Appellate Division Cases
Mostafa alias Mosto………………………Petitioner
The State, represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Pabna…………….Respondent
Md. Ruhul Amin J
Syed J. R. Petitioner.
Mudassir Husain J
Abu Sayeed Ahammed J
JUDGEMENT DATED : 21st July 2002
The Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Sections 302/34.
It appears that the learned Judges having properly discussed and considered the prosecution witnesses came to the finding that the petitioner Mostafa inflicted ‘Falah’ blow on the chest the victim Habibur Rahman with intention to kill him and the victim Habibur Rahman fell down on the ground and died on the spot then and there (6)
Criminal Petition For Leave To Appeal No. 128 Of 2001.
(From the Judgment and Order dated 16.01.2001 passed by a division Bench of the High Court Division in Criminal Appeal No. 757 of 1995)
Muhammad Nazrul Islam, Senior Advocate, instructed by Mrs. Azra Ali, Advocate-on-Record For the Petitioner
Not represented………………… Respondent
1. Syed J. R. Mudassir Husain J: This Criminal-petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.01.2001 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court Division in Criminal Appeal No. 757 of 1995 dismissing the same and upholding the order of conviction and sentence dated 22-03-1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pubna in Sessions Case No.57 of 1992 convicting the petitioner under Sections 302/34 of the Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life.
2. The facts, leading to this petition, are that the informant, Md. Ishaque Ali Khan lodged FIR on 03-01-1992 before the officer-in-charge, Pabna Police Station at about 110.30 A.M alleging inter alia, that at about 10 O’clock on the same day a goat belonging to his uncle Akbar Ali Khan was eating Khesari crops in the land of Jashim Mallik, Akbar Ali’s son Azam went to the Kheshari field and was bringing back the goat. When he reached near the house of Akbar Ali, accused Mostofa and 8 other accused persons armed with deadly weapons rounded up Azam Ali and started giving him blows, and that accused Mostofa inflicted falah blow upon the victim and on this allegation F.I.R was lodged which was recorded by the officer-in-charge of the Police Station.
3. The defence case is that the work of road construction was going on under the local Union Parishad hear the place of occurrence, deceased victim Habibur Rahman and his men obstructed the labour of the contractors from his land and there a fighting between them caused the death of the victim. They have been falsely implicated in this case.
4. The learned Sessions Judge upon hearing the parties found the petitioner guilty of the allegation levelled against him and convicted and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. Against the said order of conviction, the petitioner moved the High Court Division and the High Court Division dismissed the appeal upon upholding the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Against the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner filed this petition.
5. Mr. Md. Nazrul Islam, the learned Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, placed before us the impugned judgment of the High Court Division as well as the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and thereafter he submitted the High Court Division erred in law in not considering that the order of conviction and sentence is bad in law in view of the materials on record and that the prosecution withheld material evidence to establish the guilt of the petitioner and as such the trial court as well as the High Court Division ought to have drawn an adverse inference to secure the ends of justice.
6. We have heard the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner and perused the impugned judgment of the High Court Division as well as the judgment of the trial court and considered the submissions. It appears that the learned Judges having properly discussed and considered the prosecution witnesses came to the finding that the petitioner Mostafa inflicted ‘Falah’ blow on the chest the victim Habibur Rahman with intention to kill him and the victim Habibur Rahman fell down on the ground and died on the spot then and there.
7. Having regard to this aspect of the matter, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court Division. We are fully in agreement with the finding arrived at by the High Court Division. Apart from the merit, this petition is also hopelessly barred by 175 days and the explanations offered for condonation of delay are far from satisfactory. For the above reasons, this petition merits no consideration Accordingly, it is dismissed.
Source : III ADC (2006), 179.