There are many contradictions 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 offence brought against him.
Seraj Talukder vs State 3 BLC 182.
Strong circumstantial evidence that leaving the minor girl to the company of the accused to take her to her house leading to the irresistible conclusion that the accused after committing rape on the minor girl caused her death by strangulation.
State vs Azad Miah @ Md Azad 5 BLC 304.
As only death sentence has been prescribed for the offence under section 6(2) of the Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan (Bishesh Bidhan) Am, 1995 and when the offence under such section is proved there is no scope for awarding a lesser sentence on any ground.
State vs Azad Miah @ MdAzad 5 BLC 304.
The prosecution has proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly found him guilty under section 6(2) of the said Am. As no alternative sentence is prescribed in section 6(2) of the said Am there is no scope of exercising the power of discretion of the Court in awarding alternative sentence except the extreme punishment of death.
State vs Rahim Sikder 5BLC 466.
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 came 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 I another vs State, represented by the Deputy Commissioner 4 BLC 381.
While considering the police report (FRT) the Special Tribunal heard the learned Advocates of the parties and on perusal of the record and case diary took cognizance, of the offence after observing that a prima facie case was made out by the prosecution but the Tribunal could not agree with the opinion of the IO and took cognizance on the basis of the materials on record.
Bikish Miah vs State 3 BLC (AD) 182.
Sections 6(3) and 14—
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 6(4) and 25—
The evidence adduced by the prosecution against the five condemned prisoners is not only defective and deficient, but as a matter of fact, virtually there was no evidence against any of the condemned prisoners and the prosecution totally failed to prove the charge under section 6(4) of the said Am and as such they are entitled to be acquitted.
State vs Md Joynal Abedin and others 5 BLC 672.
In a case of carnal offence the prosecutrix must be believed but it is the rarest of rare cases when the prosecutrix can be disbelieved on the face of quality of the other evidences necessitating corroborative evidence which is wanting in the present case.
Akhter Hossain and others vs State 4 BLC 236.
Since there is evidence of killing of the wife of the accused, lodging ejahar under section 302 of the Penal Code, submission of charge sheet under section 302 of the Penal Code and there is no cogent evidence as to the demand of dowry by the accused, no evidence to prove immediate cause of committing the offence, no cogent evidence as to committing the murder for dowiy and no evidence as to the real cause of killing of the wife by the husband, the case does not come under section 10(1) of the Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan Daman (Bishesh Bidhan) Mn, 1995 but it comes under section 302 of the Penal Code when the accused is responsible for causing death of his wife.
State vs Abul Kalam 5 BLC 230.
The condemned husbad was convicted under section 10(1) of the Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan (Bishes Bidhan) Am, 1995 and sentenced to death by the Nari-o-Shishu Nirjaton (Bishes Bidhan) Adalat but it appears from the evidence on record that charge under section 10(1) of the Am of 1995 was not proved when the High Court Division relying upon an unreported decision of the Appellate Division without sending the case for trial afresh considered the case on merit in the interest of justice and it was found that on the date of occurrence at about 3-30 hours the husband of the victim carried her by a boat to her parents’ house in serious injured condition.
State vs Eunus Khan 5 BLC 353.
The alleged beating demanding dowry having not been proved by adducing any corroborating witness, the alleged occurrence does not come within the ambit of section 10(2) of Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan Ain, 1995.
Shakhawat Hossain vs State 3 BLC 112.
Bail—It is contended that a false case has been filed against the appellant out of enmity with the informant and the appeI1artt has been in custody since 4-7-1996 and the trial Court has failed to conclude the trial within the period of 120 days as fixed by section 20 of the Act. It is held that as the case is now under trial and it is likely to be completed within a very short time and the gravity of the offence deserves not to enlarge the petitioner on bail but a direction was given to grant bail to the appellant if the trial is not concluded within a period of 3 months from this day.
Rashid Khan, son of Dildar Hossain alias Dilbar Hossain vs State 2 BLC 580.
Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Bishes Adalat, upon an application, cannot release the respondent No.1 from safe custody disrespecting the findings of the High Court Division.
Asgar Ali vs Anjuman Ara Mukta and another 5 BLC 363.
It appears that charge was framed on 27-4-97 against the appellant and his mother but not a single witness appeared in the Court and although the informant appeared in Court on several occasions but has not yet been examined as PW 1 which made it a case of deliberate attempt to delay the conclusion of the trial and hence the appellant is entitled to get the benefit of section 339C. CrPC and he is entitled to be released on bail.
Sohel vs State 5 BLC 658.
In a pending appeal where sentence is imprisonment for life the appellant was enlarged on bail as the victim girl was aged about 18 years and she had embraced Islam and married the appellant.
Ripon Farazi vs State 4 BLC 192.
The record shows that the charge was framed on 27-4-97 against the appellant and another but surprisingly not even a single witness appeared in Court till today although the informant appeared in Court on several occasions praying for cancellation of bail of accused Shamsunnahar which is a deliberate attempt to delay the conclusion of the trial when the Court adjourned the trial on every fixed date with a direction to issue summons or warrant of witnesses when the trial under the present law should not be delayed in the manner as has been done in this case keeping the accused person in hajat for an indefinite period when the section 339C CrPC applies for the purpose of bail, the appellant is entitled to be released on bail.
Sohel vs State 4 BLC 622.
From the savings clause in section 29(2)(3) of the Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan (Bishes Bidhan) Ain, 1995 there is nothing in the language from which it can be concluded that only the cases pending for trial before any Special Tribunal or pending investigation under the Cruelty to Women (Deterrent Punishment) Ordinance, 1983 in its restricted meaning have been saved. If such restricted interpretation is accepted then the accused persons who have committed offence under such repealed enactment will get premium without facing trial which could not be intention of the legislature.
Abul Kalam Khan vs Reaz Morshed and another 5 BLC 528.