Sections-3 read with Section 30
Confession is nothing but admission of guilt by accused. Confession of an accused is not an evidence as defined in section 3 of The Evidence Act. Under Section 30 confession of a co-accused can be taken into consideration but cannot be treated as substantive evidence and can be pressed into service in support of other evidences.
The State Vs. Md. Ershad Ali Sikder & Ors. 12 BLT (HCD)-125
Section- 3 Read with Section- 30
In the present case there being no substantive evidence either direct or circumstantial except as to some evidence about motive confession of co-accused alone cannot be considered against the appellant lawfully.
The evidence of P. Ws. 4 and 7 only shows mat there was rivalry with deceased Shahid in respect of calling customers for the two adjoining hotels and from this evidence alone it is very difficult to implicate the appellant with the involvement of murder of deceased Shahid or with the abatement of the said offence. This case lacks in sufficient legal evidence and in that view of the matter the benefit should go to the accused.
Ustar Ali Vs. The State 5 BLT (AD)-265
Sections-3 and 30
Confessing accused Abdus Satter implicated himself in the alleged dacoity along with the accused appellant and others wherein he stated that the appellant was the leader of dacoits and his instance the dacoity was committed, but there is no corroborative 127
evidence in support of the said confessional statement. So, it cannot be considered as evidence under section 30 of the Evidence Act. So relying on the said evidence conviction cannot be sustained.
Mojibar Vs. The State 7 BLT (HCD)-224
Section- 3 Read with Section-38
In the instant case, except appellant A. Rahim the other 3 appellants have not made any confessional statement and there is also no reliable evidence oral or documentary or circumstantial involving them in the commission of the alleged crime of murder of the victim or concealment of the dead body of the deceased and it appears that they have been convicted and sentenced only of the basis of the confessional statement of the co-accused A. Rahim which is illegal and therefore liable to be set aside.
Abul Khayer & Ors. Vs. The State 4 BLT (HCD)-89
Section-8 & 9
Murder Charge – Abscondence of accused – corroborative evidence of his guilt.
In the instant case there is in fact one eye witness P. W. 3 whom we have found to be fully trust worthy and reliable and she has been corroborated by their witnesses and also by the medical report and the deposition of the doctor along with this we may take into consideration the circumstances at the case as have been disclosed in this case by the fleeing away of the accused Ranajit just after the occurrence and thereafter at the time of the trial his decamping from the police custody and then his continuous absconsion till today- Thus the conduct of accused Ranajit must be taken into consideration under section 8& 9 of the Evidence Act as an incriminating substance against him- We are of the view that the prosecution has been able to establish the charge against accused Ranajit beyond all reasonable doubt and the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly convicted him under section 302 of the Penal Code- relied on 33 DLR-274.
The State Vs. Ranjit Kumar Mallik 4 BLT (HCD)-47
The plea of alibi taken by the accused needs to be considered only, when the burden which lies on the prosecution has been discharged satisfactorily. If the prosecution has failed in discharging its burden of proving the commission of crime by the accused beyond any reasonable doubt, it may not be necessary to go into the question whether the accused has succeeded in proving the defence of alibi.
Kazi Mahbubuddin Ahmed Vs. The State 13 BLT (HCD)-524
The 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. There recoveries are admissible in evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
Khalil Miah Vs. The State 7 BLT (AD)-245
Section – 30
Law is well settled by pronouncements of Apex Court of Sub-Continent that confession of a co-accused cannot be the sole basis of awarding conviction upon a non-confessing accused as postulated in section 3 of The Evidence Act. Confession of a confessing accused can be a solid pill for awarding conviction upon a non-confessing accused on finding him guilty of offence if the confession of a co-accused implicating non-confessing accused stand corroborated by other corroborative evidences.
Abdus Salam @ Biplob Vs The State 13 BLT (HCD)-567
A Dying declaration enjoins almost J sacrosanct status as a piece of evidence as it comes from the month of a person who is about to die and at that stage he is not likely to make a false statement. If the Dying declaration is acceptable as true conviction, can be based upon the Dying declaration alone in the absence of corroboratives evidence on record.
The State Vs Abdul Hatem 12 BLT (HCD)-36
Whether declaration of deceased made to PWs-2 and 3 who are private persons can be enaracterised as oral dying declaration.
Where a person in a state of apprehension of death on account of his physical condition, injuries etc. tells something then, in the event of that person meeting his death, his version, as reproduced by witnesses or listeners or reduced in writing falls within the definition of dying declaration and is admissible in evidence under Section 32(1) of The Evidence Act.
The State Vs. Md. Saidul Huq 11 BLT (HCD)-155
Its credibility —The worth that it commands — After receipt of the burns on 03.01.1998 the deceased was first admitted in the Thana Health Complex at Saril on 25.01.1998 PW-3 Dr. Azizur Rahman testified that she was admitted with old infected severe burn injuries. Same date, he referred her to the emergency department of the Brahmanbaria Sadar Hospital since her condition was very critical. What happened thereafter is not known. No evidence was led. We further find that on 03.02.1998 she died in her parent's house at Dattapara. Previous day PW-2 Shahadat Hossain Magistrate recorded her statement in that house. At the time, no doctor was present there. Nor we find any medical certificate or evidence that at the time she was both mentally and physically fit to make such statement, pw-2 Shahadat Hossain testified that the injured was dying. Much painstaking in talking. He also stated that he transcribed in his own Language of the Victim, he did not record and statement that he was satisfied that she was capable both physically and mentally to make such statement.
Why the prosecution found time to record such statement of the deceased only on the previous day of her death. Why the Magistrate was brought from the District. When Magistrate was available in the headquarter of the police station at Sarail. No explanation whatsoever is furnished by the prosecution. Only thumb impression of the victim would not lend any weight when such thumb could be obtained even after death.
In the circumstances and on the medical evidence and the testimonies of PWs-7 to 11, we cannot accept the dying declaration, exhibit-2 as true and voluntary and free from all doubts and suspicions. Moreover, die time is not corroborated by any other evidence, and not even by the informant.
When the time of occurrence is proved to be that of 'Shari', then the defence case that the deceased caught fire in her clothes while she was cooking, which caused the burns becomes more acceptable. So, the burns suffered by the deceased were caused by accidental fire and not by acid or any acts of the condemned prisoners.
The State Vs. Hosne Ara & Ors. 11 BLT (HCD)-170
When the statement is made by a person as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of that person's death comes into question is admissible in evidence being relevant whether the person was or was not, at the time when they were made, under expectation of death, and whatever may be the nature of the proceeding in which the cause of his death comes into question. Such statements in law are compendiously called Dying Declarations -Once the court is satisfied that the Dying Declaration was true, voluntary and not influenced by any extraneous consideration, it can base its conviction without any further corroboration as a rule requiring corroboration is not a Rule of Law but only a Rule of Prudence.
Touhid & Ors Vs. the State 15 BLT (HCD)-364
At the instance of the defence time was allowed for further cross-examination of P. w. 1 and thereafter this witness could not be produced by the prosecution for further cross-examination, witness P.W.I having not been fully cross-examined, his evidence was inadmissible and should have been left out of consideration as contended by the learned Advocate for the appellants.
Held: The requirement of section 33 of the Evidence Act has been fulfilled in this case as it appears that the defence had ample opportunity to cross-examine the witness but for the fault of the accused and their subsequent conduct the concerned witness could not be produced on the dock for further cross- examination. Hence on such circumstances it cannot be said that the evidence of P.W.I is in admissible.
Bakul & Ors. Vs. The State 4 BLT (HCD)-14
Section-34 read with Bankers Books Evidence Act, 1891 Section-4
Section 4 exempts a banker from producing bankers' books, namely, ledgers, day books, cash-books, account-books and any other books used in the ordinary business of a bank to prove its claims. Instead, if a bank shall produce a certified copy of any entry or entries in the books of the bank in a manner as provided by section 2(8) of said Bankers' Books Evidence Act. Even when such certificate is produced and proved to have been so written that will not ifso facto prove the claim of a bank. Such entries would have to be corroborated by independent evidence.
BCCI Ltd. Vs. Bangladesh Electrical Industries Ltd. & Ors. 12 BLT (HCD)-502
Opinions of Experts When the defence asserts that the disputed document is a genuine one and it has been duly acted upon. It becomes incumbent upon the prosecution to obtain the opinions of the hand writing and finger-print experts on the disputed deed to prove forgery.
Md. Ismail Hossain & Ors. Vs. The State 8 BLT (HCD)-290
Sections-57 & 60
Whether the author is living or dead, the book of reference must be an appropriate reference book in that the author must be shown to be properly qualified to make statements upon the subject and so only standard books acknowledged as authorities may be referred to-The reference to the booklet of unknown origin is therefore entirely disapproved.
State Vs. Abdul Khaleque 5 BLT (AD)-227
Non examination of the Magistrate recorded the confessional statement- the no requirement under the law that Magistrate should be examined the Gf shall presume the document to be gen and that the statement was duly taken.
Abdul Khaleque Mir Vs. The State 2 BLT (AD)-172
Burden of proving fact specially within knowledge of any person. The definite and specific defence plea is Bus No Mymensingh BA-157 driver by ! was not involved in the accident but Bus Mymensingh BA-191 belonging to the owner was involved in it. This being within the special knowledge of the accused within the meaning of section-106 of the Evidence Act, a burden was cast upon him discharge it, mere so when the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused convincing and overwhelming evidence. The accused hopelessly failed to discharge the special burden.
Namaluddin Vs. The State 8 BLT (HCD)-121
It appears that both the courts considered the defence plea and held plea to be false. It may be stated here that the defence is not always bound to give any explanation but if any explanation is given the court may consider it. The trial court after discussing and considering the evidence of witnesses found that Chapa was killed by somebody from inside the room and not by any one from outside the room through the window as claimed by the accused. The High Court Division in its turn held the same view. The High Court Division in clear terms held that it was not possible for any outside-miscreants to cause such injuries standing on nine inches wide carnish on the face and head of Chapa and kill her. The High Court Division thus in unequivocal terms expressed the clear view that the explanation given by the defence totally falls through and according to the High Court Division it was established that Chapa was killed in her room by the miscreants who were living within the house, went into her room, caused injuries in such manner that ultimately she succumbed to the injuries. In view of such concurrent findings of both the courts below on the basis of evidence on record we do not like to make further exercise on the point and we also are of the view that Chapa must have been killed by person/persons living inside the house on the night of occurrence.
The State Vs. Khandker Zillul Bari 14 BLT (AD) 91
The alamats including the incriminating articles along with the alleged heroine were not produced before the trial court- The alleged report of the chemical examiner was also not available in the record- material witnesses the I/O and the chemical examiner, none of them was produced as a witness it must be held that the learned Additional Sessions Judge committed illegality is not drawing an adverse presumption against the prosecution under section 114 (g) of the Evidence Act.
Ashok Kumar Saha Vs. The State 2 BLT (HCD)-79
The confessional statement Ext.7 of the confessing accused bears the reference of one Haider Ali son of Janab Ali who is neither witness nor accused in this case. The neighbours as well as the persons who allegedly took part in the occurrence as per confessional statement of the accused Akbor Ali are the relevant witness and non examination of any of them as witnesses or brining them on dock as accused creats presumption U/ S 114 (g) of the Evidence Act and raises a question of doubt in the prosecution and benefit of this defect would go to the accused.
Md. Akbor Ali & Ors. Vs. The State 7BLT (HCD)-317
In view of admitted bitter relationship between the parties as well as the private witnesses so examined in this case it was desirable for the prosecution to examine the close independent and disinterested neighbours. In the face of clear admission that 40/50 co-villagers were present just after the occurrence and they having not been produced in Court to show the bonafide of the prosecution, we find no with alternative but to hold that had they been examined, would not have supported the prosecution case and in view of this matter the benefit of section 114(g) of the Evidence Act should go in favour of the defence.
Korban ali & Ors. Vs. The State 11BLT (HCD)-267
Onus of proof—although the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, nevertheless after it has been shown that 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 defence 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.
Gias Uddin Vs. The State 11 BLT (HCD)-8
In the face of clear admission that 40/50 co-villagers were present just after the occurrence including the chairman and member of local union parishad and they having not been produced in Court to show the bonafide of the prosecution, we find no other alternative but to hold that had they been examined, would not have supported the prosecution case and in view of this matter the benefit of section 114(g) of the Evidence Act should go in favour of the defence.
Monu Sheikh & Ors Vs. The State 12 BLT (HCD)-177
The independent person —'Kamla' kader who was allegedly residing in the P.O. house in the night of occurrence having been with-held, we find no other alternative but to hold that had he been examined in this case, would not have supported the occurrence as alleged.
Monu Sheikh & Ors Vs. The State 12 BLT(HCD)-177
The adverse presumption in the background of illustration (g) of section 114 of the Evidence Act can be drawn against the party or the parties in the suit if he or they do not depose about a fact when he or they personally knowing the whole circumstances of the case is not deposing in the case or that in a situation when particular thing being exclusively known to or within the knowledge of a party he ought to have appear before the Court to explain the same or a party who had personal knowledge of the case, then there was necessity to go into the witness box to depose about the fact which was within the exclusive knowledge or matters about which suitor(s) alone has actual knowledge and he alone is competent to state about the matter at the relevant time or that the suitor (s) who is a material witness as regard particular mater then if not give evidence or a party whose evidence is material does not go into witness box the Court in such a situation can draw up an adverse presumption against such person(s) or suitor(s).
Hajee Lal Miah Vs. Nurul Amin & Ors. 13 BLT (AD)-145
Presumption against Prosecution Case In First Information Report it is stated that Sub-Inspector Sunil Kumar Sen who figured as charge sheet witness no. 11 accompanied Sub-Inspector of Police PW1 and, also! PW6 to the place of occurrence and apprehended convict-appellant. PW6 in his testimony testified that local chowkidar took them to the place of occurrence but these two persons had not been placed on witness box by prosecution. No explanation even had been even assigned for their non-examination by prosecution. Nor production of above two witnesses was vea much fatal for prosecution case and presumption contemplated in Section 114(g) of The Evidence Act must follow.
Babul Vs. The State 13 BLT (HCD) 339
It is a cardinal rule in the law the best available evidence should be brought before fee court to prove a fact or the points in pue- when material witnesses are not called in a case and no sufficient explanation has been given for their absence, the court may draw a presumption that they would not support the prosecution.
Md. Ali Azam & Ors Vs. The State 13 BLT (HCD)-473
In the instant case, the neighbors as mentioned above are the material witnesses who have been withheld from the examination and the prosecution has also failed to convincing reasons for their examining them. The prosecution examined on relatives and evidence cannot be relied n.
Md. Ali Azam & Ors Vs. The State 13 BLT (HCD)-473
Section – 114(g)
None of the brothers and sons of the deceased was examined. Not a single neutral neighbouring people was examined. Due to their non-examination presumption would be had they been examined they would not have supported the prosecution story. Non-production of the wife of the deceased, an alleged injured witness, raises serious doubt as to the truth of the prosecution case.
Abul Kalam & Ors. Vs. The State 14 BLT (HCD)214
?????? ?????????? ?? ???????? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ?????? ??? ??? ?? ??????? ?????? ?? ?????? ??? ????? ??????? ?????? ??????? ??? ???? ?? ???????? ??????? ??? ???(??) ????? ????? ? ???? ???????? ??????
Md. Motiar Rahman Vs. Mst Asia Khatun & Ors 15 BLT (HCD)313
Mode of Ascertaining Competency of a Child witness.
It appears that in the instant case, a minor boy aged about 5/6 years is the only eye witness to the occurrence but in his cross -examination stated that he did not see the occurrence and he deposed as per dictation of the information of the case with whom he has been living since the occurrence-Learned Sessions Judge while examining a child witness did not look to his intelligence and competency and there is no such endorsement in the order sheet or deposition or judgment- there is also no sufficient corroboration by any independent and reliable witnesses- learned Sessions Judge was not justified in conviction the accused appellants relying on the solitary evidence of a child witness.
Kawsaun Nessa & Anr VS. The State 3 BLT (HCD)-122
The position of a prosecutrix is a little different from that of an injured person simpliciter. The possibility of a prosecutrix being a collaborator cannot always be ruled out. Therefore a corroboration of the evidence of prosecutrix by at least some circumstantial evidence or a medical examination is always desirable.
Md. Hasan Vs. The State 7 BLT (AD)-378
Section-137 and section 139
By Section 137 and 139 of the Evidence Act an accused person has been given the opportunity to cross-examine a witness produced by the prosecution or to produce his own witness and evidence in support of his defence.
Jahangir Alam Vs. The State 15 BLT (HCD) 191
Section-145 read with Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 Section-161
The Statement of an accused person which is not a confession but contains an admission of certain relevant facts is admissible under sections 18-21 of the Evidence Act, provided it is voluntary, even though retracted, if found to be true by the trial Court which is required to be corroborated by evidence of other witnesses in order to be the basis for conviction of the co-accused respondents and as regards statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the same is an statement and is not an evidence in the case and as such not at all admissible in law unless the witnesses are confronted with the said statement while deposing on dock having deposed contrary to the said statement, the same could not be of any avail to the prosecution but the statement could be utilized under section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to contradict the witnesses in the manner provided under section 145 of the Evidence Act. Thus the statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is restricted to an investigation by the police for the purpose of police report.
The State Vs. Md. Mominullah (Mohan) 15 BLT (AD) 251
The evidences of witness is not to be rejected either in whole or in part simply because of being cross-examination 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 Phali Vs. The State 5 BLT (HCD)-89
Section 157 of the Evidence Act provides! that the former statement of a witness to furnish corroboration can be proved only if-it was made "at or about the time," where the fact took place. In order to corroborate the testimony of a witness any former statement made by such witness relating the same fact at or about the time when the fact took place or before any authority legally competent to investigate the fact may be proved. This section clearly speaks of the intention of the law that when the previous statement is to be use corroboration it must satisfy certain specifies^ conditions that the statement should be ma in relation to a fact which is so fresh in mind of the narrator that he may be assured to be speaking under pressure of collection alone, undiverted by any per motive i.e. the conditions should be such import proper legal sanctions in case should be variations from the truth.
The State Vs. Enayet Hossain @ Endu 12 BLT(HCD) 242
Circumstances evidence —in the pre case it had been admitted by the defence I the wife died in her husband's house j there is no suggestion that the husband | away at the time of occurrence, prosecution assertion that the Appellant at his house and killed his wife has not been challenged on the ground that he was outside the house at the relevant time. The defence case that the deceased died by taking poison has been disproved. On the other hand the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the wife was killed and circumstantial evidence indicates that the husband was at his house at the time of occurrence. Further it appears that the Appellant was in absconsion from after the death of the deceased until his surrender on 08.11.1995 more than five years later. If the deceased dies of consuming poison he should have informed the police accordingly instead of absconding. Although his long period of absconsion is not by itself conclusive of his guilt but if lend weight to the circumstantial evidence against him.
Gias Uddin Vs. The State 11 BLT (HCD)-8
Evidence Act, 1872 read with Majority Act, 1875
Age of the victim
School certificate—in the instant case doctors certificate as to age of the victim at 17 1/2-181/2 years of age and an opinion as to the age is no conclusive proof thereof and the declaration in the statement under section 164 Cr. P.C. of the victim that she was a major are no proof of age and that radiologist’s opinion cannot be preferred to psitive evidence like school certificate.
Arun Karmaker Vs. The State 10 BLT (AD)-40
P.W. 4 Abdul, Aziz who claimed to be a 'flight-guard in the area of Armanitola and he stated that he saw deceased Akber Sheith And Sultan Ahmed P.W.2 to go together by nchshaw towards Ananada Moyee School.
At United Transport Agency, very near to the place of occurrence he heard the firing sound and saw these two accused Ali Jan and Fazlu, Asad, Nairn and two others running away crossing the wall of Armanitola filed. It is not denied that near the place of occurrence there is Armanitola Math having a boundary wall. P.Ws. 14 and 16 have stated that they got this information from P.W. 4 in their house and in hospital immediately after the occurrence. All other P.Ws. also heard from P.W. 4 that he saw these two accused running away from the place of occurrence-—This strong circumstance lends support to the presence of the accused persons at night in the plan of occurrence.
Md. Nurul Alam Vs., Ali Jan & Ors. 8 BLT (AD)-23
Sufficiency of for Conviction It appears that in this case excepting P.W. 2 there is no other eye witness of the occurrence, The prosecution has succeeded in proving that deceased Niru was found dead in the house of this condemned-prisoner while she was in his custody. In this case besides the oral evidence the prosecution also relied upon the circumstantial evidence. Admittedly Niru died at the house of this condemned-prisoner, her husband and naturally there cannot be any eye witness of the occurrence from the side of her father nor the someone from the house of the condemned-prisoner would depose in support of the murder or on the factum of assault by this prisoner upon the deceased. In such a situation the prosecution had no other alternative but to rely on the circumstantial evidence. In such circumstances when the wife met with her death while she was in the custody of her husband it is he who is to explain how she met with her death. The defence tried to impress that she was assaulted at her father's house by her relations who thereafter kept her forcibly at the house of this condemned-prisoner but none of the prosecution witnesses or even D. W. 1 has admitted this. No other defence witness was examined to prove this defence version of the case. According to the defence she was kept in the house of the condemned-prisoner at the date of occurrence which he stated in his statement recorded under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He also stated that he saw his wife in injured condition. But he took no step for her treatment or inform any of the co-villager of the incident. It appears that he allowed his wife to die and even after her death he has not informed any of the co-villager or reported the matter to the police which is admittedly at a distance of 3 kilometers from his house. None of the inmates of the house also informed the police or took any medical help for saving the life of the deceased suggested that she was assaulted by the prosecution witnesses but no evidence was led in support of this suggestion. The witness produced by the condemned-prisoner also is silent as to the circumstances leading to the death of the deceased.
Abdul Motleb Howalder Vs. The State 8 BLT (AD)-288
Circumstantial Evidence – Sufficiency of conviction
Admittedly deceased Dhan Mia died in the house of accused Malek Mia. The father of Moina who is the wife to the deceased and that the accused were present in the house of Malek Mia on the night of occurrence. The defence has not challenged that the accused were not present in the house of Malek Mia.
Where Dhan Mia died on the night of occurrence, no suggestion was given to that effect that they were elsewhere. A suggestion was given to P.W. 6 that Meherunnessa and her son Sibu were not present. Meherunnessa was not convicted for murder. As regards Sibu, P.W. 2 stated that she saw him. Therefore the complicity of appellants in the murder of Dhan Mia been established by the prosecution beyond any doubt. The prosecution also has been able to prove the first circumstance support of the prosecution case deceased Dhan Mia along with P.Ws. went to his father-in-law's house to bring wife Moina. P.W. 2 has satisfactorily proved that she stayed in that house and that she been all the accused at night in the east hut, thus is he second circumstance prove against the accused. After the murder of Dhan Mia, the accused got a false lodged through Meherun Nessa with the police stating that Dhan Mia committed suicide with malafide intention of screening them (accused) from legal punished although they believed that the information given to the police was false. This is another circumstance P.W. 11 holding examination on the persons of deceased found injuries and clearly opined that the death was due to the said injuries, the defence could not satisfactory explanation as to how Dhan sustained such injuries. This is an circumstance proved against the acc Since the plea taken by the defence has not been substantiated by them or injuries alternative, having found false in vie the medical evidence on record, and we find that the accused were present place of occurrence when the deceased the prosecution has been able to prove a strong circumstance of the complicity accused in the murder of Dhan Mia excluding all other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused.
Yunus & Ors. Vs. The State 8BLT (HCD)-245
Circumstantial Evidence – When sufficient to hold a man guilty.
In the instant case, it was found on evidence that Saiful Islam was a rickshaw puller and used to work in Chittagong. He enticed the victim and brought her home in his village at velara, Gaibanndha, from Chittagong. He married her on 19.05.1996 and presumably started their conjugal life together. Suddenly, he dead body of the victim was found to be dangling from a tree on the morning of 24.05.1996. There is no evidence to suggest that he was not with her on the fateful night in their house. Besides, his inexplicable conduct showing a total disregard for the dead body of his own wife highlights his reckless indifference towards |is near ones and nakedly exposes the pathological condition of his mind. In such circumstances, in the absence of any reasonable explanation coming from his side, the law shall hold him responsible for the death of his wife, the victim.
The State Vs. Md. Joynal Abedin & Ors. 8 BLT (HCD)-376
Circumstantial Evidence – Onus to prove
True it is that an accused has got no obligation to explain anything , the onus to prove the accusation is always on the prosecution. But if two persons live together under one roof and one of them suddenly dies in a suspicious circumstances in an unnatural manner, the other person comes under an obligation to explain the circumstances leading to his or her death. In the absence of a plausible explanation, the law casts a prima facie responsibility on the person who is alive, for the death of the victim who was earlier with him just before his or her death.
The State Vs. Md. Joynal Abdin & Ors. 8 BLT (HCD)-376
Circumstantial Evidence when not sufficient for conviction
The Trial Court considered it as strong a circumstance against the appellant why he was though present in the PS at the time of lodging the FIR but did not become the informant. But he failed to notice that the FIR was written by P.W. 18 Ranjit Baruna and after reading it out he took the signature of P.W 1 Abu Hossain, Another fact noticed by the Trial Court, why P.W.I flatly denied in his deposition that the appellant was with him at the time of lodging the FIR even after his attention was drawn to the FIR did not receive proper consideration from it. Moreover, P.W. 17 found only one injury causing the death and that injury was caused by the appellant and the search for money was also made by the appellant as per the confessions then how the confessions could be treated to be inculpatory. As stated earlier, the Court found that there is not an iota of evidence on record from any of the witnesses examined by the prosecution implicating the appellant with the offence or any other accused persons. All three confessions if closely considered, do not inspire any confidence in anyjudicial mind. So, this a clear case of no evidence. For the reasons, the judgment and order of conviction based solely such confessions cannot therefore be sustained in law.
Abu Sayed Vs. The State 9 BLT (HCD)-175
In a case of circumstantial evidence, the incriminating circumstances must be clearly proved and they must not be incompatible with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
The State Vs. Monu Miah & Ors. 10 BLT (AD)-12
All the aforesaid witness found the appellant carrying a 'Dao' and was threatening to commit suicide if Firoja would not go with him. He stayed for Firoja Begum in her father's house upto 2/3 A. M. of the fateful night. May be after loss of both eyes, he became absolutely dependent on her to pressure his daily routine of life. But it is in evidenced that Firoja Begum became tired of Rouf and tried to get rid of him, even by divorce, which Rouf might have learnt and could not accept. P.W.-9 Ataur Rahman found Firoja died due to asphyxia by strangulation. Abdur Rouf moved out of the house of P. W.-2 Gisauddin holding Firoja. Then, in the early morning Firoja Begum found lying dead on the south bank of the canal and Abdur Rouf was also found lying with her, of course with a cut injury at his neck. Nobody came between them in the intervening time. It would not be difficult for him to strangulate her to death, when he was holding her. After fading her death, as was found by the trial court, he might have wanted to avoid the liability inflicting a cut on his own neck with the seized 'Dao' In the Absence of any other circumstance or possibility. We find all circumstances indicate toward Abdur Rouf.
Abdur Rouf @ Rab Howlader Vs. The State & Ors. 11 BLT (HCD)-198
Circumstantial evidence is not direct to the point in issue, but consists of evidence of various other facts which are so closely associated with the fact in issue that taken together, they form a chain of circumstances from which the existence of the principal fact can be legally inferred or presumed. For a crime to be proved, it is not necessary that the crime must be seen to have been committed and must, in all circumstances, be proved by direct ocular evidence by examining before the court those persons who had seen its commission. The offence can be proved by circumstantial evidence also. The principal fact or "factum probandum" must be proved indirectly by means of certain inferences drawn from "factum probandum" that is the probative on evidentiary fact.
The State Vs. Md. Ershad Ali Sikder & Ors. 12 BLT (HCD)-125
The rule of circumstantial evidence is that the chain of circumstances must be knitted together closely, so as to led to an irresistible conclusion that the accused appellant alone had committed offence by excluding the possibility that any other person might have committed the offence. The chain of events must be such that the possibility of innocence of accused is wholly excluded and such facts are incapable of explanation of any, other reasonable hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused.
Rawsan Ara Begum Vs. The State 15 BLT (HCD) 29
P.W. 3 a neighbour of the accused stat that he heard cries from the room of the victim Sheully in the night of occurrence b he was not allowed to enter the house and o the following morning he heard that Sheully was murdered- P.W.6 Doctor, who held the postmortem examination of the dead body of deceased Sheully Begum found several injuries, P.W.6. stated that the injuries as found might cause the death of the victim-The wife having died in the house of her husband in the night of occurrence and being no plausible and acceptable explanation as to how the victim received those injuries, the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution are strong enough to establish the guilt of the petitioner.
Abdus Shaku Miah Vs. The State 3 BLT (AD)-187
The principle and law for convicting the accused only on the basis of the Circumstantial Evidence is well settled by many decisions such as 1985 BLD (HCD) 129, Para-21 where the test were re-iterated as to the Circumstantial Evidence- AIR 1984 (SC) 1622 has laid down singular principle's followed by 41DLR (1989) 10.
Haji Md. Jamaluddin and others Vs. The State 1 BLT (HCD)-23
Both the Trial Court and the High Court Division considered the circumstantial evidence against the petitioner in details and found that the circumstances are such that no other hypothesis other than the guilt of the petitioner can be derived therefrom. Although the accused -petitioner was also injured in the bomb explosion there is absolutely no suggestion to the prosecution witnesses that the bomb was placed in the Beauty Parlour before the arrival of the petitioner and that the petitioner was in no bray involved with the possession of the bomb. On the contrary the state of the accused-petitioner's trouser which was made a material exhibit evidently showed that the explosion ripped through his trouser, thereby making the circumstantial evidence even more compelling against the petitioner.
Ranjit Vs. The State 5 BLT (AD)-206
Law on circumstantial evidence is well settled. It requires that prosecution is to prove each of the circumstances having a definite tendency pointing towards the guilt of 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 of innocence and unequivocally point to the guilt of the accused.
The State Vs. Md. Delwer Hossain Faraji 13 BLT (HCD)457
Doubtful- the allegations of rape
It appears from the facts of the case that victim Shakina alone went to the house of her sister Shahida for having dinner at that house and was coming back to her house at 10-00 at night accompanied by her sister with a kupi bati in hand and when the light of the Kupi bati was allegedly extinguished then her sister went back to her house for lighting the kupi bati keeping the victim girl in the midway. It has not been explained why the victim girl was kept above in the midway instead of taking her back with the sister when she went back home for lighting the kupi bati. This factor also create doubt about the whole allegations of rape-absence of sign of rape in the medical report and non-examination of the wearing clothes made the whole case most doubtful one.
Seraj Talukder Vs. The State 6 BLT (HCD)-82
In a case of rape, doctors report is a vital evidence to prove the sign of rape but it appears from the record that although the victim was examined by a doctor but it appears that neither the doctors was examined in the case nor his report.
Seraj Talukder Vs. The State 6 BLT (HCD)-82.