Section 2—
A public servant by definition in 1982 in the Penal Code will prospectively be deemed to be a public servant under Act II of 1947 when he commits an offence as public servant after the amendment of the Penal Code.
International Finance Investment and Commerce Bank Ltd vs Abdul Quayum and another 4 BLC (AD) 255.
Section 21 Clause 12—
Although the petitioner as a Principal of a Private College gets 70% of his salary from the government exchequer by way of subsidy but it does not fall within the purview of Clause 12 of section 21 of the Penal Code as it cannot be said that the petitioner has been performing public duty acquiring a status of a public servant.
Matiur Rahman (Md) vs State, represented by the Deputy Commissioner 4 BLC 375.
Sections 21, 409, 477A & 462A—
Section 110 of Banking Companies Act, 1991 also provides that a Mn2ger, Officer and other functionaries of the Banking Company are deemed to be public servants under section 21 of the Penal Code and hence the appellant and the respondent are public servants and the case has been rightly instituted in the Court of Special Judge against the respondent. Moreso, section 5 of Act II of 1947 speaks of the offences as mentioned in the schedule of the Act to be tried by Special Judges and in the schedule there are sections 403 and 477A of the Penal Code with which the accused has been charged for committing misconduct as a public servant.
International Finance Investment and Commerce Bank Ltd vs Abdul Quayum and another 4 BLC (AD) 255.
Section 34—
Although under section 34 of the Penal Code, when a criminal act is done by several persons, in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone, in awarding punishment each of such persons may be sentenced to death if there is direct evidence of their criminal act in furtherance ci the common intention of all.
Khalil Mia vs State 4 BLC (AD) 223.
Section 34—
There is no evidence whatsoever from the side of the prosecution that the accused- appellants attacked Momdel Hossain to kill him, rather it appears that the presence of deceased Momdel at the place of occurrence is accidental one and as such the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredient of section 34 of the Penal Code.
State vs Azharul Islam 3 BLC 382.
Section 34—
Under section 34 of the Penal Code, the essence of joint liability is to be found in the commonness of intention animating the accused in doing of criminal act in furtherance of such intention. The circumstances of this case patently show that the common intention of the four appellants was to cause the offence under section 325 read with 34 of the Penal Code and accordingly they are guilty under sections 325/34 instead of sections 302/34 of the Penal Code.
State vs Kowsar 1 BLC 455.
Section 34—
Common intention is a state of mind which may develop in the course of the transaction constituting the offence and may be gathered from the number and nature of injuries inflicted on the person of the victim when in the instant case as many as 13 injuries most of which were grievous in nature were caused as a result of frontal attack can be said to be a result of pre— concert. Although the convict-appellant Badal had no pistol or any weapon in his hands, but in a different manner he also prevented the victim either from fleeing away or warding off the attack and facilitated the consequent infliction of injuries resulting in his death.
AKM Ataur Rahman Khan alias Badal and another vs State 5 BLC 508.
Sections 34, 109 & 302—
Under section 34 the two elements that constitute the crime are the common intention and the participation in the crime, while those in the case under section 149 are the common object and the participation in the unlawful assembly. Where the common object becomes equivalent to the common intention and where participation in the assembly is coupled with the participation in the crime then the two elements of both the constructive liabilities become the same. In such cases, no separate charge need be framed for each of them as laid down under section 233, CrPC and the conviction of the accused may be altered from one under sections 302/149 to that under sections 302/34 without there being a charge for the latter as provided under sections 236 and 237, CrPC.
State vs Abdul Hye Miaji and others 1 BLC 125.
Sections 34, 302 and 324—
In the absence of premeditated intention to kill, the injuries caused by the four accused persons are not being grievous in nature and the same has no contribution towards the cause of death for which they would not be guilty of the offence under section 302 of the Penal Code and accordingly, their conviction is altered from 302/34 of the Penal Code to that of under section 324 of the Penal Code and the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone.
Madris and others vs State 2 BLC 249.
Sections 57 and 302—
Sentence— Normal sentence under section 302 of the Penal Code is death but under some extenuating circumstances it may be imprisonment for life but such sentence can never be 30 years taking the aid of section 51 of the Code.
Farid Ali vs State 4 BLC 27.
Sections 96 and 97—
As there is no evidence of any aggression from the side of victim and even if there was any threatening behaviour from the victim, the person threatened could have used only that much of force which was proportionate to repel the attack. In the instant case it was a one-sided affair for which the contention that the action of the convict-appellant was in exercise of the right of private defence either of his body or property or the body and the property of others cannot be accepted.
AKM Ataur Rahman Khan alias Badal and another vs State 5 BLC 508.
Sections 96 and 302—
After separating the chaff of falsehood from the grains of truth it is found that the prosecution has failed to prove their case against Wali and Khalil and the convict Sayed exercised his right of private defence for which he is entitled to get the benefit of section 96 of the Penal Code and they are found not guilty of the charge of murder.
Syedur Rahman and 2 others vs State 3 BLC 299.
Sections 141 and 143—
Hartal is an unlawful assembly if criminal force is applied in its favour or to oppose it—While a hartal is observed by an assembly of five or more persons and their associates without holding procession or picket it will not be an unlawful assembly but if any criminal force is applied to observe such hartal then the members of the unlawful assembly falling within the purview of the fifth clause to section 141 of Penal Code will be liable to be punished under section 143 of Penal Code. Hence the procession or other activities in support of applying force to observe hartal shall be unlawful assemblies including to oppose such hartal.
State vs Md Zillur Rahman and others 4 BLC 241.
Section 148—
As the other 4 accused persons being armed with deadly weapons arrived at the scene of occurrence just immediately after the other accused persons had committed the offence, subsequent anivers have not committed the offence of rioting.
Madris Miah and others vs State 2BLC 249.
Section 166—
Neither Rule 7 of the Administrative Tribunal Rules read with Order XXI, Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure nor the power of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal to punish for contempt is sufficient or effective to get the orders of the Administrative Tribunal executed within a reasonable time and hence the processes for the execution of the orders of the Administrative Tribunal are not sufficient so as to hold that these writ petitions are not maintainable. The respondents have committed an offence punishable under section 166 of the Penal Code. Accordingly, the petitioners individually are directed to file an application to the Administrative Tribunal for making a complaint under section 166 of the Penal Code against the officer or officers who failed to implement the Tribunal’s order or orders in question and forwarding the same to a Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence.
Abdul Maleque Miah (Md) and seven others vs Secretary, Ministry of Establishment & others 5 BLC 695.
Section 188–
The learned Magistrate suo motu initiated a proceeding under section 188 of the Penal Code and took cognizance of the offence violating the provision of section 195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Abdul Ahad @ Md Abdul Ahad vs State 5 BLC 598.
Sections 193 and 212—
The commission of offence under sections 193/212 of the Penal Code do not depend upon the acquittal or conviction of the original accused person for whom the false evidence was given or sought to be screened from punishment and hence the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the learned Special Judge ought to have waited till conclusion of the trial or that the original accused persons were found guilty and were. convicted in spite of the deposition of the petitioner and as such the proceeding against them are premature, have got no substance.
Masudur Rahman (Md) vs State 5 BLC 286.
Sections 201, 302/34—
The trial Court has rightly found that the appellants namely, Hemayet Khan, Sabur Khan, Nuruzzaman Chowdhury @ Meskat Chowdhury and Sharif Shawkat Hossain are guilty of the offence under sections 302/34 of the Penal Code as these appellants caused the death of Bellal in furtherance of their common intention to cause the death in a gruesome manner and the accused Munshi Moniruzzaman is found guilty of the offence only under section 201 of the Penal Code for concealing of the dead body of the victim.
State vs Hemayet Khan and other 3 BLC 56.
Sections 295A and 298—
In spite of issuance of repeated summons and warrant of arrest the respondent No. 2 did not appear before the Magistrate concerned but prayed for quashing the proceeding before the High Court Division without praying for bail for which it was the duty of the High Court Division to reject the quashing petition.
Mowlana Md Yusuf vs State and another 3 BLC (AD) 171.
Section 300—
Exceptions 2 & 4—As the appellant assaulted the brother of the deceased who along with others went to take revenge on the appellant and there were scuffles between the appellant and Mokhtar, the deceased and out of fear of retaliation the appellant gave one knife blow only to free himself from Mokhtar and ran for safety which became fatal to Mokhtar but the conduct of the appellant is preventive and not retributive satisfying the legal requirement of the right of private defence.
Ruhul Amin Mondal vs State 1 BLC 281.
Section 300—
As the deceased Sohag did not give any provocation to condemned prisoner Firoj when admittedly there was no altercation or quarrel between them and when the deceased’s two children and other deceased persons were unarmed as evidenced the condemned prisoner took an advantage over them and in such circumstances the case does not come within the purview of exception one or exception four of section 300 of the Code.
State vs Firof Miah and another 5 BLC 1.
Section 300-
The alleged provocation cannot be treated as grave and sudden as it had taken place 12 hours before the murder which does not attract the first Exception to section 300 of the Code and the actions taken by the deceased against the condemned- convict come within the scope of second proviso to the first Exception of section 300 of the Penal Code.
State vs Siddiqur Rahman 2 BLC 145.
Sections 300 & 304 Part I—
As the incident took place as a result of election rivalry and each of the accused dealt only one blow for which it cannot be ascertained by which blow death was caused the offence comes under section 304 Part 1 of the Penal Code instead of section 300.
State vs Abdul Hye Miaji and others 1 BLC 125
Section 302—
The way the condemned Convict took the rifle and the live cartridges from his superior officer,, went out, returned and then shot at his superior officer leaves no room for doubt that the gun shot taken by him was the result of premeditation and cool calculation with the intention to cause death and thereby committed murder rendering him to be convicted under section 302 of the Penal Code and that there is no extenuating circumstances to alter the sentence.
State vs Siddiqur Rahman 2 BLC 145.
Section 302—
Motive—Circumstantial 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.
Section 302—
As the solitary eye-witness PW 3. who is found to be fully trustworthy and reliable and has been 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.
Section 302-
The condemned husbad was convicted under section 10(1) of the Nari-o-Shishu Niijatan (Bishes Bidhan) Ain, 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 Ain 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 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 Khan5 BLC 353.
Section 302-
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.
Section 302-
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 responsible 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 Kalam 5 BLC 230.
Section 302—
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 dowry 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) Ain, 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.
Section 302—
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 302—
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 going inside 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 302—
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 on 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 to show his conduct and it is also a circumstance indicating his complicity in the crime.
Fazer Pk. (Md) alias Fazer Ali vs State 5 BLC 542.
Section 302—
Death caused by lathi on the head—The accused petitioner assaulted with a lathi on the head of the deceased Md Nuru Howlader as a result of which he died when PWs 3, 4, 5 and 9 all testified about the inflicting of the injury on the head by the accused-petitioner corroborated by the PW.13, the doctor who was not cross- examined by the defence. The High Court Division rightly upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioner.
Kabir Howlader vs State 5 BLC (AD) 12.
Section 302—
The learned Single Judge has failed to consider the material aspect that the first information report was lodged within one and a half hour of the occurrence and all the four eye-witnesses proved the participation of the accused in inflicting one dagger injury on the body of deceased Abu Taher @ Abu when the learned Single Judge considered some very minor and insignificant circumstances which are not at all relevant in this case as the case was well proved by as many as four eye-witnesses of the occurrence and hence the accused-respondent is found guilty under section 302 of the Penal Code and he is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life.
State vs Ful Mia 5 BLC (AD) 41
Sections 302/34—
The trial Court as well as the High Court Division thoroughly considered the evidence adduced by the prosecution and came to the concurrent finding that the petitioners along with others were instrumental in causing murder of Mokies when there is no denial of the factum of murder of Mokies at the time, place and in the manner as alleged by the prosecution, the Courts below committed no illegality and wrong in finding guilt of the petitioners.
Abu Jamal and another vs State 5 BLC (AD) 157.
Sections 302/34—
The blow of accused Jahangir and chora blow of accused Habib Mallick had resulted in the death of victim Belayet on the date, time, place and manner as alleged by the prosecution and learned Sessions Judge had correctly found that these two accused- appellants were guilty of the charge brought against them under sections 302/34 of the Penal Code and had rightly convicted and sentenced them requiring no interference.
Jahangir Howlader and another vsState3BLC 164.
Sections 302/34—
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 reasoncable 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 302/34 and 304 Part II—
Death would not have occurred if accused Abdul Haque would not have played the part of pressing victim on her neck. Accused Shamsul Huq had no premeditated intention to kill the victim and the intention to kill is lacking in the instant case. Although, he had no intention to kill the victim, it must be held that he had the knowledge that such throwing of brick was likely to cause her death and the act done by him was both rash and indiscreet and as such accused Shamsul Huq is liable for commission of offence punishable under section 304 Part II of the Penal Code.
Abdul Jabbar and another vs State 3 BLC 231.
Sections 302/34—
It appears that the prosecution has failed to establish the existence of preconcert intention even by proof of acts performed by each individual accused at the time of commission of the main crime. Several persons can simultaneously attack a man and each can have the same intention, namely, the intention to kill, and each can individually inflict separate fatal blow and yet none would have the common intention required by the section because there was no prior meeting of minds to form a pre-arranged plan. In a case like that, each would be individually liable for whatever injury he caused but none could be vicariously convicted for the act of any others and if the prosecution cannot prove that his separate injury was a fatal one, he cannot be convicted of the murder, however clearly an intention to kill could be proved in his case.
Babul Mia and 2 others vs State 5 BLC 197.
Sections 302/34—
There is complete chain of circumstances that the appellants assaulted deceased victim Biswajit severely and dealt fatal blows causing his death when appellant Guizar participated in the occurrence most actively and he was found by PW 4 for the last time with the deceased victim when Guizar 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.
Guizar Biswas and others vs State 5 BLC 278.
Sections 302/34—
Common intention not proved—Although the six accused persons surrounded the victim and five of them dealt blows by different weapons but the doctor opined that the death was caused not by the cumulative effect of the injuries but by the injury on the back of the deceased for which it cannot be accepted that all the accused persons had intention of causing death as the five accused persons dealt one blow each by their respective weapon which would suggest the lacking of intention to kill the deceased Ashabuddin by all.
Madris Miah and others vs State 2 BLC 249.
Sections 302/34—
It is well settled that the statement recorded under section 164 CrPC is not substantive evidence, but is only corroborative evidence or it can negative the evidence of the witness as given before the Court. As the prosecution has failed to adduce any positive evidence against the appellants implicating them or any or more of them in the commission of the murder in question, they are entitled to be acquitted.
Ashu and 3 others vs State 2 BLC 465.
Section 302/34—
The wife of deceased deposed in Court that she had recognised the assailants of her husband and accused Akkel Au gave chanriy blow, Deiwar gave dao blow, accused Omar Ali gave latin blow and accused Quasem gave rifle blow on her husband who succumbed to the injuries on 15-6-89 in the hospital which is corroborated by PWs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 and the dying declaration and there is nothing to disbelieve the credibility of these evidences and hence the prosecution proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore the conviction and sentence under sections 302/34 of the Penal Code against the condemned convict is sustainable.
State vs Akkel Ali and others 5 BLC 439.
Sections 302 and 304—
Although there was altercation between the appellant and the deceased at the time of occurrence which was corroborated by the PWs. 1 and 2 but tins case does not fall under section 304 of the Penal Code as the appellant caused fatal injury on the vital part of the deceased and it was an offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder.
Siraj Miah vs State 2 BLC 402
Sections 302/304/34—
It is not correct to say that the case as made out in the FIR has been given a go-bye and a new case developed during the trial and the learned trial court most illegally discarded the evidences of 8 eye-witnesses and hence the findings and decisions of the learned trial Court are not supported by the evidence on record and as such the impugned judgment and order of acquittal are considered to be perverse and it is set aside. Accordingly, accused Mahir Mollah, Shamsuddin Molla and Rafiquddin Molla are found guilty under sections 302/34 of the Penal Code but considering the lapse of 23 years in disposing of the 2 appeals each of them is convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and accused Nurul Molla, Joynal Molla and Mokbul Hossain Molla are found guilty under section 304/34 of the Penal Code and they are sentenced to suffer RI for 10 years.
Mahir Mollah and others vs State 5 BLC 386.
Sections 302/34 and 304/34—
Charge can be altered at any time before delivery of judgment as per provisions of section 227 of the Code of Crinimal Procedure. After framing a charge under sections 304/34 of the Penal Code, there is no legal bar to find the accused guilty under lower sections 304/34 of the Penal Code.
Mahir Mollah and others vs State 5 BLC 386.
Section 306—
Section 306 of the Penal Code provides for punishment to the person only in the case where a suicide is abetted and intended but unfortunately, there is no provision in our laws to punish such a person whose cruel behaviour drags a married woman to commit suicide but section 1 13A of the Indian Evidence Act and section 498A of the Indian Penal Code provide punishment in such cases and it is expected our Parliament will enact similar laws.
State vs Yahiya alias Thandu & ors 1 BLC 185.
Sections 306/108—
As there was no alleged intention on the part of the petitioners that Shimu Akter alias Kulsum committed suicide and no charge can be framed against the petitioners under section 306 of the Penal Code even on the basis of allegations made against them and as such the proceeding against the petitioners is quashed.
Abdul Khaleque Howlader and ors vs State 3 BLC 591.
Section 313—
PW 2 Hosne Ara deposed in court that the accused Abul Kalam developed carnal relation with her against her will as a result of which she was carrying a baby but the accused Kalam and others took her to a doctor and caused her miscarriage and delivery of six months old dead baby which was corroborated by the medical certificate and the evidence of PWs 1, 5 and 8 and hence the charge under section 313 of the Penal Code is proved beyond all reasonable doubt against the convict appellant Abul Kalam Gazi when the other four convict-appellants are entitled to be acquitted.
Abul Kalam & others vs State 5 BLC 270.
Sections 313 and 109—
The Sessions Judge cannot direct the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence and the impugned order so far it relates to. such direction is set aside and quashed.
Abdur Rouf and others vs State and another 5 BLC 178.
Sections 320 and 326—
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.
Sections 323 and 326—
Although the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the accused appellants but did not award separate sentence under sections 326 and 323 of the Penal Code, the appellate Court can award sentence under such sections if the prosecution is able to substantiate the charges.
Babul Mia and 2 others vs State 5 BLC 197.
Sections 323, 325, 299 & 300—
As the offence of culpable homicide supposes an intention or knowledge of likelihood of causing death but in the absence of such intention or knowledge the offence committed may be grievous hurt or simple hurt.
Liakat Hossain (Md) vs State 1 BLC 196.
Sections 323, 324 & 325—
Two separate petitions of complaint were filed by the persons who received injuries and the first one was compounded but the second one was pending. As the offences under sections 323, 324 and 325 of the Penal Code can be compounded by the person or persons to whom the hurt is caused, the order or composition of the alleged offence suffers from legal infirmity and cannot operate as an acquittal of the accused persons as far as the second complainant is concerned and the doctrine of double jeopardy enunciated in section 403, CrPC is hardly applicable in this case.
Nurul Islam and others vs Md Velon Mia and another 1 BLC 252.
Sections 324 and 326-
As the Convict- appellant having not given the fikal blow (injury No. 1) he cannot be incriminated for the offence of section 326 of the Penal Code but he must be found guilty under section 324 of the Penal Code as he had inflicted one of the other two injuries which is simple in nature.
Abdul Jalil vs State 4 BLC (AD) 12.
Section 344—
As the victim Hosne Ara had been confined in Khulna for 7/8 days when section 344 of the Penal Code requires wrongful confinement for ten days or more, the conviction and sentence under section 344 of the Penal Code is not sustainable in law.
Abul Kalam & others vs State 5 BLC 270.
Sections 361, 366 and 366A—
When the victim girl, Anjali Rani as Court witness says that she is aged 20 years and the medical report dated 18-5-94 submitted on the basis of a report prepared by a Radiologist shows that Anjali Rani was of 161/2 to 171/2 years of age which was proved by two doctors and as such on the date of occurrence the age of Anjali Rani was about 16 years.
Haren Halder vs MdAkkas Ali & ors 3 BLC 455.
Section 364—
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 Sent 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.
Md Selim vs State 4 BLC 261.
Sections 372, 373, 375 and 479—
The provisions of these sections show that laws put some restrictions but such occurrence of intercourse, the maintenance of brothel and prostitution are not totally barred.
Sultana Naha, Advocate vs Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh and others 2 BLC 430.
Section 376—
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.
Section 376—
Ordinarily in carnal cases the evidence of prosecutrix is believed but in the present case the contradictions are so major that the evidence of the prosecutrix cannot be believed.
Abdul Wahed alias Chandu Mia vs State 4 BLC 320
Section 376-
The appellant was the prime kidnapper and he forcibly had sexual intercourse with Mahinur and that the other convicts are entitled to get the benefit of doubt as has been rightly found by the High Court Division as such finding is based on proper appreciation of evidence on record and hence no interference is warranted.
Bazlu Talukder vs State 5 BLC (AD) 159.
Section 376-
As the PWs contradicted each other as to who accompanied the appellant Bazlu in kidnapping the girl aged 15 years who was raped by only one convict who is none other than Bazlu but the other convicts are full brother and bhaista of him and it is highly improbable that all those persons together would commit sexual intercourse on the girl when they are not professional or hardened criminals and hence other convicts are entitled to get benefit of doubt.
Bazlu Talukder and others vs State 1 BLC 261.
Section 376—
The FIR was lodged after one month and 20 days of the occurrence without offering any plausible explanation when doctor deposed in court that he did not find any sign of rape on victim Sufia Begum when there is a lot of inconsistencies and contradictions in the state of the physical conditions of victim Sufia Begum following the occurrence and interested prosecution witnesses were examined and it is inconceivable that accused Mansur Ali, however greatly he might have been swayed by passion to satisfy his carnal desire, would commit rape in presence of his major married daughter.
Mansur Ali Bepari vs State 5 BLC 374.
Section 379—
Neither of the Courts below has endeavoured to discuss any evidence against each accused person and gave no such finding against them individually and hence the order of conviction and sentence under section 379 of the Penal Code is not sustainable in law.
Asiruddin (Md) alias Asiruddin Sarker and others vs State and another 5 BLC 641.
Section 379—
Both the courts below ought to have found that there was a bonafide dispute over title and possession of the case land which existed between the parties and hence the trial Court illegally passed the order of conviction and sentence which was wrongly upheld by the appellate Court without applying its judicial mind and as such the conviction and sentence under sections 379 and 447 of the Penal Code are not sustainable in law.
Asiruddin (Md) alias Asiruddin Sarker and others vs State and another 5 BLC 641.
Section 379—
Bonafide or contested claim of right is no defence against a charge under section 379 of the Penal Code for cutting and taking away crops grown by the co-sharer in possession.
Nasiruddin Shah and others vs Nazrul islam & ors 3 BLC 524.
Section 395—
All the T.I 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 5 BLC (AD) 21.
Sections 395, 397 & 412—
The appellant was charged under section 412 of the Penal Code but he was convicted under sections 395/397 of the Penal Code under misconception of law which cannot be sustained in law.
Abul Hashem Molla and 5 ors vs State 1 BLC 211.
Sections 406 and 420—
As the petition of complaint discloses an initial intention to deceive the complainant, who was persuaded to advance a large amount of money to the accused persons and, as such, there is no ground for quashing the proceeding.
Kamrul Islam (Md) vs Atikuzzaman 2 BLC 227.
Sections 406 & 420—
Unless the auditor under section 53 of the Wakf Ordinance held that a Mutwalli was guilty of breach of trust it would not make out a case of breach of trust on the vague allegations as to his failure to disburse the dues due to the beneficiaries.
Nazrul Islam Mollick vs Khowaj Ali Biswas and another 4 BLC (AD) 239.
Sections 406/420—
From a plain reading of the petition of complaint it is clear that the initial intention of cheating and the elements of criminal breach of trust have, very well, been alleged therein and, as such, on the face of these allegations it is difficult to say that no prima facie case has been alleged to have been committed by the petitioners under sections 406/420 of the Penal Code. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court Division do not suffer from any illegality. Seeking leave to appeal without appearing in the High Court Division is disapproved.
Habibur Rahman (Md) and another vs State, through the Deputy Commissione, Narayanganj and another 1BLC (AD) 146.
Sections 406 and 420—
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case it appears that neither there is any mens rea on the part of the petitioner nor is there any ingredients of sections 406/420 of the Penal Code resulting thereby the proceeding against the petitioner is quashed.
Nurul Huq Ruzbu vs State and another 3 BLC 374.
Sections 406 and 420–
The facts as alleged in the petition of complaint constitute a prima facie criminal intention of cheating and deception in the mind of the petitioner which is still continuing because of the non payment of any part of the amount alleged in the complaint-petition and all these are the matters for decision at the time of trial after taking evidences and that after exhausting the remedy under section 439A the jurisdiction under section 56 1A, CrPC cannot be invoked.
Kamal Hossain vs Zahid Hasan & another 3 BLC 378.
Sections 406 & 109, 420, 467, 471—
A Legal Adviser cannot be made liable for the offence of forgery and criminal breach of trust for giving his legal opinion—Taking into consideration the opinion given by the Legal Adviser for releasing the property from the list of vested property it was recommended by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Rev) to the Ministry concerned who enquired into the matter and became satisfied that the property in question was not vested or abandoned property and thereby released the same. In such circumstances the Legal Adviser committed no offence of forgery and criminal breach of trust in giving his opinion for releasing the property and the proceedings was quashed.
Abdus Samad (Md) vs State 1 BLC 63.
Sections 406/420—
If there is any provision in the Customs Act for levying any tax or customs duty upon the petitioner for purchasing the car that may be brought into action under that Act and not under the criminal law or Penal Code and, as such, the proceeding is quashed as the trial of the petitioner will be an abuse of the process of law and court and the petitioner will be harassed unnecessarily.
Golam Sarwar vs State 5 BLC 125.
Sections 409/109—
The petitioner supplied the required quantity of rice to the Food Department when from the side of State neither filed any counter-affidavit nor disputed any of the official papers and as such the Court under section 561A, Code of Criminal Procedure could examine the admitted documents of the accused. On a plain reading of the first information report and charge sheet it would appear that the facts stated therein clearly and manifestly fail to prove the alleged charge against the petitioner is an abuse of the process of Court and interference is required under its inherent jurisdiction to secure the ends of justice and hence the proceeding is quashed.
Shokrana (Md) vs State 5 BLC 611.
Section 409—
Sentence—It is a case of temporary defalcation which is a serious offence. The ends of justice will be met in the facts and circumstances of the case if the sentence of fine of each of the appellants is maintained and the substantive sentence is reduced to the period afready undergone as prayed for.
Sekander Ali Howlader and others vs State 4 BLC (AD) 116.
Section 409—
It is settled that once entrustment is proved then it becomes the duty of the accused to account for the money entrusted to him.
Abdur Rahman vs State 1 BLC 215.
Section 409—
Both the trial Court as well as the High Court Division believed the evidence of PWs 4-5 that despite repeated reminders and despite the resolution taken by the Upazila Parishad, the petitioner did not submit the completion report of the project even during the trial and, as such, the case of the petitioner has been ended on appreciation on evidence for which it merits no consideration.
GM Nawsher Ali vs State 2 BLC (AD) 183.
Sections 409/109—
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the Appellate Division is inclined to take a sympathetic view in the matter of sentence. The conviction of the appellant under sections 409/109 of the Penal Code is maintained but the sentence of RI for two years is reduced to the period already undergone. In lieu of the said reduced sentence the sentence of fine is enhanced to Taka 10,000.00, in default, the appellant shall suffer RI for six months.
Jalaluddin Ahmed alias Jalaluddin Ahmed vs State 3 BLC(AD) 216.
Sections 409/109—
Duties of Bank officials regarding payment of cheque—As per Service Rules of Agrani Bank the duty of a cashier, on receipt of a cheque, is to see whether it is duly posted with marking by the ledger keeper and cancelled with the initial of the cancellation officer and in case of a big amount whether it was cancelled with the initials of two officers including the Manager. In the instant case without following such Rules the absconding officer-in-charge of cash and the second officer who had responsibility of supervision of ledger posting and payment of cash and the cashier by corrupt practice and by abusing their position as public servants obtained illegal payment of Taka 4 crore for the drawer of the cheque through an unauthorised and concealed overdraft and they were rightly convicted under sections 409/109 of the Penal Code read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
Fazlul Karim (Md) vs State 1 BLC 300.
Sections 409/109—
The appellant Bibhuti Bhusan Talukder abetted the officials of the Bank in committing a criminal breach of trust of 4 crore taka by presenting a cheque and the signature on it is tallied with the admitted signature of him and the cheque was in his custody which conclusively proves that he had presented the cheque for taking away a huge amount of money in collusion with some officials of the Bank and he was rightly convicted under sections 409/109 of the Penal Code.
Fazlul Karim (Md) vs State 1 BLC 300.
Sections 409/109—
It was the duty of the Manager, Agrani Bank, Khatunganj, Chittagong to keep the safe cash limit amounting to Taka 20 lac but he used to keep excess cash upto 1 crore or 2 crore in violation of the circular of the Bank but in the absence of mens rea or criminal intent the Manager cannot be held guilty of the offence under sections 409/109 of the Penal Code read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act but it is open to the Bank to prove the acts of commission or omission, if any, committed by the Manager.
Fazlul Karim (Md) vs State 1 BLC 300.
Sections 409, 420 and 467—
Although on the bainapatra in question a title suit is pending but cognizance of the offence was taken not only under section 467 of the Penal Code but also under sections 409 and 420 of the Penal Code and under section 5(2) of Act II of 1947 and as such the criminal case is not barred under section 195 (1)(c), CrPC.
Sadat Ali Talukder (Md) @ Md Sadat Ali vs State & another 4 BLC (AD) 228
Section 411—
Section 411 of the Penal Code provides for punishment of imprisonment or fine or both. In the instant case, the ends of justice will be sufficiently met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone and the fine remitted.
Nizamuddin Bhuiyan vs State and another 1 BLC (AD) 222.
Section 411—
The prosecution has hopelessly failed to prove that the petitioner had exclusive possession and effective control over the stolen television set in question and that it was rec overed from his possession and control and hence the prosecutionhas failed to prove the ingredients of section 411 of the Penal Code.
Afsar Ali Pramanik (Md) vs State 5 BLC 478.
Section 412—
As no search list witness was examined regarding identifying the stolen property namely, Yasiko Camera in the TI Parade, the PW 4 who identified the Camera is neither a First Information Report nor charge sheet witness nor has he been examined in this case to say whether he identified it in the TI Parade nor any inmate of the house wherefrom it was stolen. In such a position and in the absence of identifying witness the trial Court was not justified in convicting and sentencing the appellant under section 412 of the Penal Code.
Pear Ali Khan alias Pear Ali vs State, represented by the Deputy Commissioner 3 BLC 555.
Sections 415 & 420—
Cheating–The initial intention to deceive must be established to justify a conviction for cheating. Intention of cheating shall have to be gathered from the facts of the case and its surrounding circumstances. Where there is no fraudulent intention of the accused from the beginning, there can be no question of cheating. In the absence of mens rea, mere breach of contract cannot constitute cheating. Inability to fulfil a promise or contract does not amount to cheating.
Mahbubul Alam Gazi alias Mahbub Alam vs State and another 5 BLC 380.
Sections 419, 467, 471 and 409—
The allegationa as alleged in the FIR prima facie constitute the offence of cheating and forgery and that the present dispute is not a civil dispute for which the proceeding cannot be quashed.
Aga Kohinoor A lain vs State 3 BLC 204.
Section 420—
None of the witnesses has deposed that the appellant induced PW 2 to execute kabala or to deliver the property to him. The prosecution has not led any evidence to prove the ingredient of the offence punishable under section 420 of the Penal Code when the trial Court as well as the High Court Division failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter and wrongly held that the appellant was guilty of the offence under section 420 of the Penal Code.
Mohasin Ali (Md) @ Mohsin vs State 5 BLC (AD) 167.
Section 420—
The
alleged transaction between the complainant and the appellant is clearly and admittedly a business transaction when the appellant had already paid a part of the money under the contract to the complainant, then the failure on the part of the appellant to pay the complainant the balance amount under the bill does not warrant any criminal proceeding as the obligation under the contract is of civil nature and hence the complaint case is quashed.
Dewan Obaidur Rahman vs State and another 4 BLC (AD) 167.
Sections 441/447—
The dominant intention of the appellant was to annoy the complainant who was in possession of the case land even though the complainant might not be present at the time of the illegal entry but he came to the scene thereafter and opposed the appellant who, despite his protest, carried on the work of construction and hence the ingredients of sections 44 1/447 of the Penal Code have been well established.
Mohammad Ali vs Abdul Fazul Mia Md Mazedul Huq and another 4 BLC (AD) 259.
Section 467—
It is a 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.
Azahar Ali & others vs State 5 BLC 262.
Sections 471/34—
The Courts below rightly convicted and sentenced the accused persons under sections 471/34 of the Penal Code as while exercising judicial powers the Court or Tribunal as a part of the judicial machinery of the country determines the rights of the subjects according to established judicial norms and procedure laid down in the statutes but an officer dealing with a miscellaneous case regarding exchange of properties merely acts as an executive authority and does not act as a judicial machinery nor is he invested with any judicial power attracting the provisions of section 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Maniruzzaman alias Md Maniruzzaman vs State 4 BLC 552.
Section 489A-489D—
On a combined reading of section 489A-489D of the Penal Code and section 25A of the Special Powers Act it manifests that the offence of counterfeiting currency-notes as defined in section 489A-489D of the Penal Code is alike as in section 25A of the Special Powers Act when the alleged allegations of the prosecution clearly attract the definition of counterfeiting.
Ayub Ali alias Md Ayub Ali and another vs State 5 BLC 345.
Section 493—
As in the petition of complaint it has been categorically stated that by deceitful means the accused induced a belief in the mind of the complainant that she is lawfully married to him by exchanging garlands and developed carnal relationship with her disclosing a prima facie case of an offence under section 493 of the Penal Code and as such the proceeding cannot be quashed at this stage.
Arzoo Mia (Md) vs State and another 4 BLC 39.
Sections 499 and 500—
When Mr Habib Ahmed had received the information about the amount of Taka three lac withdrawn from bank by joint signature he had no reason to file a criminal case against Mr A Hamid alleging misappropriation of the said amount and that he had also no reason to be scared and as such the allegation of misappropriation was not made in good faith for the protection of his own interest and it does not attract the ninth exception of section 499 of the Penal Code and hence the conviction under section 500 of the Penal Code calls for no interference.
Abdul
Hamid vs Habib Ahmed and another 4 BLC 343.
Section 500-
The trial Court awarded the maximum sentence of fine of Taka ten thousand but the Appellate Court reduced the same to Taka one thousand without assigning any reason and such reduction of sentence was not proper and legal and hence the judgment and order of the Appellate Court so far it relates to reduction of sentence is set aside and the sentence imposed by the trial Court shall be the sentence in this case.
Abdul Hamid vs Habib Ahmed and another 4BLC 343