Md. Sajjad Hossain Vs. State, VII ADC (2010) 356

Case No: Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No.06 of 2009

Judge: Md. Abdul Matin,

Court: Appellate Division ,,

Advocate: Mr. Munsurul Hoque Chowdhury,,

Citation: VII ADC (2010) 356

Case Year: 2010

Appellant: Md. Sajjad Hossain

Respondent: The State

Subject: Criminal Trail,

Delivery Date: 2009-4-6

 
Supreme Court
Appellate Division
(Criminal)
 
Present:
MM Ruhul Amin CJ
Md. Abdul Matin J
Md. Abdul Aziz J
 
Md. Sajjad Hossain
…..……............Petitioner
Vs.
The State
….......................Respondent
 
Judgment
April 6, 2009
 
In such view of the matter the trial court rightly found the petitioner guilty and sentenced him as aforesaid. The High Court Division also concurrent with the finding of the trial court with regard to the involvement of the present petitioners with the occurrence.….. (11)
 
Lawyers Involved:
Md. Munsurul Hoque Chowdhury, Senior Advocate instructed by Mrs. Sufia Khatun, Advocate-on-Record-For the Petitioner.
Not represented- the Respondent.
 
Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No.06 of 2009.
(From the judgment and order dated 19.02.2008 passed by the High Court Division in Criminal Appeal No. 337 of 2002.)
 
JUDGMENT
 
Md. Abdul Matin J.
 
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.02.2008 passed by the High Court Division in Criminal Appeal No.337 of 2002 dismiss­ing the appeal and upholding the judgment and order dated 31.01.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nobabgonj convicting the appellant No.1 under Sections 302/34/114 of the Penal Code and convicting the appellants and sentencing all of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Tk. 5,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months more in Sessions Case No. 21 of 1997.
 
2. The facts, in short, are that on 08.05.1995 informant Md. Enamul Haque lodged an FIR stating, inter alia, that the accused persons on the order of accused Sajjad attacked the informant and others and accused Enamul Haque gave a kator blow on the jaw of the brother of the informant, accused Noju gave a sulfi blow on the chest and accused Bhoguruddin gave a blow on the neck and as a result Mothahar died and accused persons also caused injuries on the witness and took away goods worth Tk.30,000/-.
 
3. The police investigated into the case and admitted charge sheet against 36 per­sons under Sections 147/148/447/323/324 /302/379/114 of the Penal Code.
 
4. The case record was sent to the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Nobabganj who transferred it to the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nobabgonj for holding trial.
 
5. The trial Court framed charges against the accused persons under Sections 147/148/149/323/324/302/447/379/114/34 of the Penal Code which were read over to them and the accused persons pleaded not guilty of the charge and prayed to be tried.
 
6. As against the judgment of conviction and sentence the petitioner filed criminal appeal before the High Court Division which after hearing dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and order of con­viction and sentence.
 
7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the High Court Division the accused petitioner has filed this petition for leave to appeal.
 
8. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the petition and the impugned judgment and order of the High Court Division and other papers on record.
 
9. It appears that P.W.1 the informant specifically stated that his brother Motahar was going to the eastern side of accused Bahadur's house when the present petitioner Sajjad ordered to kill him and accused Bahadur caught hold of the victim and accused Ekramul inflicted katra blow on the jaw and accused Nazrul Islam alias Nazu inflicted a sulfi blow on the chest and accused Bhogoruddin alias Bhogu inflicted a knife blow on the neck of the victim and Motahar died on the spot.
 
10. It further appears that P.Ws.2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 have corroborated the testimony of P.W.1. It further appears that the evidence of P.W.10 Dr. Khairul Khabir also sup­ports the ocular evidence of P.Ws.
 
11. In such view of the matter the trial court rightly found the petitioner guilty and sentenced him as aforesaid. The High Court Division also concurrent with the finding of the trial court with regard to the involvement of the present petitioners with the occurrence.

We find no substance in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.
 
Ed.