The State Vs. Khorshed Pesker [4 LNJ (2015) 66]

Case No: Death Reference No. 17 of 2009

Judge: Abdur Rob,

Court: High Court Division,,

Advocate: Bishmadeb Chakraborty,Md. S. R. Khoshnabish,Mr. Md. Atiqul Hoque,Mrs. Rabeka Sultana,,

Citation: 4 LNJ (2015) 66

Case Year: 2015

Appellant: The State

Respondent: Khorshed Pesker

Subject: Death Reference,

Delivery Date: 2014-05-27

HIGH COURT DIVISION
(CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
 
Shahidul Islam, J.
And
Abdur Rob, J

Judgment on
27.05.2014
}
}
}
The State
-Versus-
Khorshed Pesker
...Condemned-convict
(Absconding)
 
Evidence Act (I of 1872)
Section 106
Ordinarily an accused has no obligation to account for the death for which he is placed on trial. The murder having taken place while the condemned convict was living with his wife in the same house he was under an obligation to explain how his wife had met with her death. In the absence of any explanation coming from his side it seems none other than the husband who was responsible for causing the death in question. . . . (11)
 
Evidence Act (I of 1872)
Section 106
When the wife is murdered while in custody of her husband the natural presumption will be that her husband is responsible for her death.  . . . (45)
 
Evidence Act (I of 1872)
Sections 8 and 9
It is found from record that convict Khorshed remained in absconding since the very inception of the case till now without offering any explanation as to why he avoided trial of the case. Further, convict Khorshed even did not prefer any appeal challenging the judgment and order by which he has been convicted and sentenced or surrender before the court. This conduct of the said convict is a relevant fact which should be taken into consideration as a circumstance in determining his guilt as per the provision of section 8 and 9 of Evidence Act, 1872         . . . (46)
 
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section 302
A person who caused death of his wife life out of sheer greed has no right to live in this world. . . . (50)
 
State Vs. Kalu Bepari, 43 DLR 249; Shamsuddin Vs. The State, 45 DLR 587; Abdul Motaleb Howlader Vs The State 5 MLR (AD) (2000) 362; Rajib Ali Zulfiqar Vs. State 45 DLR 705 and Anti Corruption Vs A.T.M. Nazimullah Chowdhury and others 62 DLR (AD) 225, 30 BLD (AD) 63) ref.
 
Mr. Bishmadev Chakrabortty, D.A.G. with
Mr. Md. Atiqul Hoque, A.A.G and
Mr. Nizamul Hoque Niam, A.A.G
. . . For the State
Mrs. Rabeka Sultana, State defence lawyer
Md. S. R. Khoshnabish, Advocate
. . . For the condemned-convict

Death Reference No. 17 of 2009.
J U D G M E N T
Abdur Rob, J.

This reference under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, shortly, “the Cr.P.C” has been made by the learned Judge, Nari-O-Shisu Nirjatan Daman, Tribunal, Barishal (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) for confirmation of death sentence imposed upon accused Khorshed Pesker, on his conviction under section 11(Ka) of the Nari-O-Shisu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000 (for short, Ain of 2000) (Amendment 2003) awarded by the judgment dated March 11, 2009 passed in Nari-Shisu Case No. 446 of 2007 arising out of Muladi Police Station Case No. 12 dated April 21, 2007 corresponding to G.R. No. 62 of 2007.
 
Deceased Arzu Akhter shall be described hereinafter as victim Arzu. Convict Korshed Pesker shall be described as convict Khorshed.
 
The prosecution case, in brief, is that one Rani Begum (P.W.1) lodged a First Information Report, shortly, “FIR” on April 21, 2007 at around 23.35 hours with Muladi Police Station against Khorshed pesker along with 11 other accused alleging, inter alia, that her daughter Arzu was given into marriage with accused Khorshed Alam according to the proposal of accused while she was 3 months old and there was an  agreement that when her daughter would be adult and the marriage would be taken place and they would be taken her their house. About 2 (two) years before Arzu became adult and accordingly the guardians of Arzu while requested the accused to take her their house, the accused Delwar Hossain Bhulu and Mozammel pesker demanded Tk. 2,00,000/- (two lacs) from the informant as dowry. She (informant) considering peace of her daughter gave Tk. 1,00,000/- (one lac) to the accused. Thereafter, the accused created pressure upon the informant and her daughter victim Arzu for remaining dower money. Accused Khorshed usually  stayed in his service place at Dhaka. Before 7/8 days of occurrence  Khorshed came back to his house from Dhaka and he was taken Arzu to his house from his father-in -law's house. On April 20, 2007 in the evening the informant along with others went to the house of the accused to bring Arzu at her house. But the accused misbehaved with her and refused to give her and also threatened her that her daughter would be sent for ever. Arzu was requested the informant to leave the house and said that she would go to Dhaka along with her husband  Khorshed. Accordingly the informant along with other left the house. On April 21, 2007 at around 9.00 A.M. victim Arzu wished to go Dhaka with Khorshed and because of that there was a quarrel between Arzu and Khorshed. At one stage the accused preplanned way from April 20, 2007 midnight to on April 21, 2007 at around 9.00 A.M. had murdered victim Arzu by strangulation and to ensure her death burnt her body by using Keroshine. On the date of occurrence, in the morning Abdur Rab Patwary informed her that  the accused murdered her daughter and burnt by using keroshine.  Receiving the news, she went to the place of occurrence and saw the front door of the house was closed and the back door was open and the whole body of the victim Arzu was burnt. 
 
On the basis of the aforesaid allegation Muladi Police Station Case No. 12 dated April, 2007 was lodged under sections 11(ka)/4(1)/30 of the Ain, 2000 corresponding to G.R. No. 62 of 2007.
 
The Investigating Officer took up the case for investigation; he visited the place of occurrence prepared the Inquest Report of the dead body in the presence of respective witnesses. He duly sent the body of the victim to the Forensic Medicine Department of Shebacim Medical College Hospital for post mortem. Post mortem examination of the victim was performed by Dr. Khalid Ahmed Saifullah and Dr. Md. Abul Quashem.
 
Ultimately, on conclusion of investigation the Investigating Officer, submitted charge-sheet against accused Khorshed (absconding) along with 11 others under sections 11(ka)/ 4(1)/30 of the Ain, 2000.
 
Later, the case was duly sent to the concerned Tribunal for trial. Learned Judge of the Tribunal on taking cognizance of the offence against all the accused under sections 11(ka)/4(1)/30 of the Ain, 2000 framed charge against them under the said provision of law. On being read over and explained the charge to the accused who were present before the Trial Court, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accused Khorshed along with 5 other being absconding could not be read over the charge and trial was held in absentia. They were defended by the learned Advocate of their own choice and accused Khorshed and 5 other (absconding) were defended by the Advocate appointed by the state. 
 
During the course of trial the prosecution produced as many as 20 (twenty) witnesses including the Medical Officer and the Investigating Officer. Out of them P.Ws 5, 6, 10 and 14 Abul Kalam Sikder, Aruna Khanam, A. Khaleque and Iqbal Hossain were tendered and P.W. 6 was cross-examined by the state defence. P.W 11 Shamsul Hoque declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution.  The defence adduced 4 (four) witnesses. The Tribunal after considering the evidence and materials on record found the accused Khorshed guilty under section 11(Ka) of the Ain, 2000 and sentenced him to death with fine while not found guilty other 11 accused and acquitted them by its judgment and order dated March 11, 2009.
 
Death sentence matter has been referred to this Court by way of a Reference by Tribunal and the Reference has been noted as Death Reference No. 17 of 2009.
 
Mr. Bishmadev Chakrabortty, learned Deputy Attorney General with Mr. Md. Atiqul Hoque and Mr. Nizamul Hoque Nizam, the learned Assistant Attorney General appeared in support of the Reference while Mrs. Rabeka Sultana, the learned State Defence Lawyer appeared on behalf of the convict Khorshed.
 
Mr. Bishmadev Chakrabortty, the learned DAG, submits that the prosecution had successfully established his case beyond reasonable doubt and that the ingredients of the aforesaid special provision of law having been attracted the Tribunal duly found that the convict Khorshed had committed the offence as alleged. He also submits that reason to disbelieve the witnesses nor the defence could shake the credibility of the witnesses. The story of the case is clearly suggests the involvement of the convict Khorshed with the offence. In this regard learned DAG contended that the victim was an innocent village house wife who did not have any enmity with anyone, the alleged occurrence also took place after taking her to the house of accused. Learned DAG insisted that a close reading of the statement of the P.Ws proved that he is solely responsible for the murder of victim Arzu. He finally submits that the Tribunal committed no error of law or facts in passing the judgment of conviction and sentence against the convict and, therefore, there is no justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal.
 
Mrs. Rabeka Sultana, learned Advocate took us through the FIR, and the entire evidence on records, including the material exhibits and submitted that the Tribunal fell into error of law in finding the accused guilty of the charge levelled against him, for the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. She further submits that the allegation of killing the victim Arzu is not believable and the accused has been implicated by the informant out of suspicion. Considering the same the Tribunal came to its findings merely upon conjectures and surmises, not upon legal evidence on records. The taintive  relationship sought to be proved as a motive of the offence has not been proved by cogent and credible evidence. She lastly submits with emphasis that the sentence of death passed upon the accused is extremely harsh and too severe. Death sentence, she added, should not be passed as of routine and that this is not a case in which sentence of death is warranted. 
 
Now in order to appreciate the arguments advanced by the learned DAG and Advocate we would turn to and discuss the evidence adduced by the prosecution in this case. 
 
P.W 1 Mst. Rani Begum mother of the victim Arzu Akter stated that her daughter Arzu was given into child marriage with accused Khorshed according to the proposal of accused while she was 3 months old and there was agreement that when her daughter would be adult, they would be taken her to their house. About 2 years before Arzu became adult and the guardian of Arzu while requested the accused to take her their house, the accused Delwar Hossain Bhulu and Mozammel pesker demanded Tk. 2,00,000/- (two lacs) from the informant as dowry. She (P.W 1) considering peace of her daughter, she gave Tk. 1,00,000/- (one lac) to the accused. Thereafter, the accused created pressure upon the informant for remaining dower money. Accused Khorshed usually stayed in his service place at Dhaka. Before 7/8 days of the date of occurrence Khorshed came back to his house from Dhaka and he was taken Arzu to his house from his father-in-law's house. On April 20,2007 in the evening the informant along with others went to the house of the accused to bring Arzu at her house. But the accused misbehaved with her and refused to give her and also threatened her that her daughter would be sent for ever. Arzu was requested the informant to leave the house and said that she would go to Dhaka along with Khorshed. Accordingly the informant along with other left the house. On April 21, 2007 at around 9.00 A.M. victim Arzu wished to go Dhaka with Khorshed and because of that there made a quarrel between Arzu and Khorshed. The date of occurrence the accused had  murdered victim Arzu. On the date of occurrence A. Rab Patwary informed her that her daughter had murdered and burnt the dead body. Accordingly she went to place of occurrence and saw the front door of the house was locked and back door was open and saw the entire body of victim Arzu had been burnt. Thereafter police came to spot and dead body was taken for post mortem and the police apprehended 5 (five) accused. She lodged the FIR. She proved the FIR as Ext. I. She further stated that the Investigating Officer took her to the Magistrate and the Magistrate recorded her statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C.
 
P.W 2 A. Rob Patwary stated that  on April 21, 2007 at around 8/8.30 A.M. he went to the garden of the accused   Khorshed and he heard the sound from the house of the pesker and saw Mozammel, Khorshed, Salma, Moni, Bhulu, Abul Pesker, Abul Howlader, Rashed ,Sumon, Champa and  Shahadat in the house of Pesker.  He further stated that he saw the dead body of the victim Arzu. Accused Delwar Hossain Bhulu and Abul Pesker  gave keroshine to the body of Arzu and then fire which he saw through the window.  The police prepared the inquest report of the dead body and his signature so endorsed thereon and marked as Exts.2 and 2(1) respectively. His statement recorded by the police and the Magistrate.
 
P.W 3 Md. Munim Hasan, Upazila Nirbahi Officer, Mollarhat stated that on May 29, 2007  he was the Magistrate, 1st class,  Barisal  and  on that day, he  recorded the statement of  witnesses Rani Begum, Abdur Rob, Aruna Begum and Helena Begum under section 22 of the Ain, 2000. The statements were marked as Exts. 3,4,5 and 6 and his signatures so endorsed thereon and marked as Exts. 3(1), 3(2), 4(1), 4(2),5(1),5(2),6(1) and 6(2) respectively.
 
P.W 4 Mst. Aruna Begum stated that on April 21, 2007 at around 8/8.30 A.M. accused Khorshed had burnt the victim Arzu by using keroshine for the cause of dowry. Rob Patwary was informed her and she went to the place of occurrence. She saw that the accused Khoshed along with other were present in his house. The burnt dead body of Arzu  was lying in the back side of veranda, house of Khorshed and  thereafter, she was taken to the Magistrate by the police. On July 29, 2007 Magistrate recorded her statement under section 22 of Ain, 2000. Her signature so endorsed in the statement which was marked as Exts 4 and 4(3) respectively.  She further stated that she saw accused Khorshed and others in the place of occurrence.
 
P.W 5 Abul Kalam Shikder  was tendered.
 
P.W 6 Mst. Aruna Khanam  was tendered.
 
P.W 7 Lalu Howlader stated that on April 21, 2007 at around 9.00A.M. accused Khorshed had murdered Arzu by  strangulation and burnt her for dowry. He saw the dead body of the victim. The police prepared inquest report of the dead body in his presence  and his signature so endorsed thereon and marked as Ext.2(2)
 
P.W. 8 Helenur Begum stated that on May 29, 2007 the Magistrate recorded her statement under section 22 of the Ain, 2000 and her signature so endorsed thereon and marked as Ext.6(3). On April 21, 2007 at around 8.8/30 A.M. the accused Khorshed had murdered  victim Arzu for dowry at his house.
 
P.W. 9 Shajahan Mrida stated that after murder of Arzu, some articles were seized by the police and his signature so endorsed thereon and marked as Exts. 7 and 7(1) respectively.
 
P.W. 10 A. Khaleque was tendered. 
 
P.W.11 Shamsul  Hoque had declared hostile. He stated that  on April 20, 2007 at around 9.00 A.M.  Arzu died in the house of her husband Khorshed. He saw the dead body of Arzu in burnt position but he did not see who had burnt Arzu. In his cross-examination by the prosecution deposed that all the accused had murdered victim Arzu by burning in the house of accused Khorshed. He saw the dead body of Arzu and Police recorded his statement.
 
P.W. 12 Tota Patwary stated that on April 21, 2007 at around 9.00 A.M. Rob Patwary was informed him that Khorshed had murdered his wife Arzu by strangulation and thereafter, burnt her dead body by using keroshine. Getting the said information, he went to the place of occurrence and he saw accused Khorshed and other accused in the house of Mozammel  Pesker. The police  came to the spot and prepared the inquest report of dead body and his signature so endorsed thereon and marked as Ext. 2(3).
 
P.W. 13 Yeasin stated that on the date of occurrence, he saw Arzu in the house of Khorshed. He further stated that he was informed by Rab Patwary  that  Khorshad demanded dowry from Arzu while she refused to give the same because of that on April 21, 2007 the accused had murdered by burn. He went to the place of occurrence and he  saw the  burn dead body of Arzu.
 
P.W. 14 Iqbal Hossain  was tendered.
 
P.W. 15 Khalilur Rahman stated that the inquest report was prepared  in his presence and his signature so endorsed thereon and marked  as Ext. 2(4),
 
P.W. 16 Md. Shajahan Molla stated that on  April 21, 2007 he prepared the inquest report of dead body of victim Arzu in presence of  S.I. Md. Obaidul Hoque  and Constable Kuddus.  He sent the dead body of Arzu to the morgue by chalan on April 21, 2007 and his signature so endorsed thereon and marked as Exts. 8 and 8/1 respectively.  
 
P.W. 17 Moslem stated that Arzu died in the house of Khorshed. He saw Arzu in burn position.  On that day, the police prepared a seizure list in his presence. He identified the seizure list and his signature.
 
P.W. 18 Md. Obaidul Hoque stated that on April 21, 2007  he was attached to  Muladi Police Station as S.I. He took up the case for investigation  ; he visited the place of occurrence ; he    prepared  inquest report of the dead body of Arzu and he proved his  signature  as Ext.2(5). He  duly sent the dead body for post mortem . When he got the information about the dead of Arzu, he went to the place of occurrence on April 21, 2007 along with Constable Kuddus, Constable Shajahan Molla and Constable Chunnu. During investigation he prepared the seizure list and his signature so endorsed thereon and marked as Ext. 7(2). He prepared sketch map and index thereof. He proved the sketch map with index along with his signatures marked as Exts. 9,9/1,10 and 10/1 respectively. He recorded the statements of witnesses. He produced 4 witnesses to the Magistrate for recording their statements under section 22 of the Ain, 2000. He further stated that on the date of occurrence, he apprehended 5 (five) accused. He handed over the case docket to S.I. Abul Kalam Azad by the order of the high officials.
 
P.W. 19 Abul Kalam Azad stated that at the time of occurrence he was attached to Muladi Police Station. After getting charge for investigation of the case he discussed the case docket and he further visited the place of occurrence and tried to seized the alamats. He submitted the charge sheet against the accused.  The signature of the Officer-in-Charge was known to him. He proved the ejahar column as Ext.11 and his signature marked as Ext.11(1).
 
P.W 20 Dr. Khalid Ahmed Saifullah deposed that on April 22, 2007 he was  attached to Forensic  Department of Shabacim  Hospital  and  on that day, as per identification  of Constable  Shajahan Molla he held the post mortem examination of dead body of victim Arzu along with Dr. Md. Abul Quashem. He proved the post mortem report and his signature so endorsed thereon and marked as Exts. 12 and 12(1) respectively. The signature of Dr. Md. Abul Quashem was known to him and he proved it as Ext.12/2. They found the following injuries:
1) Tongue protruded and Bitten by teeth. Conjunctival haemorrhage present on both eyes.
2) Post mortem superticial burn with peeling of skin present on front and back of chest, abdomen, both upper, and lower limb, face, front of neck including genitalia.
 
On dissection of neck Bruise (1½'' X 1'') present on Right side of neck below hyoid bone and Diffuse Reddening in subcutaneous area of left side of the neck. Hyoid bone was intact.
 
In their Opinion the death was due to manual strangulation which was antemortem and homicidal in nature.
 
D.W 1 A. Rab deposed that on April 21, 2008 at around 8.30/9.00 A.M. one Arzu Akter had been murdered at her father-in-law's house. He hearing the sound from house of Mozammel went to spot and saw front door of the house was closed and back door was open and saw burn body of Arzu. He also saw the accused and the witnesses. The accused fled away from the house.
 
D.W 2 Aruna Begum deposed that on April 21, 2007 at around 8.30/9.00 A.M. he came to know from Rab Patwary that her brother-in-law's daughter Arzu had been killed by the people of he father-in-law's house. She along with mother of victim and other went there. She saw the front door of the house was closed and back door was open. She saw the burnt dead body and the accused were fleeing away.
 
D.W. 3 Rani Begum deposed that on April 21, 2007 he came to know from Rab Patwary that his daughter had been murdered by burn. He went to the spot and saw the back door of the house was open and front door was locked and the accused misbehaved with him. He asked his son-in-law Khorshed how he killed his daughter and he replied that to take away his daughter for ever. The accused fled away from house. The dead body was taken by the police.
 
D.W. 4 Helena Begum deposed that last Saturday of last month at around 8.33 A.M. she came to know from Rab Patwary that her niece Arzu was lying dead and burnt and they went there. He saw the dead body of Arzu and saw the accused were fleeing from house and informed the police. 
 
All the prosecution witnesses were cross-examined by the defence but no acceptable or tangible even could he made out by the defence in support of his claim of innocence.
 
Victim Arzu was a house wife and a very ordinary young woman who did not have any social or political exposure so as to incur hostility with others. Evidence does not bear out any indication that her life was under threat from external quarters. It was her husband who was the only source of threat on her life and no one else.
 
Before the trial court the prosecution, in all, had  produced and examined 20 witnesses. Most of the P.Ws. deposed that on getting news of death of victim Arzu they went to the house of the condemned-convict and saw the victim was lying dead on burn condition. They were thoroughly cross-examined by the defence but nothing was found to doubt their evidence.
 
The prosecution examined the informant as P.W. 1 who deposed that there was demand of dowry by convict Khorshed but she failed to meet the demand they were poor men and convict Khorshed because of that had murdered the victim. The witnesses so examined from the side of the prosecution have successfully proved that this convict Khorshed, has committed the murder of the victim over the demand of dowry.
 
It is fact that in the instant case, there is no eye witness of the occurrence; however, the prosecution has succeeded in proving that the victim Arzu died in the house of this condemned-convict while she was in his custody; to that effect besides the oral evidence the prosecution has also relied upon the circumstantial evidence. Admittedly, Arzu died at the house of the condemned-convict, her husband as such, naturally there could not be any eye witness of the occurrence from the side of her mother, nor some one from the house of the condemned-convict would come forward and depose in support of the murder or on the factum of assault by this convict upon the victim. In such a situation, the prosecution had no other alternative but to rely on the circum-stantial evidence. In the stated circumstances, when the wife met with her death while she was in the custody of her husband it is he who is to explain how she met with her death. It rather appears from the evidence that he allowed his wife to die and even after her death he did not inform any of the co-villagers or reported the matter to the police. None of the inmates of the house belonging to the convict also informed the police nor took any proper medical help for saving the life of the victim.
 
It is well settled that ordinarily an accused has no obligation to account for the death for which he is placed on trial. The murder having taken place while the condemned convict was living with his wife in the same house he was under an obligation to explain how his wife had met with her death. In the absence of any explanation coming from his side it seems none other than the husband who was responsible for causing the death in question. This proposition has been elaborately propounded in the case of State Vs. Kalu Bepari reported in 43 DLR 249 and also in the case of Shamsuddin Vs. The State, reported in 45 DLR 587. The same view has been mandated by the Appellate Division in the case of Abdul Motaleb Howlader Vs The State reported in 5 MLR(AD)(2000) 362. From these three decisions it can be clear be concluded that when the wife is murdered while in custody of her husband the natural presumption will be that her husband is responsible for her death.
 
It is found from record that convict Khorshed remained in absconsion since the very inception of the case till now without offering any explanation as to why he avoided trial of the case. Further, convict Khorshed even did not prefer any appeal challenging the judgment and order by which he has been convicted and sentenced or surrender before the court. This conduct of the said convict is a relevant fact which should be taken into consideration as a circumstance in determining his  guilt as per the provision of section 8 and 9 of Evidence Act, 1872 (Reference the case of Rajib Ali Zulfiqar Vs. State reported in 45 DLR 705. Moreover, the convict Khorshed absconding since inception of the case and is still absconding. A fugitive from justice defying the process of the Court without submitting to the due process of the Court is not entitled to obtain any judicial order in his aid showing leniency (Reference: Anti Corruption Vs A.T.M. Nazimullah Chowdhury and others reported in 62 DLR (AD) 225, 30 BLD (AD) 63).
 
In view of the fact that the condemned-convict failed to prove under what circumst-ances his wife was murdered conclusively goes to prove that it is he and he alone has committed the murder. The conduct of the condemned-convict coupled with other facts and circumstances involved in the present case indicates that the condemned-convict has miserably failed to discharge his onus.
The Tribunal has thoroughly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record and has rightly found that this convict Khorshed is guilty of the charge so levelled against him. The Tribunal also considered the provision of section 11(ka) of the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman (Bishes Bidhan) Ain, 2000 and found that when the prosecution has succeeded in proving the demand of dowry and the death due to the non-fulfillment of the said demand no lesser sentence excepting the sentence of death can be given which has been accordingly awarded.
 
We have considered the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and found that they uniformly deposed that the convict Khorshed Pesker had demanded dowry and subsequently due to non-fulfillment of the said demand the victim while in the custody of her husband, she was done to death by her husband convict Khorshed Pesker.
 
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the trial Court has rightly awarded the sentence of death. Such a person who caused death of his wife life out of sheer greed has no right to live in this world. He has committed cold blooded murder of a simple village girl just because her parents and she had failed to meet his illegal demands. In such a situation, we are of the view that the Tribunal has committed no illegality in passing the sentence of death.
 
We, therefore, hold that the prosecution has been able to prove the respective charge so levelled against the convict Khorshed Pesker under section 11(Ka) of Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Ain, 2000 beyond all reasonable doubt and the Tribunal has rightly found him guilty under the aforesaid provision of law.
 
In the result, Death Reference No. 17 of 2009 is accepted, sentence is confirmed.
 
The sentence of convict Khorshed (absconding) would be effective from the date of his surrender before the concerned Court or from the date of his arrest.
 
Judgment of conviction and sentence dated March 11, 2009 recorded by the learned Judge, Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Tribunal, Barishal in Nari-O-Shishu Case No. 446 of 2007 is maintained.
 
Death sentence be executed in the terms as noted by learned Judge, Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Tribunal, Barishal in his judgment.          
 
Let the L/C records be sent down along with copy of this judgment and order at once.

Ed.

Reference: 4 LNJ (2015) 66