Appellate Division Cases
The State……………………………………….. Appellant
Khandker Zillul Bari……………………… Respondent ( In Crl. A. No. 12 of 1998) Zahirul Alam Kamal and another…………………… Respondents (In Crl. A. No. 13 of 1998)
The Penal Code (XLV of I860), Sections 302, 201/34.
The right question the High Court Division was required to ask itself was whether the circumstances proved in the case were incapable of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and whether the circumstances relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge were conclusive for the inference of guilt of the accused and whether the circumstances relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge were conclusive for the inference of guilt against the accused or not (7)
By not writing a proper judgment more prejudice has been caused to the respondents because they now stand the risk of going through the process of another appeal (7)
Recovery of incriminating materials including the blood stained clothes, in particular the blood stained lungi of accused respondents and the High Court Division without considering the same acquitted the accused respondents and that the accused respondents after the occurrence imported story of electrocution in the house and staged a drama of breaking open the locks of the door of the P.O. room (10)
Criminal Appeal No. 12 and 13 of 1998
(From the Judgment and Order dated 09.04.1996 passed by the High Court Division in Criminal Appeal Nos. 193 and 192 of 1994)
Abdur Razzaque Khan, Additional Attorney General, (Faisal H. Khan, Assistant Attorney General, with him instructed by B. Hossain, Advocate-on Record For the Appellant (In both the appeals)
Khandker Mahbub Hossain, Senior Advocate, instructed by Azra Ah, Advocateon-Record For the Respondent ( In Crl.A. No. 12 of 1998)
Abdul Malek, Senior Advocate, (Khandker mahbubuddin Ahmed, Senior Advocate with him) instructed by Md. Nawab AH, Advocate-on-Record. For the Respondent (In Crl.A. No. 13 of 1998)
Amirul Kabir Chowdhury J: Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 1998 has been preferred by the State represented by the Solicitor to the Government of People’s Republic of Bangladesh against the judgment and order passed by the High Court Division on 9th April 1996 in Criminal Appeal No. 193 of 1994 allowing the appeal and thereby acquitting the accused
respondent Khandker Zillul Bari of the charge under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the Penal Code.
2. Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 1998 has been preferred by the aforesaid appellant being aggrieved with the above mentioned judgment and order of the High Court Division passed in Criminal Appeal No. 192 of 1994 allowing the appeal and acquitting the respondents Zahirul Alam Kamal and Nasiruddin Jamal of the charges under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the Penal Code.
3. Both the appeals being disposed of by the High Court Division by a common judgment, have been heard by us together and are disposed of by this single judgment.
4. The accused respondents were prosecuted in Sessions Case No. 38 of 1990 in the Court in Sessions Judge Barisal. They were charged under Sections 302/34 of the Penal Code for committing murder of one Faujia Rahman Chapa (25) and also under Sections 201/34 for causing disappearance of evidence of the murder and further under Sections 307/34 of the Penal Code for attempting to cause murder of Shakkar (2) son of the victim Chapa in furtherance of their common intention. The deceased Chapa was the daughter-in-law of one Khalilur Rahman, a rich businessman of Barisal. He has several sons and daughters living in his house at Falorbari Road, Barisal. Shahidul Alam, husband of the deceased and respondents Zahirul Alam Kamal and Nasiruddin Jamal are among the sons of Khalilur Rahman and Jesmin Are is his daughter. Farida Jesmin and Afroza Begum Bizlee are the two wives of the two sons of Khalilur Rahman i. e. his daughters in law. Respondent Khondker Zillur Bari is the son-in-law of Khalilur Rahman and husband of Jesmin Ara.
5. The occurrence took place on the night following 18.10.1989 at the aofresaid house of khalilur Rahman. At the time of occurrence Khalilur Rahman, his wife and three sons including Shahaidul Alam, husband of deceased Chapa were away at Calcutta in connection with the treatment of Khalilur Rahman who was a heart patient. On the morning of 19.10.1989 deceased Chap was found lying dead with injuries on the head and face in her bed along with her about two years old son, Shakkhar, lying unconscious with injuries. She was sleeping in a first floor bedroom and the respondents lived on the first floor and on the ground floor the servants and others were living. It reveals from the evidence that on the morning of 19.10.1989 at about 10.12 A. M. there was a row in front of the house of Khalilur Rahman that an accident had taken place inside the house due to electrocution and the officer-in-charge of the Kotwali Police Station receiving the information over telephone that a daughter-in-law died in the house, went to the said house has been taken to the hospital. He then went to the hospital and found there some members of the house of Khalilur Rahman and asked them to lodge Ejahar and left a police officer there to make an inquest and left a police officer there to make an inquest and he received an Ejahar at 1.00 P. M through an Advocate which was signed by the respondent Nasiruddin Jamal. Investigation was started. After a few days the investigation was taken over by P. W. 1 Bimal Chandra Das an officer of CID. During investigation he collected materials on the basis of which he came to the opinion that the respondents along with other coaccused (since acquitted by the trial court) were responsible for causing the murder of Chapa. He accordingly submitted final report (true) in respect of the Ejahar filed by Nasiruddin Jamal and suo motu First Information Report was lodged by him on 27.03.1990 and after investigation and acquitted charge sheet against the respondents and acquitted accused under Sections 302/ 307/ 201/34 of the Penal Code. During trial 22 witnesses were examined by the prosecution P. W. 1 Bimal Kumar Das being the informant as well as investigating Officer was examined again as P.W. 23 . The husband of the deceased was examined again as P. W. 23. The husband of the deceased was examined as a court witness.
6. The defence case as appeared through the trend of cross-examination was that deceased Chapa was injured by some miscreants from outside the window while she was sleeping in the night before and the miscreants had come to take away the ornaments from her person and that the respondents have been falsely implicated in the case at the instance of interested business rivals. The Sessions Judge after consideration of the evidence on record convicted the respondents of the charges under Sections 302/34 of the Penal Code and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of TK. 10,000/- each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year more and also convicted under Sections 201/34 of the Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of TK. 5,000/- each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months more. The three other female accused were acquitted. The respondents preferred Criminal Appeal No. 193 of 1994 (leading rise to Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 1998) and Criminal Appeal No. 192 of 1994 ( leading rise to Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 1998). “
7. The High Court Division by the impugned judgment and order allowed both the appeals and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the respondents were set aside. The State being aggrieved preferred the appeals as already noticed above. Leave was granted with the following observation: The “We have heard Mr.B. Hossain, learned Advocate-on-Record, appearing for the State and Mr. Sirajul Huq, learned Advocate, who entered Caveat for the respondents. We have noticed with disappointment that the impugned judgment suffers from deviation of the usual norms which are required to be followed in the hearing of an appeal and in considering a case based entirely on circumstantial evidence. For good or worse, the learned Sessions Judge has taken into consideration a number of circumstances proved against the accused and found it possible to record an order of conviction the reupon. The High Court Division unfortunately has not considered at all the said circumstances, not to speak or rejecting them as insufficient. It merely observed tht the accused could not be found guilty of a charge of murder merely on the ground of their conduct subsequent to the occurrence. The right question the High Court Division was required to ask itself was whether the circumstances proved in the case were incapable of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and whether the circumstances relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge were conclusive for the inference of guilt of the accused and whether the circumstances relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge were conclusive for the inference of guilt against the accused or not. This exercise was not done by the High Court Division. Then again the High Court Division did not at all consider whether the order of conviction under Section 201/34 of the Penal Code at least was justified upon the findings made by the trial Court on the basis of subsequent conduct of the accused. Mr. Sirazul Huq, learned Advocate, has agreed that the impugned judgment has not been passed keeping in view the correct principles to be followed in a case like this. He has, however, submitted that even if it were done the result would have been the same. Mr. Huq submits that by not writing a proper judgment more prejudice has been caused to the respondents because they now stand the risk of going through the process of another appeal before this Division. On principle Mr. Huq does not seriously oppose that the impugned judgment calls for an interference in order taht the evident may be reviewed once again upon application of the correct principles which went by default.”
8. Mr. Faisal H. Khan, learned Assistant Attorney General appearing with Mr. Abdur Razzaque, learned Additional Attorney General appearing for the appellant has taken us through the judgments of the courts, inter alia, that in view of clear finding of the High Court Division to the effect taht it was impossible to cause several injuries on the face and head of Chapa through the window as per explanation given by the accused persons, the High Court Division erred in law in allowing the appeals ignoring series of incriminating facts and circumstances brought on record establishing guilt of the accused respondents and that the explanation offered by the accused being disbelieved by the High Court Division, the High Court Division committed error in allowing the appeals without considering that the circumstance appearing in the case lead to their guilt.
9. He further submits tht there being no satisfactory explanation as to the cause of death taking place in the haouse of Khalilur Rahman wherein admittedly the respondents were living on the night of occurrence the High Court Division committed error in law in acquitting the accused inasmuch as the circumstantial evidence and conduct of the accused respondents was found to be incompatible with their innocence and more so their explanation being found to be false.
10. He further submits that recovery of incriminating materials including the blood stained clothes, in particular the blood stained lungi of accused respondents and the High Court Division without considering the same acquitted the accused respondents and that the accused respondents after the occurrence imported story of electrocution in the house and staged a drama of breaking open the locks of the door of the P.O. room. He emphasizes that removal of dead body to the hospital coupled with other circumstances lead to the irresistible conclusion of the guilt of the accused respondents as the place are nothing but ruse to escape their liability.
11. Mr. Khondker Mahbub Hossain, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Khandker Zillul Bari submits, inter alia, that there is nothing wrong in the conduct of the accused to implicate him with the murder of Chapa and that the accused party did not import any incorrect plea as alleged by the prosecution.
12. He emphatically submits that after seeing the victim Chapa the accused took her to the hospital in their bonafide attempt for giving medical aid, which cannot be an offence. Thereafter Mr. Hossain referring to the evidence of P.W. 23 Bimal Kumar Das submits that the servants of the P. O. house and the accused were meted out with inhuman torture to extort confessional statement from them but to no effect.
13. He further submits that except removal of dead body there is nothing to indicate that the respondents removed any evidence. He then submits that as close relatives of Chapa in order to try to save her life they took her to the hospital for treatment and did not thereby commit any offence.
14. He submits that the circumstances if any may at best give rise to the suspicion regarding the respondents but suspicion however strong cannot substitute evidence and therefore cannot be based for conviction. Moreso according to law the benefit of suspicion, if any-, should go to the defence.
15. He submits taht the appeal relates to an order of acquittal. An order of acquittal cannot be converted into order of conviction based on suspicion, coloring the same to be circumstantial evidence and admittedly there is no eye witness in the case and the circumstantial evidence, if any, is never sufficient to alter the order of acquittal into order of conviction.
16. Mr. Abdul Malek, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents Zahirul Alam Kamal and Nasiruddin Jamal adopts the argument placed by Mr. Khandker Mahbub Hossain. He contends that the order of conviction passed by the learned Session Judge is based on mere inference. The presumption that at the time of occurrence so many inmates including the accused respondents being present at the P. O. house the victim must have raised hue and cry and it was not natural the none of the inmates including the accused respondents would hear the same being present in the same floor in nearby rooms is not unassailable.
17. He further submits that because of the injuries the victim was not able to raise alarm and the prosecution failed to prove any motive for the alleged murder by the respondents and the manner and plaee shown by the prosecution is not believable. Regarding conduct of the accused respondents the learned Counsel strenuously submits that the conduct of the appellants does not lead to any adverse inference against them and more so, if there be any conduct assailable, the conduct revealed admittedly of happenings after the occurrence and as such it cannot constitute any offence punishable under Section 302 of the Penal Code and at best may come within the mischief of Section 201 of the Code. Referring to the Ejahar of Na.siruddin Jamal learned Counsel submits that charge itself is also defective inasmuch as in the said Ejahar there was nothing false and as such the charge that to save the accused the said Ejahar was lodged is illegal.
18. He submits that admittedly no motive being disclosed, in the absence of any eye witness to the occurrence, based on purely circumstantial evidence order of conviction cannot be maintained and so the High Court Division did not commit any error.
19. He submits that in any view of the matter even if the prosecution version of the conduct of the accused respondents is accepted for argument’s sake they cannot be convicted under Sections 302/ 34 of the Penal Code, evidence, if any, being led towards making out a case punishable under section 201 of the Code.
20. Mr. Khandker Mahbubuddin Ahmed, learned Counsel also appeared on behalf of the respondents and submits that there is no denial that Chapa slept in her room on the fateful night. There is no evidence that she did not retire locking the door of the room from inside and so how the occurrence took place is a mystery. If the door was broken before the occurrence by the respondents then there was no necessity for breaking the locks open the door in the morning after the occurrence as alleged by the prosecution. The evidence produced by the prosecution in this regard is not adequate. He submits that out of 7 servants not a single servant has been produced nor any neighbour has been examined in the case by the prosecution which leads to an adverse inference under Section 114 (G) of the Evidence Act.
21. He lastly submits that there is no evidence even circumstantial, to indicate that the respondents held any meeting prior to the occurrence and did anything in furtherance of their common intention to commit the alleged offence and as such the submission of the prosecution that they conjointly committed the murder and also caused the disappearance of the evidence has no leg to stands.
22. He lastly submits that the respondents are responding to two appeals preferred against orders of acquittal and as such the court is to find the impugned judgment is not only contrary to evidence but it must be found that the same is also perverse and in the instant case there is no material to indicate that the impugned judgment is at all perverse.
23. We have considered the submissions and perused the materials on record. It is not denied by the parties that the prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence only, there being no eye witness to the occurrence and that victim Chapa was sleeping at the first floor of the house of her father-in-law Khalilur Rahman on the night of occurrence. The accused respondents along with others also slept in the first floor in the same house near the PO. Room and that the victim being thus found killed in the house the onus, in the admitted circumstance, squarely falls upon the inmates i. e. the respondents and others who were in the P. O. house at that time to give explanation. An explanation has been accordingly given on behalf of the accused respondents that Chapa has been killed by the miscreants through the window of the room where she was sleeping. To prove the charge against the accused respondents and dispel the defence plea the prosecution produced witnesses and alamats in the case. According to the prosecution there are circumstances revealed in the evidence leading to the inference of guilt of the accused respondents.
24. From the evidence it has come to light that a story of accident by electrocution was made at the instance of the accused but the story has been found to be false. In this regard evidence of P. W.2 Md. Sidduqur Rahman, P. W. 10 M. A. Salam Talukder and P. W. 14 Nurul Islam may be referred to.
25. P. W. 1 Bimal Kumar Das, P. W. 2 Siddiqur Rahman, P. W. 3 Sardar Matiur Rahman, P. W. 4 Saleha Begum, P. W. 5 Hasina Rahman, P.W. 10 M. A. Salam Talukder and P. W. 14 Nurul Islam deposed that though Chapa was dead a least 5/6 hours back her dead body was removed with a view to destroy evidence of the occurrence and without informing the police( the police station was about one mile off from the P. O.) and the parents residing nearby, body of a dead person (Chapa) was taken to the hospital to mislead the Investigation Agency, which is also evident from the deposition of P.W. 1 Bimal Kumar Das, P. W . 4 Saleha Begum, P.W. 12 Nurul Islam and P. W. 21 Dr. M. Rafiqul Kabir.
26. Furthermore, Shakkhar a two years old child sustained physical assault with head injuries as was found by P.W 19 Dr. A. K. M. Rafiqul Islam. But the accused inspite of being his closest relatives did not take care for his treatment though he was lying unconscious in the bed while sleeping with is mother Chapa. This aspect is revealed in the evidence of P. W. 1 Bimal Kumar Das, P. W 3 Sardar Matiur Rahman, P. W. 9 Fatema Khanam and P.W. 19 Dr. A. K. M. Rafiqul Islam.
27. It appears that P. W. 18 Sreedham Debnath, Sub-inspector of police on 19.10.1989 seized alamats including blood stained lungi which, according to P. W. 23 Bimol Kumar Das, belonged to accused respondent Zahirul Alam Kamal. The said lungi along with other wearing apparels with blood stains, kept in pail as found by P.W. 18 Sreedham Debnath who seized the same.
28. It further appears on perusal of the First Information Report of (Barisal) Kutwali P. S. Case No. 21(10)89 lodged by accused respondent Nasiruddin Jamal that the contents of the FIR were found, during investigation, to be false as deposed by P. W. 1 Bimal Kumar Das. Lodgment of the false FIR is another incriminating factor leading to the guilt of the accused.
29. Normally there is no burden on the accused to offer the reason of death of a person for which he is tried. But the deceased living with the accused in the same house he is to explain how the death occurred. In this connection Section 106 of the Evidence Act may be referred to. As already mentioned, the accused gave an explanation of the occurrence that Chapa was killed in her room by the outsiders through the window. It appears that both the courts below considered the defence plea and held the 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 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 who 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.
30. It appears from the postmortem report dated 30.10.1989 (Exhibi-8) as well as from the evidence of P.W. 11 Dr. A. Barek that he found 19 injuries on the body of deceased Chapa. So many injuries even on the head, hands and frontal side of the body of the victim could not be caused from outside through the window and so the defence plea has been found to be false concurrently by both the courts below.
31. It appears that accused respondents removed the dead body to the hospital inspite of the fact that the victim died 6/7 hours back and after taking her to the hospital disclosed that she died of electrocution and in support of the story of electrocution it was spread in the P. O. house in the morning that an accident occurred at the P.O house as revealed from the evidence of P.W. 2 Md. Sidduqur Rahman, P.W. 10 M. A. Salam Talukder and P.W 14 Nurul Islam.
32. The omission to give medical aid to injured child Shakkhar by the accused respondents smells smear inasmuch as a former maid servant Bagami had to take care of him and take him to the hospital for treatment. We have observed the treatment of the parents of he victim in the matter of informing them of the occurrence and while they were at the hospital and the Ejahar lodged by Nasiruddin Jamal has been proved to be false as evidence from deposition of P.W. 1 Bimal Kumar Das. After giving our consideration to the above circumstances we are led to an irresistible opinion that the circumstances so revealed are incapable of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and thus the circumstances relied upon by the Sessions Judge ere conclusive for the inference of their guilt.
33. The learned Counsels of the respondents also argued that deceased Chapa was beloved relative of he accused respondents and there was no reason for them to kill her nor any motive could be proved for the murder. It may be mentioned that prosecution attempted to place a motive over an occurrence of the night taking place between Chapa and her Nanad (sister-inlaw) over the eating of chalta which of course has not been accepted by the trial court. In this connection the decision in the case of Lai Khan Vs. Muhammad Sadiq and other reported in 20 DLR (SC) 306 may be referred to wherein their Lordships held:”
It is to be remembered in this connection that what moves an individual to commit crime being within his exclusive knowledge there is no onus on the prosecution to lead positive evidence of motive in a given case and a charge established by reliable evidence will not fail if there be no ostensible motive on he part of the accused to commit the crime.”
34. We do not, therefore, subscribe the view of the learned Counsel that for every offence the prosecution must prove the motive if otherwise there is reason to believe as to the guilt of the accused.
35. The circumstances stated above indicate the omission and commission in their close proximity of time, unity and continuity of action lead to no other hypothesis than that of guilt of the accused.
36. From the above facts established through the evidence it appears that the accused respondents conjointly caused evidence of the commission of murder to disappear intending of screening themselves from the offence of murder and thus are liable for commission of offence punishable under Sections 201/34 of the Penal Code.
37. There is also other side. Both the courts below concurrently found that the inmates of the pothouse committed the murder of chapa entering into her room on the night. True, the prosecution could not single out them in so many words. From the evidence of P. W. 1 Bimal Kumar Das it appears that certain alamts were seized from PO house including a blood stained lungi of the accused Zahirul Alam Kamal. The accused Zahirul Alam Kamal has not given any explanation in the matter. In view of positive evidence that the blood stained lungi was that of accused Zahirul Alam Kamal, according to us, he cannot be absolved of the responsibility of murder of Chapa. Regarding two other accused respondents however we do not find any such incriminating element to connect them with the murder though they, as well, are found responsible for causing disappearance of the evidence. In such view of the matter we feel inclined to give benefit of doubt to the two other respondents Nasiruddin Jamal and Zillul Bari so far as the charge against them under Section 302/34 of the Penal Code is concerned. They however cannot be absolved of the charge under Sections 201/ 34 of the Penal Code.
38. It is already noticed that the trial Court in consideration of evidence and materials on record found the three respondents guilty and convicted them accordingly. The High Court Division in its judgment though concurrently found that Chapa was killed in her room by the miscreants within the house who went to her room and caused injuries to which she succumbed, but differing with the decision of the Sessions Judge, the High Court Division reversed the judgment. The Sessions Judge on the basis of evidence leading to the conduct of the accused respondents convicted them holding that from the very beginning they acted in such a manner as to cause disappearance of the evidence and to hide the fact. The learned Judges of the High Court Division observed that it was difficult for them to accept such findings asto guilt under sections 302/201/34 of the Penal Code, as because the conclusions on the findings of the Sessions Judge were based on subsequent conduct of the accused and holding further that subsequent conduct could be considered along with other evidence but could not be accepted as ground for awarding conviction under Sections 302/201/34 of the Penal Code.
39. It appears to us that the learned Judges of the High Court Division jumbled up the issues by mixing Sections 302/201/34 of Penal Code together. They discarded the ‘subsequent conduct’ leading to disappearance of the evidence and, therefore, committed apparent illegality in not awarding conviction at least under Sections 201/34 of the penal Code nor they gave any acceptable reason therefore. The High Court Division admittedly came to the definite finding that the inmates of the house, amongst whom the accused respondents are included, committed the offence and held “so considering the material evidence on record we are required to fix as to who is or who are the actual culprits who committed this offence of murder of Chapa”. Surprisingly the High Court Division though found that it was necessary to fix up as to the real culprits committing the murder but without trying to fix up the liabilities in the same breath held “in our view this is a case of extreme doubt and as such the accused appellants are entitled to such benefit in the instant case”.
40. In this connection the decision in the case of The State, represented by the Solicitor to the Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh Vs. Md. Shafiqul Islam alias Rafique and another 43 DLR (AD) 92 may be referred wherein this Division observed, “The learned Judgers hurriedly acquitted without considering the prosecution case in that the circumstances in the instant case do not exclude the possibility of innocence of the accused and such disposal of the case was not approved and the judgment of the High Court Division was ultimately interfered with allowing the appeal of the State.” The learned Judges themselves in the present case considered that it was necessary to fix up as to identity of the actual culprits but they did not discharge the necessary duty and abruptly came to the conclusion that the case is of extreme benefit of doubt and thus the benefit being given to the accused respondents, they have been acquitted leaving the burden of fixing the identity in the hands of Almighty Allah observing “but we pray to Almighty Allah that the real and actual murderer or murderers of Chapa must be punished by Him as He being Alimul-gaib saw everything regarding by murder of Chapa.” We are really surprised to find the peculiar way of disposal of criminal appeal by the learned Judges of the High Court Division who shirked their responsibility misdirecting themselves and shouldered the same on Allah. This sort of disposal of criminal appeal is unknown to our criminal jurisprudence and we, therefore, disprove this unwarranted methods of administration of justice.
41. In view of the discussion made above we are unable to affirm the judgment and order passed by the High Court Division.
42. In this view of the matter both the appeals are allowed. The judgment and order of the High Court Division are set aside.
43. The accused respondent Zahirul Alam kamal is found guilty under section 302 of the Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of TK. 10,000/-, in default, to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 (six) months more. The two other accused namely, Nasiruddin jamal and khondker Zillul Bari are convicted under Sections 201/34 of the Penal Code and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 (seven) years and to pay fine of TK. 10.000/- each, in default, to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 6(six) months more. The sentence/ sentences of imprisonment already under gone by the accused respondents shall be deducted from the sentence/ sentences of imprisonment awarded by us. All the three respondents do surrender forthwith to undergo the remainder of the sentence awarded against them. In default the District magistrate concerned shall take step for affecting their arrest to undergo the sentences.
Source : III ADC (2006), 253.