An application for discharge u/s 265 (C) of the Code of Criminal Procedure


NARI-O-SHISHU CASE NO. ______________


An application for discharge u/s 265 (C) of the Code of Criminal Procedure




S/o, Y

Village: Hitashi

Thana: Monohardi

Distrcit: Narsingdi


(on bail)


1. The State represented by Deputy

Commissioner, Narsingdi

-Opposite party

2. K

S/o, late Q

Village: Birampur

Thana & District: Narsingdi

-Informant-opposite party



Nari-O-Shishu Case No. 595/08 lodged against the petitioner u/s 11(ka) of the Nari-O-Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000 (as amended in 2003) corresponding to Narsingdi Model Thana Case No. 10(6)08 arising out of G.R. Case No. 364/08 dated 04.06.08.

The humble petition of the above named petitioner most respectfully-


1. That the petitioner is a law-abiding and peace loving permanent citizen of Bangladesh. He comes from established and respected Muslim family and has the reputation as patron for education in the society. The petitioner is the founding principal of 2 (two) schools, namely, Humanity Serve Academy-1 & 2, situated at Jamalpur Bazar, South Jamalpur, P.S. Kaligonj, District: Gazipur.

2. That the prosecution case in brief is that after having fallen in love with a young lady, the accused-petitioner often tortured the victim for money and the victim used to tolerate silently. The victim told the informant and his wife those sufferings. The informant took many failed steps to rectify the petitioner. On the 3rd June, 2008, at about 3.30 p.m., the petitioner beat the victim in different parts of the body to unconscious with a wooden stick. Later on, he hanged the victim by her scarf in the ceiling of a room at veranda and locked the room from outside. The petitioner did all these in the absence of the informant and his wife. While the petitioner tried to run away, he was caught by the younger brother of the informant and others for his unusual behavior. Later on, he was imprisoned inside the informant’s house. The informant and others broke the door wall of that room and got rid of the victim from hanging as unconscious and brought her to nearest Madabdi Faith General Hospital and later on, she was admitted alive in the Dhaka Medical College Hospital and the victim died on the next day, 4th June, 2008 at about 5.30 p.m.

3. That the real facts are that the petitioner had been passing happy conjugal life with the victim although the victim used to keep relation with her former lover with whom she had deep relation prior to marriage with the petitioner. The petitioner knowingly ignored that in order to sustain the marital bondage with the victim and for the future of their only daughter. Two days prior to the alleged offence, the victim visited informant’s house. On the day of alleged offence, she had the argument with the informant and uncle regarding her extra-marital relation. At one point of the argument, she being humiliated by the informant and uncle got frustrated and rushed into the veranda room and locked the room from the inside and hanged herself with her scarf in the ceiling and tried to suicide. The informant being failed to open the door from the outside, cut off the scarf by a “Da” with a long stick through the window and dropped the victim on a table under the victim. Later on, the informant and others broke the door wall and rescued the victim. At the time of alleged offence, the petitioner was in a meeting in his own established school at Kaligonj. He received a call from his brother-in-law and was informed that the victim got sick. The petitioner rushed to informant’s house and found a gathering but did not find the victim who was brought to the hospital by that time. The petitioner was falsely imprisoned inside their house and called the police himself.

4. That the prosecution case is full of false, vague and frivolous stories and made only to harass and humiliate the petitioner.

5. That the informant did not say in his Ejhar that he saw the petitioner torturing the victim for alleged dowry. He only mentioned the hearsay statements.

6. That no eye witness of the alleged offence is mentioned in the Ejhar. The informant mentioned that the alleged offence occurred in his house in his and his wife’s absence. No witness in their statement u/s 161 stated that they saw the petitioner beating and hanging the victim. Three rooms of the informant were rented and tenants were around at the time of alleged offence. If there were any such beating with wooden stick and killing offence, the tenants must hear the screaming and hue and cry at the brought day light. Nothing about that mentioned in the Ejhar. Beaten to unconscious and hanging must not be unheard from the next rooms.

7. That if the door (made of steel) was not locked from the inside and if the door was locked only from the outside, then breaking the lock from the outside was enough to open the door easily and the door-wall was not required to be broken.

8. That Mr. Moqaddes Hossen, S.I. of the Shahbagh thana conducted the Suruthal report being dated 05.06.08 at Dhaka Medical College Hospital morgue and found no torture injury except the minor fall injury from hanging.

9. That Dr. Moitree Mojumder conducted the post-mortem of the victim being dated 05.06.2008 at the forensic department of the Dhaka Medical College Hospital and prepared the report. He found that the victim was died of hanging which was suicidal in nature.

10. That in the above premises, the accused petitioner begs to file this application for discharge from alleged offence before the learned tribunal on the following amongst other-


I. For that the Suruthal report does not reveal any torture mark in the victim’s body except that the fall marks from the ceiling.

II. For that the amount of alleged dowry and the specific date(s) of the said dowry are not mentioned in the Ejhar.

III. For that the injury revealed in the forensic report does not consider that the victim did have the injuries that made her unconscious her before hanging.

IV. For that the forensic expert opined in his post mortem report that the death was caused by hanging which is suicidal in nature. Therefore, there is no case to answer against the petitioner after the post mortem report. The offence under section 11(ka) against the petitioner does not lie.

V. For that the investigation officer being biased submitted the charge sheet most illegally even though he received the post mortem report before submitting the charge sheet where the cause of death is mentioned as suicidal in nature.

VI. For that there was no eye witness of the alleged offence. No witness in their statement u/s 161 said that they saw the petitioner beating and hanging the victim to kill.

VII. For that the alleged offence was occurred in the informant’s house, not in petitioner’s house.

VIII. For that since the victim locked the door from inside and hanged herself to suicide, the steel door could not open from the outside and the door wall was required to be broken to open the door.

IX. For that the said lock and part of the broken wall are not in the seizure list.

Wherefore, it is humbly prayed that your Honour would graciously be pleased to discharge the petitioner from the charge of offence u/s 11(ka) of the Nari-O-Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000 (as amended in 2003) for the ends of justice.

And for this acts of kindness the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.