Jahid Hassan and another Vs. The State and another [1 LNJ (2012) 198]

Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 2822 of 2011

Judge: Md. Nazrul Islam Talukder,

Court: High Court Division,,

Advocate: Mr. Abdus Salam Mamun,Mr. Monjur Kader,Mr. Narayan Chandra Paul,,

Citation: 1 LNJ (2012) 198

Case Year: 2012

Appellant: Jahid Hassan and another

Respondent: The State and another

Subject: Abetment,

Delivery Date: 2011-10-10

SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH
HIGH COURT DIVISION
(CRIMINAL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION)
 
Mr. Justice Moyeenul Islam Chowdhury, J.
Mr. Justice Md. Nazrul Islam Talukder, J.
Judgment
10.10.2011
Jahid Hassan and another
……Accused-Appellants
VS
The State and another
……Respondents
 
Words and Phrases
Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan Ain ( of 2000)
Section 11 (Ka) (Kha), 27 and 30
On going through the relevant provisions of law on abetment of offences, an abetment may be said to be committed by a person who, by his engagement or act or illegal omission, instigates any person to do a thing. Here, in the instant case, the accused No.1, at the instance of accused-appellants, demanded dowry from the informant. For realisation of dowry, accused No.1 inflicted an iron-blow on the left side of head of the informant; accused-appellant No.1 obstructed the informant from coming out of the room and accused-appellant No.2, by holding hair of the informant, pushed her towards the door from which the informant received hurt on her left side of forehead. Under the circumstances, the prosecution materials, we believe, reveal abetment of offences against the accused-appellants.
As provided under sub-section (1ga) of section 27 of Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000, the Tribunal may take cognizance of an offence if prosecution materials disclose prima facie case against the accused of the case. However, submission of final report does not create any vested right nor any legal right in favour of the accused of the case and the same does not, ipso facto, entitle the accused to their discharge from the case. The accused may be prosecuted if the prosecution material discloses prima-facie offence against him. Accordingly, the Tribunal is empowered to take cognizance of the offence on examining the prosecution materials on record. The learned Judge of the Tribunal considering the materials on record rightly found that the allegations brought against the accused-appellants are matters of fact which cannot be decided without evidence. …. (18 and 21)

Mr. Abdus Salam Mamun, Advocate
---For Accused-Appellants
Mr. Monjur Kader, Assistant Attorney-General
---For Respondent No.1
Mr. Narayan Chandra Paul, Advocate
---For Respondent No.2

Criminal Appeal No. 2822 of 2011
 
Judgment
Md. Nazrul Islam Talukder, J: 

This criminal appeal, at the instance of accused-appellants, is directed against an order No.6 dated 27.04.2011 passed by the learned Judge, Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Tribunal No.1, Chittagong in Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Case No. 15 of 2011 arising out of Kotwali Police Station Case No. 26 dated 13.11.2010 taking cognizance of offence against accused-appellant No.1 under sections 11(Ka)(Kha)/30 and accused-appellant No.2 under section 11(Ka)(Kha) of the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000 as amended in 2003 disregarding the final report submitted by the investigating officer should not be quashed and/or pass such other or further order or orders as to this Court may seem fit and proper.
 
2.      Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal, in short, are that the informant was given in marriage to the F.I.R named accused No.1 on 01.3.1996 in compliance with the provisions of Islamic  Shariah Law. At the time of marriage, the father of the informant gifted many valuable articles to the F.I.R named accused No.1. After marriage, accused No.1 at the instance of present accused-appellants started demanding dowry from the informant. For realisation of dowry, accused No.1 along with accused-appellants carried out mental and physical torture on the informant. In the meantime, the informant became pregnant and ultimately, she gave birth to a child, namely, Sajnin Hassan Simron, at present aged about 12 years. The parents of the informant gave Tk. 10,00,000/- to accused No.1 in presence of the accused-appellants thinking of welfare of their daughter. The F.I.R named accused No.1 after marriage started leading an immoral life. On 21.2.2008, accused No.1 at the instance of accused-appellants demanded dowry amounting to Tk. 2,00,000/- and for realization of the same, the husband beat her indiscriminately. As a result, she received injury in her right eye. The informant endured the torture silently thinking of welfare of her daughter, but accused No.1 at the instance of present accused-appellants did not pay any heed to the informant. The informant came to know that her husband had developed an  extra-marital relationship with her daughter’s house tutor, namely, Urme Dutta (Daisy). Accused No.1 on the aforesaid reason could not perform his marital obligation properly and used to spend night outside the residence. On 27.11.2007, the husband of the informant was found in objectionable position but the husband promised that he would not do the same again. On 4.11.2010, accused No.1 at the instance of present accused-appellants demanded Tk. 60,00,000/- or in the alternative, a flat at Johura Bhaban. Accused No.1 also gave threat to marry another girl if the demand of dowry was not ful-filled. Accused No.1 and accused-appellant No.2 physically assaulted the informant who received injuries on different parts of her body. At the time of assaulting the informant, accused-appellant No.1 obstructed her from leaving the place of occurrence. She informed her parents of this matter, who took her to the hospital for treatment. Hence, this First Information Report was lodged against the F.I.R. named accused No.1 and accused-appellants under sections 11(Ka) (Kha)/30 of Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000 as amended in 2003 on 13.11.2010.
 
3.        During investigation, the police went to the place of occurrence and recorded the statements of the witnesses under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Having found prima facie case, the police submitted charge sheet No.515 dated 30.12.2010 against accused No.1 only under sections 11(Ka) (Kha) of the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000, but submitted final report against the present accused-appellants.
 
4.        Being aggrieved by the final report submitted by the police, the informant filed a naraji petition before the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Tribunal. After receiving the naraji petition, the learned Judge of the Tribunal examined the informant and 4 other witnesses under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
 
5.       The learned Judge of the Tribunal after recording of statements of the informant and other witnesses found prima-facie case in support of the prosecution case and took cognizance of offences against the accused-appellants and another under sections 11(Ka)(Kha)/30 Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000.
 
6.    Being aggrieved by the order of taking cognizance of the offences against the accused-appellants under sections 11(Ka)(Kha)/30 Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000, they filed this criminal appeal before this Court.
 
7.     At the very outset, Mr. Abdus Salam Mamun, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused-appellants, submits that the order of taking cognizance of the offences is neither proper nor legal as the order of taking cognizance was passed without taking into consideration the statements recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the statements of witnesses given before the Tribunal under section 200 of the Code. He next submits that though the P.W.2, namely, Md. Abdur Rahim Babu was not mentioned as a witness in the First Information Report, he was examined before the Tribunal under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure implicating the accused-appellants with the alleged offence and as such, the order of taking cognizance of the offences on the basis of the statement of the P.W. 2 can not be sustained in the eye of law. He then submits that the P.W.2 is a busybody and that the order of taking cognizance of offences against the accused-appellants on the basis of the statement of the busybody appears to be illegal. He further submits that the parents and brother of the victim have not implicated the present accused-appellants with the alleged offences, though they were very much present at the time of demanding alleged dowry. He next submits that admittedly, the accused-appellants are not the principal accused and that there are no ingredients of abetment of offences against the accused-appellants and as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. He lastly submits that accused-appellant No.2 is a Senior Principal Officer of Bangladesh Development Bank, Agrabad Branch, Chittagong and that if the cognizance of offences is taken against him, he will be put under suspension and in that circumstance, the entire family shall suffer irreparable loss and injury and as such, this criminal appeal, in view of the above-mentioned circumstance, should be allowed..
 
8.        On the other hand, Mr. Narayan Chandra Paul, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.2, submits that there are specific allegations of demanding dowry against the accused-appellants and as such the, learned Judge of the Tribunal rightly took cognizance of the offences against them  under sections 11(Ka)(Kha)/30 Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000. He next submits that the allegations brought against the accused-appellants in the F.I.R are supported and corroborated by the statements given by the witnesses before the Tribunal under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and as such, the learned Judge of the Tribunal did not commit any illegality in taking cognizance of the offences against the accused-appellants. He further submits that the allegations of injuries disclosed in the F.I.R have been prima-facie supported by the injury certificate and as such, the learned judge of the Tribunal rightly passed the order of taking cognizance of offences against the accused-appellants. He lastly submits that the allegations alleged in the First Information Report are matters of facts whose veracity are to be tested with reference to evidence to be adduced by the witnesses and as such, the learned Judge of the Tribunal rightly took cognizance of the offences against the accused-appellants and as such, this criminal appeal, in view of above facts and circumstances of the case, should be dismissed.
 
9.        Be that as it may, Mr. Monjur Kader, learned Assistant Attorney-General appearing for State-respondent No.1 supported and adopted the submissions advanced by the learned Advocate for respondent No.2.
 
10.      We have gone through the petition of appeal and the materials on record. We have also considered the submissions made by the learned Advocates for respective parties.
 
11.    On a close perusal of the First Information Report, it appears to us that F.I.R. named accused No.1 at the instance of accused-appellants demanded dowry from the informant in different occasions. On 4.11.2010, the aforesaid accused lastly demanded dowry amounting to Tk. 60,00,000/- or in the alternative, a flat at Johura Bhaban at Dewanbazar, Chittagong. After lodgment of First Information Report, the police went to the place of occurrence and recorded the statements of the witnesses under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Having found no prima facie case, the police submitted final report against the accused-appellants. The informant, thereafter, filed a naraji petition before the Tribunal which, recorded the statements of the informant and 4 witnesses under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On going through the statements given by the witnesses under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, we find that the allegations disclosed in the First Information Report are supported and corroborated by the witnesses. Witness No.2, namely, Abdur Rahim Babu particularly stated that after saying Esha prayer, he went to the Khalil Manshion, that is, the place of occurrence to meet Artist Nirjatita Barua and found the present accused-appellants and another there. He also heard them telling about the demand of dowry amounting to Tk. 60,00,000/- or in the alternative, a flat at the 4th floor of Johura Bhaban. We have also considered the injury certificate wherefrom it is found that the informant received one traumatic swelling on the left occipital region of scalp and one bruise on the left side of forehead which prima-facie corroborate the story disclosed in the First Information Report.
 
12.         The allegation of abetment of offences brought against the accused-appellants in the First Information Report reads as follows :
 
ঘটনাস্থলের বাসায় ২ ও ৩নং আসামীর উপস্থিতিতে তাহাদের প্ররোচনায় ১নং আসামী যৌতুক হিসাবে আমার পিতার মালিকানাধীন দেওয়ান বাজার জি, এম, সি, লেইনস্থ জোহরা ভবন এর ৪র্থ তলার ফ্ল্যাটটি ১নং আসামীকে রেজিষ্ট্রি করে দেওয়ার জন্য আমার পিতাকে বলার জন্য ১/২/৩ নং আসামীগন চাপ প্রয়োগ করিলে আমি রাজী না হওয়ায় ১নং আসামী আমার উপর ভয়ানক ক্ষিপ্ত হইয়া তোর চেহেরা দেখে লাভ কি বলিয়া চীৎকার দিয়া লোহার রড দিয়া হত্যার উদ্দেশ্যে আমাকে মারার জন্য উদ্যত হইলে আমি প্রাণ রক্ষার্থে ঘর হইতে বাহিরে যাওয়ার চেষ্টা করিলে ৩নং আসামী আটক করে এবং ২নং আসামী আমার চুলের মুঠি ধরিয়া সজোরে ধাক্কা দিলে দরজার চৌকাটের কোনায় লাগিয়া আমার কপালের বাম পাশে গুরুতর জখম প্রাপ্ত হইয়া সজোরে চিৎকার দিয়া ফ্লোরে পড়িয়া গেলে আমার চিৎকার শুনিয়া ঘটনাস্থলের পাশের লোকজন মোহাম্মদ ফোরকান, আবুল মনসুর, আবদুর রহিম, মোহাম্মদ ইসলাম ঘটনাস্থলে উপস্থিত হইয়া ঘটনা দেখে। আমি উঠিয়া দাড়াইলে ১নং আসামী লোহার রড দিয়া হত্যার উদ্দেশ্যে আমার মাথার পিছনে বাম পাশে সজোরে আঘাত করিলে গুরুতর জখম প্রাপ্ত হইয়া চোখে অন্ধকার দেখিয়া মেঝেতে লুটাইয়া পড়িয়া সম্বিত হারাইয়া ফেলিলে আসামীগন আমার মৃত্যু ঘটিয়াছে ভাবিয়া সরিয়া পড়ে।
 
13.      The statement given by the P.W.2, namely, Abdur Rahim Babu before the Tribunal under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure runs as below :
 
৪/১১/২০১০ ইং এশার নামাজের পর আমি ঘটনাস্থলে খলিল ম্যানশনে যাই ওখানে থাকা নির্যাতিতা বড়ুয়া নামক শিল্পীর সাথে কথা বলতে গিয়াছিলাম। সাথে আমার সাথে দোকানদারও ছিল। আমি তখন ওখান থেকে আমরা চলে যাই। তখন দেখি তথায় আসামী জামশেদ লোহার রড দিয়ে অপাঠ্য থাকতে ও আসামী জাহেদ হাত দিয়ে দরজা আটকাইয়া রাখে। জামশেদ লোহার রড দিয়ে শেলীকে বাড়ি মারে। তখন আসামী জামশেদ ও ফরিদুল ইসলাম বলাবলি করছিলেন যে ৬০ লাখ টাকা যৌতুক দিতে হবে নতুবা ৪ তলার ফ্ল্যাট লেখে দিতে হবে।
 
14.       In view of the allegation disclosed in the First Information Report and the statements recorded under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, we find prima-facie allegation of abetment of offences against the accused-appellants. It is contended by the learned Advocate for the accused-appellants that there are no ingredients of abetment of offences against the accused-appellants in the instant case. To appreciate the afore-mentioned submission, we should recapitulate section 30 of Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000 which provides as under :
 
ধারা ৩০।  যদি কোন ব্যক্তি এই আইনের অধীন কোন অপরাধ সংঘটনে প্ররোচনা যোগান এবং সেই প্ররোচনার ফলে উক্ত অপরাধ সংঘটিত হয় বা অপরাধটি সংঘটনের চেষ্টা করা হয় বা কোন ব্যক্তি যদি অন্য কোন ব্যক্তিকে এই আইনের অধীন কোন অপরাধ সংঘটনে সহায়তা করেন, তাহা হইলে ঐ অপরাধ সংঘটনের জন্য বা অপরাধটি সংঘটনের চেষ্টার জন্য নির্ধারিত দন্ডে প্ররোচনাকারী বা সহায়তাকারী ব্যক্তি দন্ডনীয় হইবেন।
 
15.       On going through section 30 of the Ain, it appear to us that section 30 of the afore-mentioned Ain, similarly corresponds to section 107 and 109 of the Penal Code.
Section 107 of the Penal Code contemplates as under :
Section 107. Abetment of a thing—A person abets the doing of a thing, who—
First—Instigates any person to do that thing; or,
 
16.       Secondly—Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or,
Thirdly—Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1—A person who, by wilful misrepresentation,  or by  wilful  concealment  of  a  material fact
which  he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. 
Section 109 of the Penal Code prescribes as follow :
 
17.       Section 109. Punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment – Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence.
Explanation—An act or offence is said to be committed in consequence of abetment, when it is committed in consequence of the instigation, or in pursuance of the conspiracy, or with the aid which constitutes the abetment.
 
18.        On going through the relevant provisions of law on abetment of offences, an abetment may be said to be committed by a person who, by his engagement or act or illegal omission, instigates any person to do a thing. Here, in the instant case, the accused No.1, at the instance of accused-appellants, demanded dowry from the informant. For realisation of dowry, accused No.1 inflicted an iron-blow on the left side of head of the informant; accused-appellant No.1 obstructed the informant from coming out of the room and accused-appellant No.2, by holding hair of the informant, pushed her towards the door from which the informant received hurt on her left side of forehead. Under the circumstances, the prosecution materials, we believe, reveal abetment of offences against the accused-appellants.
 
19.          Now we want to consider as to whether the learned judge of the Tribunal is authorized by law to take cognizance of the offences against the accused-appellants notwithstanding the fact that the police submitted final report against the accused-appellants.
 
20.         Section 19 of Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000 contemplates that all the offences punishable under this Act shall be cognizable. In disposing of this Rule, sub-section (1) of section 27 and sub-section (1Ga) of section 27 of Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Ain, 2000 may be recapitulated and considered. Sub-section (1) and (1Ga) of section 27 of the Ain run as follows:
 
২৭। ট্রাইব্যুনালের এখতিয়ার
সাব-ইন্সপেক্টর পদমর্যাদার নিম্মে নহেন এমন কোন পুলিশ কর্মকর্তা বা এতদুদ্দেশ্যে সরকারের নিকট হইতে সাধারণ বা বিশেষ আদেশ দ্বারা ক্ষমতাপ্রাপ্ত কোন ব্যক্তির লিখিত রিপোর্ট ব্যতিরেকে কোন ট্রাইব্যুনাল কোন অপরাধ বিচারার্থ গ্রহণ করিবেন না।
      (১গ)  উপ-ধারা (১) এবং (১ক) এর অধীন প্রাপ্ত রিপোর্টে কোন ব্যক্তির বিরুদ্ধে অপরাধ সংঘটনের অভিযোগ বা তৎসম্পর্কে কার্যক্রম গ্রহণের সুপারিশ না থাকা সত্ত্বেও ট্রাইব্যুনাল, যথাযথ এবং ন্যায়বিচারের স্বার্থে প্রয়োজনীয় মনে করিলে কারণ উল্লেখ পূর্বক উক্ত ব্যক্তির ব্যাপারে সংশ্লিষ্ট অপরাধ বিচারার্থ গ্রহণ করিতে পারিবেন।
 
21.        In view of above provision of law, the pre-condition for taking cognizance of any offence has been fulfilled as a police officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector has already submitted a police report which has been termed as final report. Sub-section (1ga) of section 27 of the Ain stipulates that the Tribunal without having any recommendation for initiating proceeding against the accused may take cognizance of the offence if the Tribunal finds it necessary in the interest of justice. As provided under sub-section (1ga) of section 27 of Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000, the Tribunal may take cognizance of an offence if prosecution materials disclose prima facie case against the accused of the case. However, submission of final report does not create any vested right nor any legal right in favour of the accused of the case and the same does not, ipso facto, entitle the accused to their discharge from the case. The accused may be prosecuted if the prosecution material discloses prima-facie offence against him. Accordingly, the Tribunal is empowered to take cognizance of the offence on examining the prosecution materials on record. In the instant case, the F.I.R. named accused No.1 at the instance of present accused-appellants demanded dowry from the informant who expressed her inability to satisfy the demand of dowry claimed by the accused. Though police submitted final report against the accused-appellants, the fact remains that the statement given by the P.W.2, namely, Md. Abdur Rahim Babu discloses prima-facie offences against the accused-appellants. On going through the First Information Report, statement given by the P.W.2, namely, Md. Abdur Rahim Babu and other materials on record, there is no gainsaying the fact that there are materials on record to take cognizance of offences against the accused-appellants under sections 11(ka)(kha)/30 of the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000. Furthermore, the allegations brought against the accused-appellants are factual aspects of the case, which  cannot be decided without taking evidence. The learned Judge of the Tribunal considering the materials on record rightly found that the allegations brought against the accused-appellants are matters of fact which cannot be decided without evidence. In our view, the learned Judge of the Tribunal did not commit any illegality in taking cognizance of the offences against the accused-appellants under sections 11(ka)(kha)/30 of Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Ain, 2000.
 
22.        In this background of the case, the submission advanced by the learned Advocate for the accused-appellants does not hold good and the same falls through.
 
23.       Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the discussions made above, we do not find any substance in this criminal appeal.
 
24.        Accordingly, this criminal appeal is dismissed.
 
25.    The learned Judge of the Tribunal is, hereby, directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law.   
 
Communicate the judgment to the concerned Tribunal immediately.  
 
Reference:
1 LNJ (2012) 198