The State Vs. Md. Rafiqul Islam,

Case No: Death Reference No. 59 of 2010

Judge: Jahangir Hossain, J.

Court: High Court Division,

Advocate: Mr. Md. Nur Nobi, Advocate, Mr. Zahirul Haque Zahir, D.A.G.,

Citation: 2018(1) LNJ 231

Case Year: 2017

Appellant: Md. Rafiqul Islam

Respondent: The State

Subject: Penal Code & Code of Criminal Procedure

Delivery Date: 2018-06-03

and directing issuance of fresh requests for Expression of Interests (EOIs), publication of requests for Expression of Interests (EOIs) bearing Memo Nos. 418 and 434 both dated 24.01.2017 (Annexures- ‘B’ and ‘B-1’ to the Writ Petition No. 1932 of 2017 respectively) in “The Daily Kaler Kantho” dated 26.01.2017 and the impugned publication of request for Expression of Interest (EOI) bearing Memo No. 1002 dated 22.02.2017 (Annexure-‘A’ to the Writ Petition No. 3636 of 2017) in “The Daily Jugantor” dated 24.02.2017 are hereby declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect and the respondents are directed to approve the Combined Technical and Financial Evaluation dated 18.02.2016 (Annexure-‘F-1’ to the Writ Petition No. 1932 of 2017) and award the contract in favour of the petitioner forthwith for the work covered under the Invitation For Proposal dated 29.09.2015 (Annexure-‘D-1’ to the Writ Petition No. 1932 of 2017) in accordance with law.

Ed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

Jahangir Hossain, J

And

Md. Jahangir Hossain, J.

Judgment on

11.07.2017

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

The State

-Versus-

Md. Rafiqul Islam

. . . Condemned prisoners

(In Death Reference No. 59 of 2010)

With

Md. Rafiqul Islam

. . .  Appellant

-Versus-

The State

(In Criminal Appeal No. 6261 of 2010)

With

Md. Rafiqul Islam

. . . Appellant

-Versus-

The State

 (In Jail Appeal No. 306 of 2010)

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section 302

Quantum of sentence in awarding upon an accused for committing an offence depends on gravity of the offence and sometimes it confers upon an aggravating or mitigating factor. Under section 302 of the Penal Code discretion has been conferred upon the court to award two types of sentences either death or imprisonment for life to which fine shall be added, but the object of the legislature should not be frustrated by exercising such discretion by the court in doing so, so that offender does not go unpunished and society is at the satisfaction that proper justice has been done and court has responded to the crime and expectation of the society but it must be done within the ambit of law as stipulated in the section itself. . . .(52)

Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898)

Sections 35A and 376

It appears from the connected documents on record that the condemned prisoner during investigation and trial of the case suffered, in total, around two years in the custody and he has been in condemned cell since delivery of the judgment dated 27.09.2010 passed by the trial court which indicates that he has suffered long pangs of the death in the condemned cell for around 6[six] years 9[nine] months and around 2[two] years in normal cell during investigation and trial of the case. Long suffering in the condemned cell as well as normal cell may sometime be considered the punishment to be commuted depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. However, we have given our anxious thought over the duration of suffering in the normal cell as well as condemned cell and the age and facts and circumstances of the case it is our considered view that the ends of justice will be met if the condemned prisoner is sentenced to imprisonment for life instead of awarding him sentence to death with a fine of Tk. 1000/-. Accordingly, condemned prisoner is sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Tk. 1000/-[one thousand] and be shifted from the condemned cell to normal cell meant for similar convicts at once. Out of this awarded sentence, the quantum of sentence, he has already served out and period of custody before impugned judgment shall also be deducted on the application of provision of section 35A of the Cr.P.C.      . . . (53 to 55)

Mr. Md. Nur Nobi, Advocate

. . .For the appellant

(In Criminal Appeal No. 6261 of 2010)

With

Mr. Zahirul Haque Zahir, D.A.G. with

Mr. Md. Atiqul Haque [Selim], A.A.G.

Ms. Bilkis Fatema, A.A.G.

. . . For the State

JUDGMENT

Jahangir Hossain, J:  This Death Reference No. 59 of 2010 is the outcome of judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 27.09.2010 referred to the High Court Division by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Bogra for confirmation under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [briefly Cr.P.C].

2.            Challenging the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the condemned prisoner Md. Rafiqul Islam filed a petition of appeal being numbered as Criminal Appeal No. 6261 of 2010 and he also filed a Jail Appeal No.306 of 2010.

3.            Death Reference along with Criminal Appeal and Jail Appeal has been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

4.            The prosecution case is briefly described as under:

On 20.11.2004 one Mst. Benu Bibi filed an ezahar with Adamdhighi Police Station alleging inter alia that her younger sister got married to accused Md. Rafiqul Islam around 20/22 years ago of the occurrence and they were blessed with three daughters during their wedlock. Accused Rafiqul Islam used to assault her sister Salma Begum soon after their marriage and in this regard arbitration had taken place.

5.            On 25.07.2004 there had been a family dispute between accused Rafiqul Islam and victim Salma Begum. Accused Rafiqul Islam along with other accused sat on a secret ‘salish’ in the house on the same night. Referring to the previous quarrel, further altercation took place between the accused persons and the victim on the same night. Accused Rafiqul Islam after being ordered by accused Solaiman, assaulted victim Salma Begum and expressed his intention to kill her. The victim begged for her life to accused Rafiqul Islam touching his hands and thereafter, accused Solaiman told accused Rafiqul Islam that he would have to kill the victim if he wanted to have a happy life. Eventually, accused Rafiqul Islam murdered victim Salma Begum by strangulation. Rafiqul along with his relatives hanged the dead body of the victim with ceiling of the house by her cloths, so that people would understand that she committed suicide.

6.            Getting such allegations from the informant police recorded Adamdhighi Police Station Case No. 06 dated 20.11.2004 against six accused persons including condemned prisoner Md. Rafiqul Islam under sections 302/34 of the Penal Code. Soon after occurrence the condemned prisoner lodged a U.D case with Adamdhighi Police Station and the police came to the place of occurrence and prepared inquest report of the deceased. The investigating officer Ibrahim Khan, Sub-Inspector of Police, Adamdhighi Police Station on completion of investigation, submitted police report being charge sheet No.07 dated 10.02.2005 against only condemned prisoner Rafiqul Islam under sections 302/201 of the Penal Code.

7.            On the basis of naraji petition filed by the informant, the case was further investigated by one Md. Jashim Uddin, officer-in-charge of Adamdhighi Police Station, who also submitted supplementary charge sheet No. 50 dated 17.07.2005 against only condemned prisoner Rafiqul Islam under sections 302/201 of the Penal and other accused persons were left out of the charge sheet.

8.            Accused Rafiqul Islam was put on trial in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Bogra and the charge was framed on 19.01.2006 under sections 302/201 of the Penal Code against accused Rafiqul Islam who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be innocent at the trial when the charge was read over and explained to him on dock.

9.            On closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused present in dock was also examined under section 342 of the Cr.P.C wherein the evidence brought to his notice and consequence thereof were explained to him. This time the accused person present in the dock also reiterated his innocence, none-complicity and declined to adduce any evidence in his favour through defence witness.

10.        Considering the evidence and facts and circumstances of the case learned Additional Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under sections 302/201 of the Penal Code and sentenced him to death with a fine of Tk. 50,000/-[fifty thousand] and but restrained himself from awarding sentence to the condemned prisoner for the offence of section 201 of the Penal Code.     

11.        Mr. Md. Atiqul Haque @ Selim along with Mr. Md. Nizamul Haque @ Nizam, learned Assistant Attorney Generals has taken us to the FIR, inquest report, sketch map with index, post-mortem examination report, testimony of the witnesses, impugned judgment and other connected documents on record wherefrom it alleges that the accused killed his wife in a pre-planned manner in the mid night of 25.07.2004.

12.        On the contrary, Mr. Md. Nur Nobi, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the condemned prisoner Md. Rafiqul Islam contends that reasonable explanation was not provided by the informant for delay in lodging the FIR and the allegation was brought by filing FIR around 5[five] months after the occurrence. Pws. 04 and 12 contradicted the evidence of pw.01 regarding time of preparing inquest report and as such the evidence of pw.01 has become unworthy of credit. One Shafiqul from whom the informant received the killing news of her sister was not examined by the prosecution. Even then, the vital witnesses Sumi and Shawpna, daughters of the deceased were not examined. Non-examination of such vital witnesses makes the prosecution case doubtful.

13.        It is further contended that in the inquest report there is no sign of other injures on the body of the deceased. If she was killed by her husband according to the prosecution, then at the time of occurrence she might have resisted her husband from committing the murder. It was not a pre-planned murder; it might be a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In the present case, the trial judge failed to place the incriminating evidence to the notice of the condemned prisoner at the time of examination under section 342 of the Cr.P.C. For such failure the condemned prisoner did not understand the whole evidence of the prosecution witnesses and did not place his argument properly before the trial court and he has been prejudiced by such failure. Accordingly, the trial has been vitiated.    

14.        Learned Advocate finally submits that if the allegation brought by the prosecution is proved beyond the reasonable doubt, even then the condemned prisoner may be exonerated from the gallows as he has suffered a long pangs of the death in the condemned cell for around 7[seven] years in the meantime.

15.        In support of those contentions, learned Advocate cited some decisions namely 48 DLR 196 and 53 DLR 515 on non-examination of vital witness. 37 DLR [AD] 113, 28 DLR [AD] 35 and 60 DLR 371 on when not getting effective defence under section 342 of the Cr.P.C and 60 DLR, 255 on culpable homicide not amounting to murder.  

16.        In reply, Mr. Zahirul Haque Zahir, learned Deputy Attorney General submits that defence has placed their own case by cross-examination. In cross-examination the defence also proved the prosecution case inviting questions to the witnesses that the victim Salma Begum was killed in the house of her husband. The dramatic plea by showing the victim hanged with the ceiling of balcony of the house finds the condemned prisoner involved in the commission of murder. Although pw-07, one of the daughters of the victim was declared hostile but she in her deposition stated that her mother was killed. Some of the evidence of a hostile witness may be taken into consideration, if found to be corroborative. Mr. Zahir has also cited some decisions in support of his arguments.

17.        In order to prove the case, prosecution has examined as many as 12[twelve] witnesses out of 26[twenty six] witnesses cited in the supplementary charge sheet.

18.        We have gone through the evidence, connected documents and materials on record wherefrom it reveals that the occurrence took place at the midnight of 25.07.2008 in the house of the condemned prisoner. When the occurrence took place, the condemned prisoner was present with the victim in the house as evident by the prosecution witnesses.

19.        From the evidence of pw-01 Ms. Binu Bibi it appears that she lodged the FIR, marked as exhibit-01, against the condemned prisoner and others around four months after the occurrence. This witness narrated the killing incident in the FIR after hearing from her neighbor Shafiqur. Following day of the occurrence she rushed to the house of the condemned prisoner and found the dead body of her sister lying on the ground. Subsequently she came to know that condemned prisoner had tried to show that her sister committed suicide by hanging. She had also identified the condemned prisoner in the dock of the court. From the trend of cross-examination it appears that this witness did not see the occurrence as an ocular witness but she had seen the dead body of the victim in the house of the condemned prisoner.

20.        Supporting the evidence of pw-01, pw-02 Ms. Shafali Begum, a neighbor of the condemned prisoner, testified that the occurrence took place in the house of the condemned prisoner. On hearing hue and cry she rushed to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of the victim lying in the balcony of the house. She also heard from the inmates of the house that she committed suicide by hanging and she was told by condemned prisoner that she should leave the place after seeing the dead body of the victim and how the victim was killed that was not her concern. But daughter of the deceased Sumi told her at the moment that her mother was killed by her father.

21.        Earlier accused wanted to get married second time but in vain because of intervention by the victim. This witness along with others went to the police station and failed to lodge an FIR as the police refused to take the allegation but a UD case was started. She further testified that the accused killed his wife by strangulation. In cross-examination she replied that Sumi told that her father killed her mother.

22.        Pw-03 Sumon had been tendered by prosecution.

23.        Pw-04 Md. Belal Hossain, a neighbor of the condemned prisoner, who testified that before occurrence took place there, was an altercation between the condemned prisoner and the victim. On hearing hue and cry he went to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of the victim lying in the balcony of the house. Accused Rafiqul told him that his wife committed suicide by hanging. But locals said Rafiqul killed his wife.

24.        In course of cross-examination this witness replied that altercation between hubby and wife often took place and the height of ceiling of the balcony was three feet from the ground and no one could enter the balcony straight way without bending his head.

25.        Pw-05 Ibrahim Ali, a neighbor of the accused, having heard the hue and cry rushed to the spot and saw the dead body of the victim and Rafique told that his wife committed suicide by hanging but locals said she had been killed. This witness in course of cross-examination replied that the height of the place of occurrence may be 4/4½ cubit and he does not know whether Salma committed suicide, or not.

26.        Pw-06 Md. Hosen Ali, a neighbor, testified that there was dispute between the accused and the victim over 2nd marriage. This witness went to the spot upon hearing clamor and found the dead body of the victim lying in the balcony of the house. All present there said, it was not a suicidal case rather a murder. Altercation took place between them due to making an attempt to get further marriage by accused Rafiqul.

27.        From the cross-examination it has emerged that Rafiqul wanted to get one more marriage and he had elicit relations with an employee, worked in boiler.

28.        Pw-07 Ms. Tanzila Begum, daughter of the victim and the condemned prisoner as well, admitted in her deposition that her mother had died in the balcony of the house. At one stage of her deposition she was declared hostile by the prosecution.

29.        In cross-examination by the defence she replied that her parents were in the balcony of the house on the dreadful night.

30.        Pw-08 Ms. Bilkis Begum was also declared hostile by the prosecution.

31.        In course of cross-examination by the defence she disclosed that there was dispute between the informant and the accused due to money transaction of the samity.

32.        Pw-09 Md. Ibrahim Khan, an investigating officer of the case, who submitted charge sheet No. 07 dated 10.02.2005 after getting prima face case against the condemned-petitioner.

33.        In cross-examination this witness said that three daughters of the deceased during investigation told him that their mother was killed.

34.        Pw-10 Dr. Kazi Golam Muklesur examined the dead body of the deceased and issued autopsy report, marked as exhibit-05 and found the following injuries:

[1] One transverse circular and continuous ligature mark ½" in width was present around the neck at the level of thyroid cartilage.

[2] One bruise 1" X ½" was present on upper part of Rt. side of neck just below the right angle of mandible.

[3] One bruise was present on left parietal area of scalp [2" X 1"].

On detailed dissection: Antemortem blood clot was present above, below and beneath the ligature mark within the subcutaneous tissue, and muscles of the neck. Antemortem blood clot was also present in and around the injury Nos. 02 and 03. Larynx trachea and both lungs were found highly congested.

35.        He opined that death was due to asphyxia as a result of ligature strangulation which was antemortem and homicidal in nature.

36.        Pw-11 Khondaker Jashim Uddin, officer-in-charge of the police station and 2nd investigating officer, recorded FIR at the inception of the case, marked as exhibit-06 and subsequently investigated the case 2nd time on the basis of naraji petition filed by the informant against the earlier charge sheet and he recorded statements of three more witnesses and submitted report being charge sheet No. 50 dated 17.07.2004 against the condemned prisoner only.

37.        Pw-12 Monjurul Haque Bhuiyan testified that he prepared the inquest report, marked as exhibit-04 and sent the dead body of the deceased to medical college hospital for autopsy. From the dead body of the deceased he found sign of injury around the neck. Getting unusual sign of injury he sent the dead body to the morgue for autopsy to know the cause of death of the victim. He also seized a shawl which he found from the place of occurrence covering the dead body of the victim and he also prepared a seizure list, marked as exhibit-07.

38.        From the evidence of aforesaid witnesses it is found that they have provided evidence in all most one voice. There is no major discrepancy or difference in the given evidence as to the time, place and manner of the occurrence. It is also found from the evidence that pws-02-06 are local persons who testified that the victim was killed and they saw the dead body of the victim lying in the balcony of the house of condemned prisoner. These witnesses immediately after the occurrence rushed to the place of occurrence. So, their evidence is, no doubt, found to be trustworthy of credit as to the killing place and time of the occurrence. Although pw-07 being the daughter of the condemned prisoner became hostile by the prosecution but she admitted that the occurrence took place in the house of the condemned prisoner.

39.        The evidence of other witnesses regarding place of occurrence has also been supported by pw-07 although she became hostile because her father, the present condemned prisoner, has been held on charge of murder of her mother. So, it is difficult on the part of this witness to tell the real fact against her father. Nevertheless, she deposed that her mother had been killed in the balcony of the house where the condemned prisoner was with her as evident. And some of the evidence of this witness can be taken into consideration, if corroborative evidence from other sources as stated above, is available in the evidence of a hostile witness. There is no reason to disbelieve her evidence if such evidence of a hostile witness fits in with the attending circumstances and then it may be accepted and considered along with other evidence. In this regard it finds support from the case of Siddique Munshi -Vs- The State, reported in 44 DLR 169, where it has been held that,

   “...........A witness is not necessarily hostile if he reveals the truth. Established practice, now forming a rule of law, regarding the evidence of a hostile witness is that the whole of his evidence so far as it affects both the parties, favourably or unfavourably, must be considered and the court which gets the opportunity to observe his demeanor is at liberty to make assessment of the evidence. If corroboration from other sources is available to the evidence of hostile witness, there is no reason why his evidence shall be rejected outright. If the evidence of the hostile witness fits in with the attending circumstances, then it may be accepted and considered along with other evidence. ...........” 

40.        It has also been supported by the evidence of pw-12 that he went to the place of occurrence on 26.07.2004 and found the dead body of the victim in the house of the condemned prisoner and he prepared the inquest report in connection with UD Case No. 14 dated 26.07.2004. Getting sign of injury around the neck of the victim he sent the dead body to the medical college hospital for autopsy.

41.        From the side of defence no question was raised that the occurrence did not take place within the vicinity of the condemned prisoner. So, it is admittedly proved that the occurrence took place in the house of the condemned prisoner who is the husband of the deceased.

42.        In the wife killing case husband has to explain how his wife had met death if the wife was living with him within his periphery. When the deceased was living with her husband in the same house, the accused as husband of the victim has to explain the cause of death, occurred. From the case of State-Vs-K.H Zillur Rahman, reported in 57 DLR (AD)129 it is found that since the wife was living with the husband in the same house, the husband has to explain the cause of death of the victim. It also finds support from the case of Elias Hussain-Vs-State, reported in 54 DLR (AD) 78 where it was held that when a wife met with an unnatural death while in custody of the husband and also while in his house, the husband has to explain under what circumstances the wife met with her death. Even in other words, when a servant died in the custody of his master, then master is to explain how the servant died within his custody.   

43.        In this case it is found from the evidence that the victim’s dead body was found in the house of the condemned prisoner. In a wife killing case there could be no eye-witness of the occurrence apart from the inmates of the house who may refuse to tell the truth because no one shows any interest to tell the truth against his own relative. In such a situation the prosecution is to necessarily rely upon the circumstantial evidence. It finds support from the case of The State-Vs-Md. Shafiqul Islam alias Rafique and another, reported in 43 DLR(AD) 92 where it has been held that,

“In such a case, there could be no eye-witness of the occurrence, apart from inmates of the house who may refuse to tell the truth. The neighbors may not also come forward to depose. The prosecution is, therefore, necessarily to rely on circumstantial evidence.”

44.        The condemned prisoner also did not deny that the occurrence had not taken place in his house rather he claimed that his wife committed suicide by hanging in his house.

45.        The autopsy report finds sign of three injuries around the neck of the victim and the pw-10 in his opinion expressed that the cause of death was due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation which was anti-mortem and homicidal in nature.

46.        Even in due course of cross-examination by the defence this witness replied that he found sign of injury around the neck of the deceased. Therefore, the claim of the defence pointed out by the learned Advocate that the victim committed suicide by hanging, has not been established. Because, if she committed suicide there, half of her tongue must be seen outside from the mouth and eyes were not seen to be opened.

47.        The claim of the defence is that the trial judge did not place the incriminating evidence to the notice of the condemned prisoner at the time of examination under section 342 of the Cr.P.C. On perusal of the same we find that the trial judge failed to do so, but when trial judge asked him about the killing of the victim by placing the evidence of all witnesses, the condemned prisoner replied that he was innocent. He did not even utter any word as to the cause of death of the victim how she died in his vicinity at the relevant time. Therefore, the claim of the defence in respect of this particular point is seemed to be unworthy of credit.

48.        It appears from sketch map marked as exhibit-02 that the place of occurrence has been located by the investigating officer as ‘A’ [balcony] in the sketch map which height from the ceiling of the balcony is about 6½ feet from the ground.

49.        On a careful scrutiny of the sketch map along with index we find that the place of occurrence i.e. ‘A’ marked balcony’ is seemed to be very small under infrastructure. It is not possible on the part of a person to commit suicide by hanging from the ceiling of the said balcony. Therefore, the claim raised by the defence is not, at all, sustainable in consideration of evidence of the case.

50.        Hence, it can be said that it is not a case of suicide rather it is a case of murder. It is pertinent to note here that the informant lodged the FIR against the condemned prisoner and others after causing some delay which has not been properly explained in the FIR. But it is found from the exhibit-01 [body of the FIR] that she had no relative except victim of the case and she was living alone at the relevant time. It was the duty of the police to lodge the FIR against the perpetrator [s] when the post-mortem report was received from the medical board finding sign of injuries around the neck of the victim. It was not a mandatory provision to bring the allegation by the informant herself or any relatives of the victim. If any cognizable offence is committed by any person it is the duty of the police to record the facts of the crime with the police station after being informed. In the case in hand the informant is a woman living alone. When she came to know that her sister did not commit suicide rather she was killed by her husband and others then she lodged the FIR with the police station. So the explanation given by the informant for delay in lodging the FIR is satisfactorily accepted.

51.        Having considered the aforesaid evaluations and discussions we are constrained to hold that the allegations placed through investigation reports after being found prima face case, and subsequent charge brought by the prosecution, has been proved against the condemned prisoner under section 302 of the Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt. But the prosecution as it emerged from the evidence, failed to prove the case against the condemned prisoner under section 201 of the Penal Code although he made attempt for concealing the evidence by saying that his wife committed suicide by hanging with the ceiling of the balcony. Therefore, the condemned prisoner has been acquitted from the charge leveled against him under section 201 of the Penal Code.

52.        Quantum of sentence in awarding upon an accused for committing an offence depends on gravity of the offence and sometimes it confers upon an aggravating or mitigating factor. Under section 302 of the Penal Code discretion has been conferred upon the court to award two types of sentences either death or imprisonment for life to which fine shall be added, but the object of the legislature should not be frustrated by exercising such discretion by the court in doing so, so that crime does not go unpunished and society is at the satisfaction that proper justice has been done and court has responded to the crime and expectation of the society but it must be done within the ambit of law as stipulated in the section itself. 

53.        It appears from the connected documents on record that the condemned prisoner during investigation and trial of the case suffered, in total, around two years in the custody and he has been in condemned cell since delivery of the judgment dated 27.09.2010 passed by the trial court which indicates that he has suffered long pangs of the death in the condemned cell for around 6[six] years 9[nine] months and around 2[two] years in normal cell during investigation and trial of the case. Long suffering in the condemned cell as well as normal cell may sometime be considered the punishment to be commuted depending on the facts and circumstances of the case as our Apex Court opined in the case of Manik-Vs- State, reported in 35 BLD (AD) 63. It also appears from the charge sheet submitted by the investigating officer that the age of the condemned prisoner was 40[forty] years in 2005 and the trial was concluded around after five years and in the meantime around seven years have elapsed which finds that the age of the condemned prisoner is now around 52 years.

54.        However, we have given our anxious thought over the duration of suffering in the normal cell as well as condemned cell and the age and facts and circumstances of the case it is our considered view that the ends of justice will be met if the condemned prisoner is sentenced to imprisonment for life instead of awarding him sentence to death with a fine of Tk. 1000/-.

55.        Accordingly, condemned prisoner is sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Tk. 1000/-[one thousand] and be shifted from the condemned cell to normal cell meant for similar convicts at once. Out of this awarded sentence, the quantum of sentence, he has already served out and period of custody before impugned judgment shall also be deducted on the application of provision of section 35A of the Cr.P.C. 

56.        In the result, the Death Reference No. 59 of 2010 is, hereby, rejected with the said modification in sentence and the Criminal Appeal No. 6261 of 2010 along with Jail Appeal No. 306 of 2010 is also dismissed. 

57.        Let a copy of this judgment and order along with lower court’s records be transmitted to the Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Bogra expeditiously for necessary measures.

Ed.



Death Reference No. 59 of 2010 with

Criminal Appeal No. 6261 of 2010 with Jail Appeal No. 306 of 2010