Nari-O-Shishti Nirjatan (Bishesh Bidhan) Ain, 1995

Nari-O-Shishti
Nirjatan (Bishesh Bidhan) Ain, 1995

 

Section 6(1) – Bail of accused in a
case of rape of minor girl when medical report does not show any sign of rape – The High Court Division granted bail
to the accused in a rape case of minor girl of 4-5 years old as the medical
report does not show any sign of rape. Apex court finds nothing wrong with the
same.

State Vs. Md. Liton Miah @ Babu 13 MLR
(2008) (AD) 60.

 

Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan (Bishesh
Bidhan) Ain, 1995

Section 4- Not attracted when the
death of the victim was not caused by corrosive or combustible substance

Penal Code, 1860

Section 302-
Offence of murder triable by court of session

When the offence
of causing death of the victim does not faIl within the ambit of the definition
of offence punishable under the Nario-O-Shishu Nirjatan (Bishesh Bidhan) Am
1995, but falls under section 302 of the Penal Code, the same is triable by the
court of session and not by the tribunal. In that view, the learned judges of
the High Court Division set aside the conviction and sentence and remanded the
case for fresh trial. Abdul Kader and others Vs. The State 11 MLR (2006)
(HC) 293.

 


Nari-O-Shishu
Nirjatan (Bishesh Bidhan) Ain, 1995

Section 6(1)– Charge of rape need to be proved by
trustworthy evidence -Medical examination of the prosecutrix necessary.

In trying and
convicting an accused, the tribunal must be cautious in scrutinizing the
evidence in a manner so to be sure that innocent person is not punished. In a
case where there is enmity between the parties, the delay in lodging FIR,
non-examination of the prosecutrix by medical officer, absence of marks of
violence on the person of the victim and the conflicting evidence on material
point render the prosecution story doubtful leading to the acquittal of the
accused.

Sobuj (Md.) Vs. The State 11 MLR (2006) (HC)
284.


Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan (Bishesh Bidhan) Ain, 1995

Section 6(1)– Offence of rape – Evidence of the
victim girl when appears natural and reliable can form the sole basis of
conviction.

In the instant
case the eight year-old vacation girl was forcibly raped by the convict
appellant. The evidence of the victim appears to be natural and reliable and
the same having been also corroborated by other evidence including medical
evidence etc. has been relied upon while convicting the appellant. The High
Court Division held the trial court was perfectly justified in convicting and
sentencing the convict- appellant.

Haresuddin
Prainanik (Md.) Vs. the State 12 MLR (2007) (HC) 353.

 


Nari-O-Shishu
Nirjatan (Bishesh Bidhan) Ain, 1995

Section 6(2) –
Mandatory sentence curtails the discretion of the judge

Section 6(2) of
the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan (Bishesh Bidhan) Ain, 1995 prescribed the mandatory
sentence of death which curtails the discretion of the judge and makes the
judge a rubberstamp. The judge is precluded from exercising his discretion
about the surrendering circumstances and the antecedents of the accused. This
provision is against the UN Declaration of Human Rights. The state signatory is
under the obligation to implement the international covenants. Though the Act
of 1995 has been repealed but by the saving clause contained in section 34 of
the new Act, the issue is kept alive. Considering all the aspects and having
regard to the constitutional provisions the learned judges declared section
6(2) of the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan (Bishesh Bidhan) Ain, 1995 ultra vires of
the constitution.

Bangladesh Legal
Aid and Services Trust (BLAST) and another Vs. Bangladesh, represented by the
Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and others 15 MLR (2010) (HC) 145.

 


Nari-O-Shishu
Nirjatan (Bishesh Bidhan) Ain, 1995

Section 9(kha)– When a woman of 18 years of age
voluntarily goes with a man and marries him at her own volition no offence is
committed.

In a case where
the alleged woman of age 18 years of her own went with the accused and married
him, no offence under section 9(kha) of the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan (Bishesh
Bidhan) Ain, 1995 is committed. The impugned conviction and sentence having found
not been based on any legal evidence has been set aside and the
convict-appellant has been acquitted by the learned judge of the High Court
Division.

Ahad Molla (Md.)
Vs. The State 11 MLR (2006) (HC) 99.

 


Nari-O-Shishu
Nirjatan Daman (Bishesh Bidhan) Ain, 1995

Section 9(kha)
and 6(1) – Offence of
abduction of minor girl for the purpose of marrying her.

In the instant
case the victim girl is found to be a minor of about 13 years at the time of
occurrence. She was abducted by the accused-appellant and subsequently married.
It is contended that the victim consented to the marriage. The consent of the
minor is immaterial as by reason of minority her consent is no consent in the
eye of law. The learned judges of the High Court Division in that view confirmed
the order of conviction and sentence with certain modification.

Abdul Mannan
(Md.) alias Khalil Vs. State and another 13 MLR (2008) (HC) 291.

 


Nari-O-Shishu
Nirjatan Daman (Bishesh Bidhan) Ain, 1995

Sections 13 and 14- Offence of kidnaping for
ransom

Evidence Act, 1872

Section 118- Child witness is competent when
found capable of proper understanding

Telephonic
conversation recorded leading to the arrest of the accused and recovery of the
victim supported by ocular evidence can well form the basis of conviction. The
conviction and sentence based on consistent and reliable evidence on record to
the exclusion of any reasonable doubt affirmed by the High Court Division are
held by the apex court perfectly justified.

Jasimuddin and
another Vs. The State 11 MLR (2006) (AD) 162.

 
 

Disclaimer:

The information contains in this web-site is prepared for educational purpose. This site may be used by the students, faculties, independent learners and the learned advocates of all over the world. Researchers all over the world have the access to upload their writes up in this site. In consideration of the people’s participation in the Web Page, the individual, group, organization, business, spectator, or other, does hereby release and forever discharge the Lawyers & Jurists, and its officers, board, and employees, jointly and severally from any and all actions, causes of actions, claims and demands for, upon or by reason of any damage, loss or injury, which hereafter may be sustained by participating their work in the Web Page. This release extends and applies to, and also covers and includes, all unknown, unforeseen, unanticipated and unsuspected injuries, damages, loss and liability and the consequences thereof, as well as those now disclosed and known to exist.  The provisions of any state’s law providing substance that releases shall not extend to claims, demands, injuries, or damages which are known or unsuspected to exist at this time, to the person executing such release, are hereby expressly waived. However the Lawyers & Jurists makes no warranty expressed or implied or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product process or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favouring by the Lawyers & Jurists. The views and opinions of the authors expressed in the Web site do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Lawyers & Jurists. Above all, if there is any complaint drop by any independent user to the admin for any contents of this site, the Lawyers & Jurists would remove this immediately from its site.