Case No: Jail Appeal No.203 of 2006
Judge: Md. Abu Zafor Siddique,
Court: High Court Division,,
Advocate: Mrs. Hasna Begum,Mr. Fazlur Rahman Khan,,
Citation: 2 LNJ (2013) 552
Case Year: 2013
Appellant: Abu Bakar Siddique alias Badal
Respondent: The State
Subject: Confessional Statement, Commutation/Reduction of Sentence,
Delivery Date: 2013-06-06
(CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
|Zubayer Rahaman Chowdhury, J.
Md. Abu Zafor Siddique, J.
Abu Bakar Siddique alias Badal
Code of Criminal Procedure, (V of 1898)
Penal Code, (XLV of 1860)
Sections 300, 302 and 304 Part-II
Considering the evidence on record including the confessional statement it is apparent that there was no pre-plan to murder the traffic police inasmuch as the assailant was under extreme mental pressure as the traffic police assaulted the convict without any rhyme or reason and damaged the rickshaw indicating that the offence would attract the exception as laid down in section 300 of the Penal Code as a result of which, the appellant is guilty of murder under part II of section 304 of the Penal Code. Consequently, the conviction under section 302 is altered to one under Part-II of Section 304 of the Penal Code. The sentence of imprisonment of life is reduced to a period of 10 (ten) years and the appellant has already served out the sente-nce as per Jail Code. The fine of Tk. 20,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year is waived. . . .(33, 34, 38 to 40).
Mr. Md. Fazlur Rahman Khan, D.A.G.
with Mr. Kazi Ebadat Hossain and
Mr. Md. Yusuf Mahmud Morshed, A.A.G.
Jail Appeal No.203 of 2006
This Jail Appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentenced dated 14.02.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Comilla in Sessions Trial Case No.99 of 2005 arising out of Kotwali Police Station Case No.12 dated 05.01.2005, corresponding to G.R. No.11 of 2005 convicting the accused-appellant under section 302 of the Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Tk.20,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1(one) year more.
The prosecution case, in short, is that the informant, having his posting at Sadar Traffic of Comilla District Town, was duty on 05.01.2005 at 14.00 to 18.00 hours along with traffic constable Selim, when on duty constable Selim cried out for help. At that time, the infor-mant saw a man running away with a knife in his hand and he also found constable Selim with stab injury on his abdomen, chest and head and the informant then took step to take Selim to the Sadar hospital. Police Sergeant Mahmudul Hasan followed the informant to the hospital. The victim was provided primary treatment and sent to Comilla Medical College Hospital for better treatment, but the victim Selim died at 18.15 hours.
Sergeant Mahamudul Hasan informed the matter to the higher authority and all concerned and came to know that the assailant was a rickshaw puller. The police arrested him and on interrogation, the accused confessed his guilt and disclosed his name as Abu Bakar Siddique alias Badal S/O A. Rashid of Village Siramgari, under P.S. Lalpur of District Nator. Thereafter the informant lodged the ejahar.
Mr. Md. Humayan Kabir, Sub-Inspector of Police, Kotwaly Police Station, Comilla, investigated the case. During investigation, he visited the place of occurrence, prepared sketch map along with index and recorded statements of the witnesses under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The investigating officer prepared inquest report and arrangement for post mortem of the deceased. Thereafter he also made arrangement for recording the confessional statement of the accused before the learned Magistrate, Ist Class, Comilla under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After investigation, having found prima-facie case, he submitted charge-sheet under section 302 of the Penal Code.
After investigation, the case record was transmitted to the learned Sessions Judge, Comilla and it was registered as Sessions Trial Case No.99 of 2005 thereafter, cognizance was taken and charge was framed against the convict-appellant under section 302 of the Penal Code and the same was read over and explained to him and the accused pleaded not guilty and he prayed to be tried in accordance with law.
During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses out of 17 cited witnesses in the charge-sheet, but the defence examined none.
The defence case, as it appears from the trend of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, is that the appellant is completely innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case out of enmity and no murder had been committed by the accused-person.
After conclusion of the hearing of both parties and on consideration of the evidence and the materials on record and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Sessions Judge, Comilla came to the finding that the prosecution proved the charge beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly, the Court below convicted the accused.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the convict-appellant preferred the instant jail appeal through Comilla Jail authority for setting aside the judgment and order dated 14.02.2006 passed by the Court below.
Mrs. Hasna Begum, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the learned Sessions Judge, Comilla has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the law and thus passed the judgment and order of conviction which is not tenable in the eye of law. She has further submitted that the prosecution has miserable failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, since there is no eye witness to the occurrence. Moreover, the convict-appellant had no pre-plan to commit alleged murder. She has further submitted that the convict-appellant had no intention to kill the deceased Selim. As such, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside.
On the other hand Mr. Md. Fazlur Rahman Khan, the learned Deputy Attorney General appearing on behalf of the State, has supported the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court and submits that the prosecution by producing sufficient evidence has been able to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt. He further submitted that the convict-appellant made a confessional statement before the Magistrate under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and as such, there is nothing to be interfered by this Court and accordingly, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
We have heard the submission of both the sides and perused the impugned judgment of the trial Court and materials on record including the evidence adduced by the prosecution. For proper appreciation, the evidence is briefly discussed bellow.
P.W.1, Moin Uddin, constable of police, supported the prosecution case. He identified the ejahar and his signature as exbits.1 and 1/1 respectively. In his cross-examination stated that he heard “বাঁচাও, বাঁচাও।”
P.W.2, Habib is a shop-keeper. He deposed that at the time of occurrence, he was at his shop. The occurrence took place on the road. He heard “ মাগো, মাগো, বাঁচাও, বাঁচাও” and at that, he saw a man running away with a knife in hand. He followed him, but could not find out. He found the victim Selim with blood injury and victim was taken instantly to the hospital. Latter on, he came to know that the victim died. In cross-examination, he denied all suggestions the given by the defence.
P.W.3, Ayub Ali, a van puller and the seizure list witness, deposed that he took the dead body by his van. He identified a navy colour ganji, seizure list as exhibits-3 and 3/1 respectively.
P.W.4, Uttam Kumer Saha, another seizure list witness, also identified the seizure list and his signature as exhibits-5 and 5/1 respectively. In cross-examination, he denied all the suggestions given by the defence.
P.W.5 Imtiaz Ahmed, a shop-keeper, deposed that the occurrence took place on the road in front of his shop. He heard someone crying “বাঁচাও, বাঁচাও” and instantly, he saw a man wearing a traffic dress falling down on the road. The police took him to the hospital. Later on, he came to know that the victim died and also came to know that one rickshaw puller had stabbed him. In cross-examination by the defence, he denied that he did not see the stabbing.
P.W.6 Abdul Hamid Pathan President of Rickshaw-puller Kalliyan Sangstha, deposed that on that date at around evening, he was at a meeting in his office when he came to know that a traffic police had been stabbed by a rickshaw-puller killed named Abu Bakkor Siddique alias Badal. Thereafter, with the help of the rickshaw-owner, he withheld Abu Bakkor Siddique and brought him to his office. On interrogation, Abu Bakkor Siddique disclosed that in the morning, one traffic police assaulted him in public and for that reason, he stabbed the traffic police. Thereafter, the police arrested him.
In cross-examination, he stated that “ঘটনার পর রিক্সা ওয়ালাদের উপর পুলিশ পিটাতে থাকে বলে সংবাদ পাই ও মিটিং বন্ধ রাখি। ঘটনার দুই দিন পর সংখ্যায় ৩০/৩৫ জন রিক্সা ওয়ালাকে ধরে। পরে এস, পি, সাহেবের সাথে আমাদের আলোচনা হয় ও আলোচনা সূত্রে তাদের ছেড়ে দেয়। সাজেশনে বলেন, সত্য নয় যে, আমরাই মিথ্যা ভাবে আসামীর প্রতি শএ্রতা বশতঃ ও সহানীয় রিক্সা চালকদের হয়রানী থেকে বাঁচানোর জন্য আসামীকে ভিনদেশী বিধায় তাকে ধরে দেই এবং আসামী কোন স্বীকারোক্তি করে নাই।”
P.W.7 Khosh Ahmed Chowdhury, Sub-Inspector of Police and recording officer of the case. He is a merely a formal witness.
P.W.8 Sohag is a rickshaw puller. He deposed that at the time of occurrence, he heard “বাঁচাও, বাঁচাও” of a traffic police and he rushed to the place occurrence and found the victim lying with blood injury. Later on, he came to know that traffic police died. In cross-examination, he stated that he did not depose before the investigating officer and he did not identify the convict-appellant।
P.W.9 Abdul Matin is a rickshaw owner, he deposed that- “আসামী আবু বকর বাদল আমার কাছে আসেz আমার রিক্সা নং-৭১৫০ এ প্যাডলার ছিল আসামী আমাকে জানায় যে, রিক্সা চোরে নিয়ে গেছে, পরে জিজ্ঞাসাবাদে জানায় যে, চোরে নেয় নাই সার্জেন্ট নিয়া গেছে। পুনরায় বলেন, আমি আসামীকে নিয়ে রিক্সা শ্রমিক অফিসে যাই সেখান থেকে পুলিশ তাকে নিয়ে আসে।”
In his cross-examination he stated that- “আব্দুল হামিদ পাঠান থেকে ট্রাফিক পুলিশ হত্যার প্রসংগে জানতে পারেz সাজেশনে বলেন সত্য নয় যে, আসামীর সাথে আমার জেঠাতো ভাই মনিরের বিরোধ থাকায় মিথ্যা ভাবে যোগ সাজসে তাকে জড়াই দেই।”
P.W.10 Humayun Kabir is a Sub-Inspector of Police and Investigating officer of the case. During investigation, he visited the place of occurrence, prepared the sketch map and index, prepared inquest report of the deceased and seized alamots and recorded the statement of witnesses under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He arranged for recording the confessional statement of the accused under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Ist Class Magistrate, Comilla and having found prima-face case against the accused, he submitted charge sheet under section 302 of the Penal Code. In cross-examination he denied all suggestions given by the defence.
P.W.11 Mr. Shafiul Azim, Magistrate, Ist Class, Comilla, deposed that he recorded the confessional statement of the accused under section164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, observing all the formalities as required by the law. He has identified the statement. In cross-examination he denied all suggestions given by the defence.
P.W.12 Dr. Abdul Hai, Asstt. Professor, Forensic Medicine Department, Comilla and one of the member of post mortem examination board, deposed that after autopsy of the dead body, he found the following injuries:-
- Stab injury scalp, behind left ear or temporal bone 1½″ x ¾″ x scalp depth.
- Stab injury right anterior chest just above right nipple 1″ x ½″ x chest depth in the 3rd intercostals space, injuries lateral surface of upper lob of right lungs.
- Stab injury over sternum 5½″ below jugular notch on mid line ½″ x ¼″ x ¼″ size.
- Stab injury 2½″ x 1″ abdomen depth, 2″ left of midline & 8″ below left nipple, with evisceration of omentum with injury to transverse colon.
- Stab injury 2½″ x 1″ x absomen depth on the right lateral wall of trunks 5½″ below right nipple with injury to lateral surface of right lobe of liver.
- Stab injury middle of deltoid region of left arm ½″ x ½″ x muscle depth 8″ above elbow joint (Left). Chest cavity full of blood.
He also identified the Medical report and his signature therein as exhibits-11 & 11/1 and he also identified the signature of Dr. Kamada Prasad who was the member of the Autopsy Board as exhibit-11/2.
These are all the evidence adduced by the prosecution.
It appears that P.W.1, Constable of the police, supported the prosecution case. P.W.2 is a shop-keeper and after occurrence he saw a man running away with knife. P.W.3 is a van puller, he took the dead body by his van. P.W.4 is a seizure list witness in presence of whom a knife was recovered from a dustbin and he has identified the knife. P.W.5 is another shop-keeper and he heard an outcry and he came to know that one rickshaw-puller stabbed and the victim died. P.W.6 is the President of the Rickshaw-puller Kalliyan Sangstha and he interrogated the rickshaw-puller Abu Bakkar Siddique. P.W.7 Sub-Inspector of police and recording officer of this case. P.W.8 is a rickshaw-puller, who heard the outcry of a traffic police and rushed to the place of occurrence and found the victim lying with blood injury. P.W.9 owner of the recovered rickshaw, stated that on interrogation by the police, the convict-appellant confessed that he had stabbed the traffic police. P.W.10 Investigating officer has properly investigated of this case and found prima-face case against the convict-appellant. P.W.11 Magistrate, Ist Class, Comilla, who recorded the confessional statement of the convict-appellant under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he has certified as to the voluntary statement of the appellant. P.W.12, member of the Medical Board, gave and his opinion that the victim died due to shock and hemorrhage leading to failure of vital centres of the brain which was ante-mortem and homicidal in nature.
The accused-appellant made a statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Magistrate which as follows:-
“আমি কুমিল্লায় ৮/৯ বছর ধরে রিক্সা চালাই। গতকাল ৫/১/০৫ তারিখ সকাল ১১ টার দিকে কান্দিরপাড় লিবার্টি সিনেমার সামনে ট্রাফিক মোড়ে ট্রাফিক সেলিম আমাকে লাঠি দিয়ে কয়েকটা বারি মারে এবং আমার রিক্সার চাকার সব সত্রুফ ভেংগে ফেলে, তার মার খেয়ে আমার সহ্য হয়নিz ঐখানে মার খেয়ে আমি ফৌজদারী মোড়ে এসে গাড়ি মেরামত করে আমি বাসায় গিয়ে আমার বাসায় থাকা কোরবানীর গর্র ছিলার একটা ছুরি আমার কোমরে গুঁজে নিয়ে রিক্সা নিয়ে আবার লিবার্টির মোড়ে যাই, গিয়ে দেখি ঐ ট্রাফিক ডিউটিতে আছে, আমি রিক্সাটা নিউ মাকের্টের সাইডে রিক্সাটা ভিড়াইয়া রেখে আমি ঐ ট্রাফিক পুলিশের কাছে যাই, তার পরনে পুলিশের পোশাক ছিল। আমি তার কাছে গিয়ে আমার কোমরে গুঁজা ছুরি বের করে তার পেটে, বুকে, ঘাড়ে পর পর কয়েকটা ঘাই মারি, তখন ঐ ট্রাফিক আমাকে জড়াইয়া ধরলে আমি আবার তাকে ঘাই মেরে পালাইয়া নিউ মার্কেটের ভিতর দিয়ে যাওয়ার সময় মাছ বাজারের কাছে ছুরিটি ঢিল দিয়ে ফেলে দিয়ে আমি বাসায় যাই এবং আমার রিক্সার মালিক মতিনের কাছে গিয়ে বলি ট্রাফিক পুলিশকে ছুরি মেরে আমি রিক্সা ফেলে চলে আসছিz মালিক আমার কথা শুনে আমাকে নিয়ে ষ্টেশন রোডে রিক্সা শ্রমিকের অফিসে নিয়ে যায়, রিক্সা শ্রমিক নেতারা পুলিশকে খবর দিলে পুলিশ এসে আমাকে ধরে নিয়ে যায়, আমি রিক্সা শ্রমিক অফিসে শুনি যে আমি যাকে ছুরি মেরেছি ঐ ট্রাফিক পুলিশ মারা গেছে। আজকে সকাল অনুঃ সকাল ৮.৩০ টার দিকে আমি দেখিয়ে দিলে পুলিশ নিউ মার্কেট মাছ বাজার হতে আমি যে ছুরি দিয়ে ট্রাফিক পুলিশকে ঘাই মেরেছিলাম সেই ছুরিটি উদ্ধার করেz আমি যা করছি ভুল করছি, আমি আমার শাস্তি মাথা পেতে নেব।”
Admittedly this is a murder case. On the evidence on record of the prosecution witnesses, it apparent that there is no pre-plan by the convict-appellant to murder of the traffic police. Rather, as evident from the statement made by the appellant himself under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Magistrate, 1st Class, Comilla, the appellant was facing extreme mental pressure for the reason that- “গত কাল ৫/১/২০০৫ তারিখ সকাল ১১.০০ টার দিকে কান্দিরপাড় লিবার্ঢি~ সিনেমার সামনে ট্রাফিক মোড়ে ট্রাফিক সেলিম আমাকে লাঠি দিয়ে কয়েকটা বারি মারে এবং আমার রিক্সার চাকার সব ¯Œzd ভেংগে ফেলে, তার মার খেয়ে আমার সহ্য হয় নাই।”
From the above circumstances, it is abundantly clear that there was no pre-plan to commit the murder. Therefore, the offence would not fall within the purview of section 302 of the Penal Code; rather all the elements are present in the instant case to indicate that the offence would attract the exception as laid down in section 300 of the Penal Code, and accordingly, the appellant would be guilty of the murder under part-II of section 304 of the Penal Code.
Having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case and the statement made by the appellant under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, we are inclined to hold that the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 14.02.2006, so far as it relates to the sentence, is liable to be interfered.
We have also taken note of the fact that at the relevant time, the appellant was only 35 years. By this time, a period of 8 years has elapsed and during this enter period from the date of his arrest i.e. on and from 06.01.2005, he has been in custody till date.
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part.
The impugned judgment and order dated 14.02.2006, so far as it relates to the conviction of accused, is upheld.
However, the conviction under section 302 of the Penal Code is hereby altered to one under Part-II of section 304 of the Penal Code.
Therefore, the sentence of imprisonment for life is reduced to a period of 10(ten) years that the appellant has already served as per Jail Code.
The imposition of the fine of taka 20,000/- in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonnment for 1(one) year is hereby waived.
The appellant Abu Bakkor Siddique alias Badal, son of Abdur Rashid be set at liberty forthwith, if not wanted in connected with any other case.
The office is directed to send down the lawyer court records along with a copy of the judgment at once.