot be the substantive evidence and it can only be used as corroborative evidence, if there is substantive evidence in this respect.
Ashu and 3 others vs State 2 BLC 465.
Sections 6 & 7—
Evidence of the doctor and the two nurses as to the request of stomach-wash made by the persons who brought the deceased to the hospital are admissible in evidence as res gestae and sections 6 and 7, Evidence Act allow it as an exception to hearsay rule.
State vs Yahiya alias Thandu & ors 1 BLC 185
Section 8—
Although the trial Court convicted the appellant only on the ground of his absconsion but mere absconsion cannot always be a circumstance to lead an inference of guilt of the accused as sometimes out of fear, self-respect and to avoid unnecessary harassment even an innocent person remains absconding.
Munsurul Hossain vs State 1 BLC 421.
Section 8—
Subsequent conduct may be considered along with other evidence but it cannot be accepted as ground for awarding conviction in a murder case.
Zahirul Alam Kamal and another vs State 1 BLC 325
Section 8—
Absconding by itself is not conclusive either of guilt or of guilty conscience. The fact that the accused absconded soon after the crime was committed is no evidence by itself and it may only lend weight to other evidence.
Mashuque alias Masauq Ullah vs State 1 BLC 539.
Section 8—
Mere suspicion or absconsion does not prove the prosecution case against any particular accused.
State vs Hasen Ali 4 BLC 582
Section 8—
The prosecution is not bound to prove the motive of the accused persons for committing the crime, for motive is not an ingredient of the offence and if the evidence connecting the accused persons with the crime is unimpeachable in character, they may be held guilty even without proof of their motive.
Babul Mia and 2 others vs State 5BLC 197
Section 8–
The husband wanted to sell 4 ducks belonging to the wife which she kept at her paternal house and on her refusal there was a quarrel between them and the husband assaulted her and also throttled her to death which appears to be the motive for the murder has been well proved.
Fazer Pk (Md) alias Fazer Ali vs State 5 BLC 542.
Section 8—
Although the prosecution is not bound to prove the motive of killing in every case but when any motive is suggested it becomes the duty of the prosecution to prove the same. In the instant case the prosecution has not been able to prove the motive suggested by them.
State vs Sarowaruddin 5 BLC 451.
Section 8–
In a criminal case no motive is necessary for proving the prosecution case.
State vs Hemayet Khan and others 3 BLC 56.
Section
8—
As the condemned prisoner, Gous absconded soon after the occurrence and still he is absconding attracting the provision of illustration (1) of section 8 of the Evidence Act for proving the prosecution case of strong circumstantial evidence of absconsion besides the ocular evidence.
State vs AKM Gousuddin alias MP Gous & others 3 BLC 536.
Section 8–
The conviction of appellant Golam Hossain Pinto as solely based on his absconsion cannot be sustained without corroborative evidence.
Pear Ali Khan alias Pear Ali vs State, represented by the Deputy Commissioner 3 BLC 555.
Section 8—
As there have been sheer enmity, hatred and litigation for three generations between the parties which might have implicated the accused Madris in the case of murder and the old man or leader is often implicated now a days when he possibly is incapable of doing overt act for which he is entitled to get benefit of doubt.
Madris Miah and others vs State 2 BLC 249.
Section 8—
Mere absconsion of an accused without any corroborative evidence as to the offence alleged to have been committed cannot be the basis of conviction for which the appellant is entitled to be acquitted.
Sanaullah vs State 2 BLC 544.
Sections 8, 9 and 134—
As the solitary eye-witness PW 3 who is found to be fully trustworthy and reliable and bing corroborated by PWs 1-2 and 4-7 and the strong circumstances arising out of the conduct of the condemned-accused for his attempt of running away from his house and the place of occurrence and his long continuous absconsion during trial and even thereafter which has proved the charge of murder beyond all reasonable doubt.
State vs Ranjit Kumar Mallik 2 BLC 211.
Sections 8, 24 and 27—
Relying on the inculpatory confessional statement of the condemned prisoner which is found to be true and voluntary and which finds supports from the evidence of the PWs 1, 2 and 6 and also the recovery of the dead bodies of the deceased on the basis of his extra judicial confession can safely be considefed and on that basis his conviction can be maintained when the conduct of the condemned prisoner in not taking any information and steps regarding the missing of his full sister and nephew is a relevant fact to show the conduct of the accused in this regard.
State vs Jashimuddin @ Jaju Mia 5 BLC 210.
Sections 8,43 and 145—
The PWs 4 & 5 contradict each other on material particulars when admittedly the appellant and others are close relations of the victim and other PWs. and admittedly there were litigations and disputes over landed properties when the star accused Kamrul Islam was acquitted by a Bench of the High Court Division disbelieving the prosecution story and there is nothing to disagree with the assessment of evidence and finding reached therein and hence the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is not sustainable in law.
Liton vs State 5 BLC 126.
Sections 8 and 105—
The circumstances are not capable of any other explanation or hypothesis other than the guilt of the husband who is responsible for killing his wife as he failed to explain the reasons for the death of his wife and accordingly the accused husband is found guilty under section 302 of the Penal Code and convicted thereunder and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life.
State vs Eunus Khan 5 BLC 353.
Sections 8 and 105—
Motive—Circumstancial evidence—When the wife of convict appellant died with marks of injuries where her husband and minor children were present but the husband neither informed the police nor did he give any explanation as to the cause of her death and the facts and circumstances are such that the death could not be caused by any other person except the husband and in such circumstances motive is not
necessary.
Farid Ali vs State 4 BLC 27.
Sections 8 and 106—
The prosecution having proved the presence of the convict husband at the place of occurrence house on the night of occurrence, husband of the deceased owes an explanation as to how his wife met her death at his house. Neither the husband called in a physician for treatment of his wife nor did he inform his father-in-law nor any other near relations regarding the occurrence nor was he present at the time of burial of the deceased, he remained absconded even after the delivery of judgment without any cogent explanation is a relevant fact under section 8 of the Evidence Act.
Fazer Pk. (Md) alias Fazer Ali vs State 5 BLC 542.
Section 9—
As the test identification parade was held after about 3 months of the arrest of the accused person and the police officer was present at the scene which diminish the evidentiary value of the test.
State vs Md Musa alias Mussaiya alias Shafir Bap 1 BLC 467.
Sections 9 and 157—
All the TI parades were held after about one year from the date of occurrence and there was a chance for PW. 1 to see the accused persons in court lockup before the identification in the TI parade for which no reliance can be placed on such TI parade and hence the conviction and sentence under section 395 of the Penal Code is not sustainable.
Mirza Abdul Hakim and others vs State S BLC (AD) 21.
Section 24—
Confessional statement of condemned prisoner was recorded on 27-4-89 and he did not retract it from judicial custody but he retracted his judicial confession on 17- 5-89 by filing a typed written petition wherein he failed to state that who had murdered his wife and under what circumstances it had happened, even it did not disclose the story of alleged abduction of his wife by miscreants and her eventual murder by them as alleged in the written statement and such retracted confession can solely form the basis of conviction if it is found voluntary and
true.
State vs Munir and another 1 BLC 345.
Section 24—
Inculpatory part of the confession is separable from its exculpatory part—The inculpatory part of the confession should be placed together with the other evidence to come to the conclusion in respect of the confessing accused person rejectingn the exculpatory part of the confession which is inconsistent with the evidence accepting that part of confession which is consistent with the evidence on record.
State vs Hemayet Khan and others 3 BLC 56.
Section 24—
Although the appellant Hemayet admits in his confessional statement to have kidnapped Bellal from his father’s house but he was arrested on 12-9-93 and his confessional statement was recorded on 23-9- 93 for which no reliance can be placed on such confessional statement.
State vs Hemayet Khan & others 3 BLC 56.
Section 24—
Both the appellants were not assured by the recording Magistrate that whether they made any confessional statements or not they would not be sent back to the police custody but instead they would be sent to the judicial custody and ultimately they were sent to the police custody when the evidence of PWs. 5 and 6 shows that the confessing accused persons were assaulted by the police which comprehensively prove that the confessional statements were the products of torture, intimidation and fear having no evidentiary value.
Nil Ratan Biswas and others vs State 3 BLC 35.
Section 24—
Retracted confession— When confessional statement was recorded taking the condemned prisoner into prolonged police custody such confessional statement was neither voluntary nor true and the belated retraction of such confession will not presume her guilt as no legal assistance was available to the condemned prisoner till the appointment of an Advocate by the State.
Bilkis Ara Begum vs State 4 BLC 386.
Section 24—
Extra-judicial confession— The PWs 7, 9 and 11 having failed to state the exact words of extra judicial confession as alleged to have been made by condemned prisoner cannot be relied upon in the absence of exact words used by the accused person getting aid of corroborative circumstantial evidence.
State vs Hasen Ali 4 BLC 582.
Section 24—
Absence of printed form— Confession is admissible—Mere absence of printed form in recording the confessional statement made by the accused cannot make it inadmissible in evidence when in recording such confessional statement on a plain piece of paper the Magistrate observed all the formalities as required under section 164(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Abul Kalam Mollah vs State 4 BLC 470.
Section 24—
When the confession becomes doubtful the conviction and sentence based solely on such confession cannot be sustained in law.
Masum Howlader alias Masum vs State 2 BLC 173
Section 24—
Confessional statements— Corroboration of—Exculpatory and Inculpatory—Besides the ocular evidence the belated-retracted confessional statement of convict Monsur Au Khan supports the prosecution case which was also supported by the evidence of the doctor and his confessional statement is true and voluntary and was not obtained by torture, coercion or inducement for which his conviction is sustainable but the confessional statements of other two convicts are exculpatory in nature and in the absence of any evidence against them their conviction is not sustainable.
Aktar Hossain alias Aktar vs State 2 BLC 273
Section 24—
The police having violated the provision of section 167, CrPC in not producing the appellants before any competent Magistrate within 24 hours of their arrest and kept them in police custody for about 2 (two) days without any legal authority, that is without a necessary permission from the Magistrate under section 167, CrPC and such custody of the appellants is illegal resulting thereby the confessional statements are not voluntary and true.
State vs Sarowaruddin 5 BLC 451.
Sections 24 and 30—
Before recording the confessional statements of convict Jamila Khatun and condemned prisoner Ali Hossain by the Magistrate, they were detained by the police for two days and seven days respectively when it becomes the bounden duty of the recording Magistrate to try to ascertain whether there was any manner of police torture and to assure them that they would not be sent back to police custody whether they made any confession or not which having not been done by the recording Magistrate the confessional statements cannot be treated as voluntary and true and it cannot be used against them nor against other co-accused.
State vs Ali Hossain and others 4 BLC 43
Section 27—
Statement of accused in police custody leading to the discovery of heroin from the two rooms of two hotels is admissible in evidence under section 27 of the Evidence Act.
State vs Raja Abdul Majib and others 1 BLC 144
Section 27—
While the accused person was in police custody he led the police and pointed out the place where he threw the trouser and underwear which is admissible under section 27 of the Evidence Act as that led to the discovery of accused person’s blood and mud-stained trouser and underwear which unerringly indicated that the accused had committed the murder of his wife.
State vs Munir and another 1 BLC 345.
Section 27—
Th recovery of other wearing apparels and toiletries of the deceased at the showing of the condemned- prisoner while in police custody leads to the irresistible conclusion that the condemned- prisoner had the most intimate relationship with the deceased and that wearing apparels and toiletries of the deceased must have been either in the possession of the condemned- prisoner or within his knowledge as to where those articles were. These recoveries are admissible in evidence under section 27 of the Evidence Act.
Khalil Mia vs State 4 BLC (AD) 223.
Section 30—
Considering the two confessional statements of co-accused implicating the appellant who caused several injuries on the person of the victim three of them from the back side with doubleedged sharp cutting weapon which was recovered from the house of the appellant on the following day of occurrence when almost all the prosecution witnesses supported the prosecution case, the trial Court came to a correct finding that the appellant inflicted three severe injuries and the victim Mozaffar Ali died because of such injuries and hence the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the appellant is affirmed.
Abul Kalam Azad (Md) vs State 5 BLC 162.
Section 30—
The husband, Saiful Islam might not have actively participated in the commission of gang rape crime but it was within his prior knowledge and only his resistance or even protest or at least timely intimation to others could have saved her honour and life. Since there was no definite evidence that he instigated the murder of his wife, the offence of the condemned prisoner, the husband does not come within section 6(4) read with section 14 of the Act but comes within section 6(3) read with section 14 of the Act, after considering his confessional statement and the attendant circumstances.
State vs Md Joynal Abedin and others 5 BLC 672.
Section 30—
Confession of an accused is not a substantive piece of evidence against the co-accused and such evidence alone without substantive corroborative evidence cannot form the basis of conviction of a co-accused. The High Court Division acted wrongly in treating the confessional statement of co-accused as substantive evidence and treating the evidence of PWs 4 and 7 as corroboration thereof.
Ustar Ali vs State 3 BLC (AD) 53.
Section 32—
Dying declaration—The PWs 3, 11, 14, 16, 18 and 21 have univocally stated that deceased Majnu made a dying declaration before PW 14 implicating accused Sabuj, Babul and Golap as his assailants when the defence has not at all challenged the evidence of PW 16 regarding the dying declaration and most of the said witnesses are official witnesses and there is no reason to disbelieve them when dying declaration of the deceased which has degree of sanctity under the law, being the statement of a dying man, on the belief that he being placed in a situation of immediate apprehension of severance of his ties with the mundane affairs, he would not tell a lie and implicate innocent persons on false
charges.
Babul Mia and 2 others vs State 5 BLC 197.
Section 32—
Merely because the victim died some days after recording the dying declaration will not render the dying declaration inadmissible under section 32 of the Evidence Act.
State vs Akkel Ali and others 5 BLC 439.
Section 32—
It is settled principle of law that a dying declaration should be recorded as far as practicable to record in the language of the declarant but in the instant case, the Magistrate recorded the same in his own language in bonafide and honestly for which it can be believed and mere formality does not stand in the way to minimise the value of dying declaration.
State vs Abdul Hye Miaji and others I BLC 125.
Section 32—
Dying declaration if found true can be the sole basis of conviction without corroboration. In this case, that the appellant had threatened the victim with murder and he absconded after the occurrence till his arrest lend assurance as corroboration of dying declaration.
Mostafa (Md) vs State 1 BLC 82.
Section 32—
When a man gasps out his story soon after sustaining so many injuries on his person and apprehending imminent death, there is no time for him to fabricate a new story as he is dying and in such circumstances, it cannot be expected that such a man can tell a lie and falsely implicate his enemies with the crime alleged.
State vs Abdul Hye Miaji and others 1 BLC 125.
Section 32—
PWs 1-7 mentioning the names of the accused persons that they have inflicted blows by knives and daggers on the person of the deceased which corroborates with dying declaration making it sufficiently strong to warrant conviction.
State vs Abdul Hye Miaji and others 1 BLC 125.
Section 33—
As the investigating officer was examined-in-chief and then he died but the defence got an opportunity to cross- examine him but they took adjournment for which the evidence given by him can be accepted under section 33 of the Evidence Act and non-examination of the Investigation Officer will not vitiate the trial.
Abdur Rahman vs State 1 BLC 215.
Section 45—
Althouth the doctor deposed that the injuries he found were grievous in nature but those injuries are not grievous as contemplated under section 320 of the Penal Code.
Aminul Islam alias Ranga and others vs State 5 BLC (AD) 179.
Section 45—
Although the local witnesses deposed that appellant Mustafizur Rahman caused injury by using an explosive substance but the doctor opined that the injury was caused by a chemical substance when the Investigating officer failed to get the injury and the shirt of PW. 1 examined by an expert to find out whether PW 1 sustained inury by explosive substance it cannot be said that it is proved that Mustafizur Rahman caused injury by explosive substance.
Aminul Islam alias Ranga and others vs State 5 BLC (AD) 179
Section 45—
The doctor opined that the age of the girl was between 16 and 18 years which cannot be relied upon as it is absolutely vague and indefinite.
Hasina Begum vs State and another 1 BLC 315
Section 45—
Court compared the report of the first post-mortem examination with Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and came to a finding that the report was wrong as it was a case of suicidal death from coma due to taking fatal dose of Seduxen and not a death due to asphyxia resulting from hanging.
State vs Yahiya alias Thandu & ors 1 BLC 185
Section 45—
As the explosive substance was not tested by chemical expert and the seizure list witness even did not know the contents of the polythene bag the alleged recovery from the appellants was not proved and the conviction was set aside.
Mohammad Ali and another vs State 1 BLC 164.
Section 45—
A 14 years old girl being an informant deposed in Court that she was raped by the appellants when there was no enmity between the parties and the two other neutral witnesses who stated that the victim girl caine running near the shop of Witness Ashraf without any pajama on her body and all other local witnesses corroborated this fact which manifestly proved that the informant was raped by the appellants in spite of contrary evidence of doctor.
Badal and another vs State, represented by the Deputy Commissioner 4 BLC 381.
Sections 45 and 60—
The inquest report being the first recorded version of the offence based on actual observation that the victim was not only raped but raped by a number of persons is admissible as direct evidence under section 60 of the Evidence Act when the post mortem report and the chemical examination report support the commission of rape. In spite of the finding of the doctors such as that no mark of rape was found it is held that the victim was raped before she met her death which brings the offence under the ambit of Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan (Daman Bishes) Am,
1995.
State vs Md Joynal Abedin and others 5 BLC 672.
Sections 45 & 73—
It is well settled principle of law that opinion of handwriting expert is not conclusive evidence but it helps the court to come to satisfactory conclusion. Section 73 empowers the court to compare itself the disputed signature with the admitted signature of the executant, when such comparison is fairly made by the court committing no. wrong it calls for no interference with the conviction and sentence based on consistent and reliable evidence on record. Compassionate view is taken regarding the sentence of the appellants altering it to the period already undergone as the appellants belong to the same family and they suffered from constant mental agony which caused adverse effect to their family lives.
Azahar Ali & others vs State 5 BLC 262.
Section 80—
Non-examination of the Magistrate who held the TI Parade the memorandum given by him is not admissible under section 80 of the Evidence Act as it is not a judicial proceeding and that it cannot be presumed genuine unless proved by evidence.
Abdul Mannan @ Monej and two others vs State 1 BLC 195.
Section 80—
The Magistrate who conducted the TI parade having not been examined, the memorandum drawn by him is inadmissible under section 80 of the Eidence Act as it is not a judicial proceeding and without proving such memorandum by evidence it cannot be presumed genuine.
Mizanur Rahman (Md) alias Mija alias Mizan vs State 2 BLC 79.
Section 80—
As the confessional statement of condemned prisoner was recorded in accordance with the provisions of section 164, CrPC and it was signed by the confessing accused and Magistrate, the Court shall presume under section 80 of the Evidence Act that the document is genuine and that the statement as to the circumstances under which it was taken by the Magistrate are true and the confession was duly taken. State vs Munir and another 1 BLC 345
Sections 80 & 137—Although the Magistrate who held TI Parade was not examined but as the recognition in the TI Parade and, the statement in the deposition was not challenged by the defence, there is no reason to disbelieve the PWs and the prosecution case is proved beyond all reasonable doubt.
Abdul Hashem Moila and 5 ors vs State 1 BLC 211
Section 102—
The onus is on the investigation to explain the delay in producing the accused before the Magistrate for making the confessional statement.
Shaharul Islam alias Green vs State 1 BLC 524.
Sections 103 and 157—
If the prosecution case is considered in juxtaposition with the defence case, it appears that the prosecution has failed to discharge the onus of proving their case beyond any reasonable doubt and a genuine doubt is created in the mind as to the manner of occurrence.
State vs Azharul Islam 3 BLC 382.
Section 105—
As it was not possible for any other outsider-miscreants to enter into the room of Chapa and to kill her for which the natural conclusion unmistakably goes to show that Chapa was killed by the inmates of the house and the explanation given by the defence falls through.
Zahirul Alani Kamal and another vs State 1 BLC 325.
Section 105—
The evidence of the PWs 4 and 6 suffer from contradictions and discrepancies when the appellant did not take any part in the killing and there is hardly any evidence against the appellant who is entitled to get benefit of’ doubt.
Khalilur Rahman alias Khalil vs State 4 BLC 372.
Section 105—
The murder having taken place while the appellant was living with his 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 4 BLC 470.
Section 105—
The murder of the wife of the accused having taken place in the house of the accused who was living with his wife in the same house and he having an obligation to her death made a plea of snake biting but the same has been found to be travesty of truth in view of the evidence of witnesses including PW 2, the explanation given by the accused being found to be false and in the absence of any other satisfactory explanation from the defence the accused is nresponsible for the death of his wife and the facts and circumstances revealed through the evidence of witnesses are incompatible of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of guilt of the accused.
State vs Abul Katam 5 BLC 230.
Sections 105 and 114(g)—
Examination of vital witnesses by the IO after a long lapse of 4 months cast a doubt and it should be discarded and non-examination of vital witnesses and non-seizing of blood-stained earth from the place of occurrence show that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Jewel vs State 3 BLC 258.
Sections 105 and 157—
As the recovery of the bayonet and its place and manner of recovery suffer from glaring contradictions making it difficult to believe such recovery from the possession or control of the appellant and the existence of mens rea of the appellant could not be also established, the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt.
Sukkur Ali Kha vs State 3 BLC 206.
Sections 105 and 157—
The evidences as to the order to kill victim Kastura Bibi by convicted Abdul Jabbar are inconsistent and also suffers from contradictions and the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt and as such the conviction and sentence passed upon him under sections 302/34 of the Penal Code cannot be sustained in law.
Abdul Jabbar and another vs State 3 BLC 231.
Sections 105 and 157—
As there are many contradictions and the Doctor who first examined the victim was not examined and that 2 hurricane lamps were not before the court and that no blood-stained article was seized from the place of occurrence leading to the conclusion, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Kamrul Islam Sheikh vs State 3 BLC 187.
Section 106—
The wife was in custody of the husband and the death was caused while she was in the custody of her husband who has failed to explain the cause of death of his wife, the husband is liable for the cause of death of his wife and hence the appellant was rightly convicted under section 302 of the Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life.
Shah Alam (Md) vs State 5 BLC 492.
Section 106—
Murder of wife— Explanation of husband—Circumstantial evidence—Plea of alibi—The defence of alibi having been discarded and the door of the room being kept open and in the absence of any acceptable explanation as to how the wife died in the room of the husband, the only irresistible and natural conclusion will be that it is the husband alone in the circumstances of the case who is guilty of committing murder of his wife. The chain of circumstances coupled with the medical evidence on record having been considered by the learned judges of the High Court Division, the circumstantial evidences admit of no other hypothesis than the guilt of the petitioner.
Goring Kumar Shaha vs State 2 BLC (AD) 126.
Section 106-
As the appellants were apprehended with the contraband articles it was the duty upon the appellants to explain the circumstances under which they had been within their knowledge and since they failed to perform such duties the only inference that could be drawn under section 25B of the Special Powers Act was that the appellants were either smugglers or aided or abetted the smuggling or kept the contraband articles in their possession for sale, etc.
Hasanuzzaman and others vs State 1 BLC 219
Section 106—
Murder of wife—As there was no eye-witness to the occurrence but husband and wife were in the Pajero Jeep which was an inanimate object unable to speak and wife was dead and it was only within the special knowledge of husband who could only say how and under what circumstances and who murdered his wife. Even if the husband fails to discharge responsibility the onus lay on him, the prosecution is not relieved of its burden to prove beyond reasonable doubt that husband had murdered his wife.
State vs Munir and another 1 BLC 345.
Section 106—
Murder of wife—The accused person and his wife were living in the same bed and the wife having received injuries on her person which ultimately resulted in her death, onus heavily falls on the husband as he is saddled with the burden of proving the facts, especially within his knowledge and on failure to discharge such onus, adverse presumption is bound to seize him.
Gourango Kumar Saha vs State 1 BLC 97.
Section 106—
Plea of alibi—It is contended that the accused went to Faridpur for purchasing some clothes and, as such, he was not at home at the time when the occurrence took place. In the absence of any evidence that the accused went to Faridpur and stayed there and he purchased clothings at Faridpur, the defence failed to perform their obligation to prove the plea of alibi.
Gouranga Kumar Saha vs State 1 BLC 97.
Sections 106 & 157—
No reliance can be placed on the evidence of PWs 3 and 4 for holding that the witness saw the condemned prisoner and his wife in the night of 16-5-95 goingninside the hut and that they slept inside the hut in the night following the morning of which condemned prisoner’s wife was found dead and hence it cannot be said that it was the condemned prisoner who caused death of his wife. Since the prosecution has not been able to establish the case by reliable witness the condemned prisoner is entitled to be acquitted.
State vs Azizur Rahman alias Habib 5 BLC 405.
Section 114(g)—
Tender of witness—Its effect—Prosecution should examine the important witness-in-chief but when sufficient evidence is already given or it is of no significance, the tendering of a witness will not be treated as with-holding of such a witness unless it is from oblique motive. As the defence failed to challenge the evidence of other PWs, the tendering of the witnesses cannot attract the provision of section 114(g) of the Evidence Act to draw adverse presumption and the tendering of witnesses were not done with any oblique motive.
State vs Munir and another 1 BLC 345.
Section 114(g)—
As there is no evidence that any other person than the PWs came to place of occurrence house just after the occurrence, no presumption could be made against the prosecution for not examining the unnamed witnesses.
Mostafa (Md) vs State 1 BLC 82.
Section 114(g)—
The doctor, the investigating officer and the material witnesses have been withheld and their non examination cast a serious doubt in the prosecution case, had they been examined they would not have supported the prosecution case and an adverse presumption can be drawn against the prosecution case.
Munsurul Hossain v State 1 BLC 421.
Section 114(g)—
The prosecution having examined all the material eye-witnesses, non- examination of the four charge-sheet witnesses who are not at all material as they were not eye-witnesses of the occurrence and they were not at all vital witnesses for the prosecution the learned Single Judge wrongly drew adverse inference against the prosecution for not examining such witnesses.
State vs Ful Mia 5 BLC (AD) 41.
Section 114(g)—
Non-examination of Investigating Officer—Its effect—Unless the accused person is prejudiced for mere non- examination of the Investigating Officer the prosecution case will not fail.
Siraj Miah vs State 2 BLC 402.
Section 114(g)—
Although the prosecution may not examine all the prosecution witnesses but it must produce all the cited witnesses before the Court to avoid adverse presumption against prosecution.
Zahirul Hoque Khan vs Aktaruzzaman Chowdhury & others 2 BLC 70.
Section 114(g) —
It is no doubt true that the prosecution is bound to produce witnesses who are essential to the unfolding of the narrative on which the prosecution is based but it cannot be laid down as a rule that if large number of persons are present at the time and place of occurrence, the prosecution is bound to call and examine each and every one of those persons.
State vs Md Monir Ahmed 4 BLC 426.
Section 114(g)—
The prosecution has not only withheld the vital witnesses but have not also givennany explanation whatsoever for their non-examination, a presumption under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act must be drawn against the prosecution for non- examination of such material and vital witnesses.
State vs Sarowaruddin 5 BLC 451.
Section 114(g)—
Non-production of other constables who were on patrol duty along with the PW 1 and also another seizure list witness casts serious doubts about the prosecution case giving rise to an adverse presumption under this section.
Masud and others vs State 3 BLC 107
Section 114(g)—
As there were about 20/30 local people at the place of occurrence but none of them has either been cited as a witness or examined in the case and the prosecution has also not examined the informant of the case for which adverse presumption as to the alleged prosecution case and the place of occurrence can safely be drawn.
Nowsher Mollah, @ Md Nowsher Ali Mollah vs State 3 BLC 251.
Section 114(g)—
As 14 persons have been cited as witnesses in the charge sheet but out of them 4 persons have not been examined by the prosecution and there is no explanation to that effect and as such an adverse presumption can easily be drawn against the prosecution for withholding these charge-sheet witnesses.
State vs Azharul Islam 3 BLC 382.
Sections 114(g) and 134—
As there is no corroboration of the testimony of the PW 1 as to the alleged snatching away of Taka twenty thousand from him conviction on the basis of such a solitary witness is not at all safe and corroboration is a must.
Kamal alias Kamal Hossain and 2 others vs State 3 BLC 498
Sections 114(g) and 145—
There are series of contradictions in the evidence of the Pws when neither any tenant nor any disinterested neighbour nor microbus driver nor the owner of the house No.6 Mirpur was examined which creates a serious doubt about the whole prosecution case and hence the trial Court was not justified in convicting and sentencing the appellants.
Mahmud-al Kader, and anr vs State 4 BLC 224.
Sections 114(g) and 157—
There is material contradiction as to recognition of accused persons and that the IO has failed to mention the place of occurrence in the sketch map and he did not seize any blood stained earth and withholding of the identifying constables of the dead body, torch light and the GD Entry made it a case of no evidence and the appellants are entitled to be acquitted.
Sanu Mia and ors vs State 3 BLC 441.
Section 115—
The submission that the Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock had given consent to the surrendering of the disputed land, the said Ministry is estopped from denying the right, title and interest of the petitioner in the land in question has fallen through.
Ansar Ali son of late Nawsher Ali vs State 3 BLC 68.
Section 118—
As the learned Sessions Judge has made an endorsement about her satisfaction from the questions put to the child witness and her replies that the witness is capable of understanding the questions and of giving rational answers to those question for which the trial Court committed no illegality in considering the PW 6 as a competent child witness.
Siraj Miah vs State 2 BLC 402.
Section 118—
Before examining a child witness the Court should satisfy itself that the child is sufficiently intelligent to understand and to give rational answers to those questions put to him and it is desirable to record brief proceeding so that the higher Court may feel satisfied as to the capacity of the child witness to give evidence.
Fazlul Haq Sikder vs State 1 BLC 173.
Section 134—
The Division Bench like the trial Court believed the only eye-witness. Believing only eye-witness is legally permissible and conviction can be based on the sole evidence of only one eye-witness.
Khoka vs State 5 BLC (AD) 86.
Section 134—
Only the eye-witness the PW 3 Johura Khatun who was in the room at the time of occurrence with her daughter and that her version of the occurrence having been corroborated by the evidence of PWs 4, 5, 6 and the medical evidence on record, the High Court Division committed no illegality in relying on such ocular evidence and dismissing the appeal.
Badsha Mia (Md) vs State 2 BLC (AD) 179.
Section 134—
When PW 1 is the informant and a member of the police force and is interested in the case it is unsafe to rely on such evidence of the solitary witness in the absence of corroborative evidence.
Masud and others vs State 3 BLC 107
Section 135—
While the four tendered witnesses were produced before the learned trial Court by the prosecution the learned Public Prosecutor/ Assistant Public Prosecutor ought to have drawn the attention of the four tendered witnesses to their statements and evidence recorded by the learned Magistrate, 2nd Class and thereby the prosecution has failed to comply with the provisions of section 135 of the Evidence Act.
Abul Kalam & others vs State 5 BLC 270.
Section 137—
When a prosecution witness does not mention about a particular accused in his examination-in-chief, generally, no question is asked about him in cross-examination. In the instant case, surprisingly the defence took the risk and obtained prompt and ready answer from the PWs 7 to 9 that they did not see any of the condemned prisoners committing the offence which was rightly disbelieved by the trial Court.
State vs Md Joynal Abedin and others 5 BLC 672.
Section 137—
As there was no challenge in cross-examination about the threat of murder and the arrest of appellant was after absconsion it is proved that the appellant had threatened the victim with murder and he absconded after the occurrence till his arrest.
Mostafa (Md) vs State 1 BLC 82.
Section 137—
The seizure list witnesses were declared hostile and the prosecution cross-examined them but the PWs 1 and 5 have proved that the appellants were apprehended from the truck at about midnight along with the contraband articles but the defence failed to challenge such facts and the seized articles were of Indian origin and as such there is nothing to disbelieve the prosecution case.
Hasanuzzaman and others vs State 1 BLC 219.
Sections 137 & 139—
Any finding based on the examination-in-chief of a witness ignoring his cross-examination and vital circumstances surrounding the case must be held to be no proper finding in the eye of law.
Tamal Biswas vs State 5 BLC 398
Section 145—
As the PWs 2 to 5 were not cross-examined as to their previous statements made
before the Magistrate as required under section 145, Evidence Act, such statements are inadmissible.
State vs Yahiya alias Thandu & ors 1 BLC 185.
Section 145—
A witness may be cross- examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing, and relevant to matters in question, without such writing being shown to him, or being proved; but if it is intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention must, before the writing can be proved, be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him.
Fazlu alias Md Faziur Rahman and others vs State 1 BLC 558
Section 145—
As the eye-witness Nos. 4 and 5 omitted to state the vital part of the occurrence to IO and the PWs 6 and 7 were not examined by IO and the PWs 4 and 5 did not state to IO that they had told the occurrence to PWs 1, 6 and 7 which create doubt about the prosecution case and such testimony of the ocular witnesses cannot be relied upon as there was omission on vital points and contradiction in their testimony.
Alam Howlader and others vs State, represented by the Deputy Commissioner 3 BLC 488.
Section 145—
Before lodging the First Information Report the informant talked to PW 8 who also accompanied the informant to the police station but the condemned prisoner having not been named in the First Information Report the deposition of PW 8 in Court stating the condemned prisoner as assailant of Kashem when in the First Information Report he was only suspected which is a departure from the First Information Report story and as it is embellishment cannot be accepted in this case for awarding death sentence when the evidence on record both oral and documentary, create doubt about the prosecution case and hence the condemned prisoner is entitled to get benefit of doubt and accordingly he was acquitted.
State vs Hasen Ali 4 BLC 582.
Section 145—
PW 1 has deposed in Court that the accused persons after entering the house demanded money from his bhabi who gave Taka 7,000.00 to them and after his brother was taken away by the accused persons she raised hue and cry and on hearing the same the witnesses came, and that the PW 2 has deposed in Court that on the night of occurrence he saw that 8 to 10 persons were coming and on his query and focussing the torch light he had been threatened by those persons, and that the PW 5 has said in court as an eye-witness that her husband was taken away in her presence and the accused persons after entering the house demanded money from her and on her denial she was told that they had money from the sale proceeds of cattle and on her showing the money the accused persons had taken away the same, and that the PW 3 has stated in court that on hearing hue and cry he went to the house accompanied by others and searched the victim who was found in the paddy field and when he was coming back from the field he met with the informant and all these vital facts were not stated to the Investigating Officer and in view of such omissions the evidence of the above witnesses cannot be accepted as all these omissions amount to contradiction.
Babu Mollah and ors vs State 4BLC 559.
Sections 145 and 157—
When the FIR says that accused Ramzan Nessa brought a dao from the dwelling hut and gave it to the condemned prisoner but the informant as PW 1 says in Court that the dao was brought by the condemned prisoner Firoj himself and the PWs 3, 7 and 9 although deposed in Court that Ramzan Nessa supplied the dao to Firoj but they did not state the same to Investigating Officer while they were examined under section 161, CrPC and in such circumstances their evidence on this point was discarded.
State vs Firoj Miah and another 5 BLC 1.
Sections 145 and 157—
There is no contradiction or discrepancies in the statements of the eye-witnesses namely, PWs 1 to 3, regarding taking away the victim from his house and of Jahangir’s giving blow and Habib Mallik’s giving chora blow in his chest and the victim lying dead on the C & B road have been made in the FIR and there is no omission of these vital facts in the FIR.
Jahangir Howlader and another vs State 3 BLC 164.
Sections 145 and 157—
There are many contradictions in the evidence of the PWs and that absence of sign of rape in the medical report and non-examination of the wearing clothes made the whole case most doubtful one for which the appellant is not found guilty of the charge brought against him under section 6(1) of the Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan (Bishes Bidhan) Am, 1995.
Seraj Talukder vs State 3 BLC 182.
Section 154—
When a witness is cross- examined by party calling him the whole evidence is to be taken into consideration. As the evidence of hostile witnesses has corroborated the evidence of the other PWs the foundation of prosecution case is shaken and destroyed.
Fazlul Haq Sikder vs State 1 BLC 173.
Section 154—
Merely because the evidence of a witness has been declared hostile his evidence cannot be brushed aside as his evidence is to be considered for what it is worth and his evidence cannot be treated as unreliable so as to exclude his evidence from considering altogether.
Abdur Rab alias Nedon Miah vs State 1 BLC 270.
Sections 154 and 155—
Since the prosecution has failed to show any hostile animus with the prosecution, mere declaration of some of the seizure list witnesses and first information report named witnesses hostile in no way cured the defect of the prosecution case and the prosecution has hopelessly failed to prove the recovery of the incriminating articles and hence the persistent evidence of the public witnesses regarding denial of their presence at the alleged recovery in no way can be cured by the official witnesses (police personnel) who are none but interested in this case and in the result the order of conviction and sentence is set aide.
Aslam Jahangir vs State 5 BLC 514.
Section 155—
The PW 14 who is a rickshaw puller cannot be said to be a chance witness as he was waiting for passenger at the gate of Hotel Gulshan and therefore, his presence at the place of occurrence was not by chance, but due to his profession.
State vs AKM Gousuddin alias MP Gous & others 3 BLC 536.
Section 155—
Although there are some minor discrepancies in the evidence of PWs. and the PWs 1-4 are close relations of the victim as well as of the informant but mere relationship cannot be a ground to disbelieve or discard their evidences and cannot be treated as unworthy of credit.
State vs Ranjit Kumar Mallik 2 BLC 211.
Section 157—
Upon a scrutiny it appears that the evidence of PWs are full of contradictions, inconsistencies and omissions and that there is a departure from the fact as stated in the written ejahar, for which it is difficult to believe such inconsistent evidence of PWs who are related to one another.
Pear Ali Khan alias Pear Ali vs State, represented by the Deputy Commissioner 3 BLC 555.
Section 165—
Considering the statement made under section 164, CrPC by Anjali Rani and on a close scrutiny and analysis of the evidence and the materials on record it transpires that the prosecution signally failed to bring home the charge against the respondents of kidnapping or abducting the victim girl.
Haren Halder vs Md Akkas Ali & ors3BLC 455.