The State Vs. Md. Tohurul Islam, 3 LNJ (2014) 401

Case No: Death Reference No. 7 of 2008

Judge: Quamrul Islam Siddique,

Court: High Court Division,,

Advocate: Dr. Md. Bashir Ullah,Mian Md. Shamim Ahsan,Mrs. Yeadia Zaman,,

Citation: 3 LNJ (2014) 401

Case Year: 2014

Appellant: The State

Respondent: Md. Tohurul Islam

Subject: Confessional Statement,

Delivery Date: 2014-02-16


HIGH COURT DIVISION
(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
 
Quamrul Islam Siddique, J.
            And
A. K. M. Zahirul Hoque, J.

Judgment on
05.02.2014, 09.02.2014, 10.02.2014, 11.02.104, 12.02.2014 and 16.02.2014. 
 
  The State.
-Versus-
Md. Tohurul Islam @ Azizul Haque and others.
(in Death Reference No. 7/2008)
Md. Abdul Mannan @ Abdul Mannan
-Versus-
The State,
(in Criminal Appeal No. 900of 2008)
Md. Abdul Karim and another
-Versus-
The State
(in Criminal Appeal No. 913 of 2008)
Rabiul Islam and another
-Versus-
The State
(in Criminal Appeal No. 944 of 2008)
Haji Azim Uddin
-Versus-
The State
 (in Criminal Appeal No. 973 of 2008)
Md. Shafiqul Islam
-Versus-
The State
(in Criminal Appeal No. 983 of 2008)
Roghunath Bormon @ Hiro
-Versus-
The State
(in Criminal Appeal No. 989 of 2008)
Shafiqul Islam @ Md. Shafiqul
-Versus-
The State
 (in Criminal Appeal No. 1020 of 2008)
Md. Shafiqul
-Versus-
The State
(in Jail Appeal No. 147 of 2008)
Shafiqul Islam Khan
-Versus-
The State
(In Jail Appeal No. 148 of 2008)
 
 
Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898)
Sections 164 and 364
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Sections 120B/ 396
Evidence Act (I of 1872)
Sections 24 and 30
Considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses there is no reason to believe that accused Hazi Azimuddin, Siddique, Khokon (accused Nurunnabi Hossain) Sanaul and Shafiqul son of Habibur Rahman along with 5 (five) confessing accused namely Nurul Islam alias Shine, Tohurul, Rogunath, A. Karim and Shafiqul Islam son of Mobarok took active part of the conspiracy and in order to execute the decision taken in the conspiracy they actively took part in the killing of 4 (four) police personnel and Izaradar Nojer Ali. In fact, we do not find any corroborative evidence against accused, namely, (i) Dilip, (ii) Tomal, (iii) Ahmed Shah Nuru, (iv) Khairul, (v) Abdul Mannan, (vi) Rabiul Islam, (vii) Majed Ali, except mentioning their names by co-accused in their confessional statement. There are long lines of decision which have firmly settled that confession of a co-accused is not evidence, it can only lend assurance to other evidence. From the various pronouncements of the apex courts, we find that the apex Courts consistently held that confession of a co-accused is not substantive evidence and such confession cannot be the sole basis of conviction of a co-accused in the absence of independent corroborative evidence. There are long line of decisions which have firmly settled that abscondance by itself is not the conclusive proof of guilt of the accused. Considering the decisions cited in the body of judgment, the evidence on record and the circumstances, we are of the opinion that justice will be met if the impugned order of conviction and sentence of death of accused, namely, Md. Nurul Islam @ Shine @ Tapash @ Tonmoy, son of Habibur Rahman @ Habib master; and Md. Tohurul Islam @ Azizul Haque, son of Monirul Islam is maintained and the order of conviction and sentence so far as it relates to condemned prisoners, namely, (1) Md. Shafiqul Islam son of late Mobarok Khan; (2) Abu Bakkar Siddique; (3) Nurunnabi Hasan @ Khokon; (4) Shafiqul Islam son of late Habibur Rahman; (5) Sanjay Kumar Saha; (6) Pintu is altered to imprisonment for life instead of death.      . . . (151, 152, 158, 160 and 179)

The State Vs. Mir Hossain alias Hira, 56 DLR 124; State Vs. Abul Khair and others, 44 DLR 284; Moqbul Hossain Vs. State, 12 DLR (SC) 217; State Vs. Nalini (1999) 5 SCC, 253; Amir Hossain Howlader and others Vs. State, 37 DLR (AD) 139; Joygun Bibi Vs. State, 12 DLR (SC) 156; State Vs. Lal Miah and another, 39 DLR (AD) 117; Lutfun Nahar Begun Vs. State, 27 DLR (AD) 29; Babor Ali Mollah Vs. State, 44 (DLR) 10; State Vs. Shafiqul Islam, 1991 BLD (AD) 121; Ashraf Ali Munshi Vs. State, 48 DLR (590; Shahjahan Vs. State, 46 DLR 575; State Vs. Balai Chandra Sarkar, 47 DLR 467; State Vs. Ranjit Kumar Pramanik, 45 DLR 660; Abdul Khaleque Vs. State; 45 DLR 75; State Vs. Badsha Mollah, 41 DLR 11; Aysha Khatun and others Vs. State, 19 DLR (1967) 818; State Vs. Mithun alias Gul Hossain, PLD 1964, Supreme Court of Pakistan 813; State Vs. Fazu Kazi alias Fazlur Rahman and others, 29 DLR (SC) (1977) 271; State Vs. Nurul Haque, 45 DLR (1993) 306; Hafizuddin Vs. State, 42 DLR 397; Bakul Chandra Sarkar Vs. State, 45 DLR 260; Lal Singh Vs. Emperor, 40 G. L. I. Allahabad 132; State Vs. Rokeya Begum, 13 BLT 337; Madan Gopal Kakad Vs. Naval Dubey,3 SCC (1992) 204 ref.

Ms. Mahmuda Khatun,
. . . The State Defence Lawyer (in Death Reference No. 7/2008)
Mr. Md. Ataur Rahman, Advocate
. . . For the accused-appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 900of 2008)
Mr. Fazlul Haque Khan Farid, Advocate
. . .For the accused-appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 913 of 2008)
Mr. Md. Ataur Rahman, Advocate
. . .For the accused-appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 944 of 2008)
Mr. S. M. Shahajahan, Advocate
. . .For the accused-appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 973 of 2008)
Mr. Md. Jahidul Haque, Advocate
. . . For the accused-appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 983 of 2008)
Mr. Md. Jahidul Haque, Advocate
. . . For the accused-appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 989 of 2008)
Mr. Md. Shahidul Islam, Advocate
. . .For the accused-appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 1020 of 2008)
Mr. Md. Hatem Ali, Advocate
. . . For the accused-appellant (in Jail Appeal No. 147 of 2008)
Mr. Md. Khabir Uddin Bhuiyan, Advocate
. . For the accused-appellant (In Jail Appeal No. 148 of 2008)

Dr. Md. Bashir Ullah, DAG with
Mian Md. Shamim Ahsan, AAG with
Mrs. Yeadia Zaman, AAG
. . . For the State

Death Reference No. 7 of 2008 with
Criminal Appeal No. 900 of 2008 with Criminal Appeal No. 913 of 2008 with Criminal Appeal No. 944 of 2008 with Criminal Appeal No. 973 of 2008 with Criminal Appeal No. 983 of 2008 with Criminal Appeal No. 989 of 2008 with Criminal Appeal No. 1020 of 2008 with Jail Appeal No. 147 of 2008 with  Jail Appeal No. 148 of 2008.
 
JUDGMENT
Quamrul Islam Siddique, J:
 
The learned Judge of Druto Bicher Tribunal, Rajshahi referred this matter of death sentence for confirmation under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (shortly, Cr.P.C) to this Court. The reference has been numbered as Death Reference No. 07 of 2008. The learned Judge of Druto Bichar Tribunal, Rajshahi found the condemned prisoners, namely,
  1. Md. Tohurul Islam @ Md. Azizul Haque (absconded in the midst of trial)
  2. Md. Nurul Islam @ Shine @ Taposh @ Tonmoy (absconded in the midst of trial)
  3. Md. Shafiqul Islam, son of Mobarok (faced trial);
  4. Abu Bakkar Siddique (absconded in the midst of trial);
  5. Nurun Nabbi @ Hasan @ Khokon (absconded in the midst of trial)
  6. Md. Shafiqul Islam, son of Habibur Rahman (faced trial);
  7. Sanjoy Kumar Shaha (absconding since begining);
  8. Pintu (absconding since begining);
  9. Dilip @ Mamu @ Shibu @ Manik (absconding since begining);
  10. Tomal @ Ferdous (absconding since begining)
guilty of the charge under sections 120B/396 of the Penal Code and convicted and sentenced them thereunder to death. The learned Judge also found the accused, namely,
  1. Roghunath Barmon (faced trial);
  2. Md. Abdul Karim (faced trial);
  3. Ahmed Shah Nurul (faced trial);
  4. Md. Sanaul Islam (faced trial);
  5. Haji Azim Uddin (faced trial);
  6. Khairul Islam (absconding since begining)
guilty of the charge under sections 120B/396 of the Penal Code and convicted and sentenced them thereunder to suffer rigorous impriso-nment for life with a fine of Tk.3000/- each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 06 (six) months more.  The learned Judge also found accused, namely,
  1. Md. Abdul Mannan (absconding but surrendered after judgment);
  2. Abdul Awal (absconding since begining, and trial proceeded against him in absentia);
  3. Rabiul Islam (absconding but surrendered after judgment);
  4. Joynal Abedin (absconding but surrendered after judgment);
  5. Md. Majed Ali (absconding since begining)
guilty of the charge under sections 120B/396 of the Penal Code and convicted and sentenced them thereunder to suffer rigorous impriso-nment for 10 years with a fine of Tk. 2000/- (two thousand) each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 03 (three) months more.
Condemned prisoners, namely,
  1. Md. Tohurul Islam;
  2. Md. Nurul Islam  @ Shine;
  3. Abu Bakkar Siddique;
  4. Nurun Nabi Hasan @ Khokan;
  5. Sanjoy Kumar Shaha;
  6. Pintu;
  7. Dilip @ Mamu @ Shibu @ Manik; and
  8. Tomal @ Ferdous
have been provided with the learned State-Defence Lawyer under the provisions of the Legal Remembrancer’s, Manual.

Condemned prisoner, namely, Shafiqul Islam, son of Mobarok has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 983 of 2008 and Jail Appeal No. 148 of 2008. 

Condemned prisoner Shafiqul Islam, son of late Habibur Rahman has also filed Criminal Appeal No. 1020 of 2008, and Jail Appeal No. 147 of 2008.

Accused-appellant Md. Abdul Mannan (arrested on 10.02.2008 after judgment) filed Criminal Appeal No. 900 of 2008 3(three) accused appellants, namely, Md. Abdul Karim, Sanaul and Ahmed Shah Nurul filed Criminal Appeal No. 913 of 2008.

Accused-appellant Rabiul Islam (surrendered on 05.02.2008 after judgment) and Joynal Abedin (surrendered on 05.02.2008 after judgment) both filed Criminal Appeal No. 944 of 2008.

Accused appellant Haji Azim Uddin filed Criminal Appeal No. 973 of 2008.

Accused-appellant Roghunath Barmon @ Hiro filed Criminal Appeal No. 989 of 2008.

The Death Reference No. 07 of 2008, Criminal Appeal Nos. 900 of 2008, 913 of 2008, 944 of 2008, 973 of 2008, 983 of 2008, 989 of 2008, 1020 of 2008 and Jail Appeal Nos. 147 of 2008 and 148 of 2008 have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 

The prosecution case, in short, is that S. I. Md. Tofazzal Hossain Khan of Manda Police Station as informant lodged an F.I.R. with Manda Police Station, alleging, inter-alia, that on 25.08.2006 at 18-35 hours, the Officer-in-Charge of Manda Police Station informed him that the miscreants attacked Chowbariahat and they were looting away valuable things and also killing people indiscriminately. The Officer-in-Charge gave order to the informant to go to Chowbariahat with sufficient police force and arrest the miscreants. On getting the order from the O.C. of Manda Police Station, the informant entered a G. D. Entry No. 1139 dated 25.08.2006 and went to the place of occurrence with Md. Anisur Rahman, S.I. (P. W. 33), Md. Anowar Hossain, P.S.I (P.W. 32) and other forces. The distance between the Police Station and the Chowbariahat is 18 Kilometer. They reached Chowbariahat and found the dead bodies of A.S.I. A.T. Firoz, Constables, namely, Askan Ali, Farid, Babul Miah and they also found that their throats were cut. On query from the surroungding people, the informant came to know that on 25.08.2006 at 18.30 hours, 20/25 unknown miscreants wearing lungi, half shirt, full shirt, fastening gamcha on their head being armed with rifle, pipe gun, iron rod attacked the police personnel and slaughtered them by cutting their throat. The miscreants created panic in the area by exploding 8/10 bombs. The miscreants also looted away one 7.62 china pistol, handle No. 72, body No. 50007737 and 8 round of ammunitions from A.S.I. A.T. Firoz, 303 rifle and 10 round of ammunitions from Constable No. 486 Askan Ali, one china rifle and 20 round of ammunitions from Constable No. 285 Faridul, one short-gun and 10 round of ammunitions from Constable No. 548 Babul Miah. The miscreants also stabbed Nojer Ali with sharpen knife and Nojer Ali was seriously injured. Injured Nojer Ali was taken to Rajshahi Medical College Hospital for treatment but on the way at Mohonpur he succumbed to his injuries. The miscreants also looted away about Tk. 1,00,000/-(one lac) and fled away towards west. The miscreants did massacre for about 10 minutes and they were aged in between 25-40 years. The informant informed the matter to the Officer-in-Charge over mobile phone and the Officer-in-Charge also came to the place of occurrence.

On the basis of the aforesaid First Information Report (shortly, F.I.R.) police recorded Manda Police Station Case No. 23 dated 28.05.2006 under sections 353/396 of the Penal Code. Police investigated the case and during investigation visited the place of occurrence, prepared sketch map with separate index thereof, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, arrested the accused and arranged recording of the statements of 5 accused under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and finally submitted charge sheet No. 71 dated 16.04.2007 under sections 120B/400/402 /353 / 396 of the Penal Code against the condenmened prisoners and the accused appellants as a prima-facie case was made out against them.

The case record was transmitted to the Durto Bichar Tribunal, Rajshaji for trial. The case was numbered as Durto Bichar Tribunal Case No. 21 of 2007.

The learned Judge of Druto Bichar Tribunal, Rajshahi framed charge against the accused (1) Md. Tohurul Islam @ Azizul Haque, (2) Md. Nurul Islam @ Shine @ Taposh @ Tonmoy, (3) Md. Shafiqul Islam son of Mobarok, (4) Rogunath Barmon @ Hiro, (5) Abdul Karim, (6) Nurun Nabi Hasan @ Khokon, (7) Abu Baker Siddique, (8) Shafilqul Islam son of Habibur Rahman, (9) Ahmed Shah Nurul (10) Sanaul Islam (11) Haji Azim Uddin (12) Sanjoy Kumar Saha, (13) Pintu, (14) Md. Abdul Manna @ Abdul Mannan, (15) Abdul Awal, (16) Rabiul Islam, (17) Joynal Abedin,  (18) Khairul Islam, (19) Dilip @ Mamu @Sibu@ Manik, (20) Tomal @ Ferdous, (21) Majed Ali under sections 120B/400/402/353/396 of the Penal Code. The charge was read over and explained to the accused present to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. However, charge was framed against the absconding accused in their absence.

In order to substantiate the charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 39 witnesses in this case.

After close of evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the accused on dock were examined under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This time also they repeated their innocence and adduced one witness as D.W. 1.  

The defence case, as it transpires from the trend of cross examination of the prosecution witnesses and also from the only defence witness is that the accused are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Their further case is that they have been serving in the office of CARB and they are not in any way involved in this case.

Considering the facts, circumstances and the evidence on record the learned Judge of the Druto Bichar Tribunal, Rajshahi convicted and sentenced the condemned prisoners and the accused appellants as aforesaid.
 
Being aggrieved by, and dissatisfied with, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 24.01.2008 passed by the learned Judge of Druto Bichar Tribunal, Rajshahi, condemned prisoners, namely,
  1. Shafiqul Islam son of late Mobarak filed Criminal Appeal No. 983 of 2008 and Jail Appeal 148 of 2008;
  2. Shafiqul Islam son of Habibur Rahman preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1020 of 2008 and Jail Appeal No. 147 of 2008. 
Moreover, accused appellants, namely,
  1. Md. Abdul Mannan filed Criminal Appeal No. 900 of 2008;
  2. Md. Abdul Karim, Md. Sanaul Islam and Ahmed Shah Nurul filed Criminal Appeal No. 913 of 2008;
  3. Robiul Islam and Joynal Abedin filed Criminal Appeal No. 944 of 2008;
  4. Haji Azimuddin filed Criminal Appeal No. 973 of 2008 and
  5. Rogunath Barmon @ Hiro filed Criminal Appeal No. 989 of 2008. 
Condemned prisoners, namely, 1) Tohurul Islam @ Azizul Hoq, 2) Nurul Islam @ Shine, 3) Abu Bakkar Siddiq, 4) Nurun Nabi Hossain, 5) Sonjoy Kumar Saha, 6) Pintu, 7) Dilip @ Mamun, @ Shibu @ Manik and 8) Tomal @ Ferdous have been provided with State Defence Lawyer. Mrs. Mahmuda Khatun, the learned advocate has been appointed as the State Defence Lawyer for the above condemned prisoners.
 
Mr. Fazlul Haque Khan Farid, the learned Advocate appeared for the accused appellant, namely, Md. Abdul Karim, Md. Sanaul Islam @ Sanaul Islam and Ahmed Shah Nurul.

Mr. Md. S.M. Shajahan, the learned Advocate appeared for the accused appellant Haji Azim Uddin and condemned prisoner Shafiqul Islam son of Habibur Rahman.

Mr. Md. Aminul Huq with Mr. Md. Ataur Rahman, the learned Advocates appeared for the accused appellants, namely, Md. Abdul Manan, Rabiul Islam and Joynal Abedin.

Mr. Jahidul Hoque, the learned Advocate appeared on behalf of condemned prisoner, namely, Shafiqul Islam, son of Mobarok and accused-appellant Rogunath Barmon @ Hiro.

Mr. Md. Hatem Ali, the learned Advocate appeared on behalf of condemned prisoner, namely, Shafiqul Islam son of Habibur Rahmnan.

Dr. Md. Bashir Ullah, the learned Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Mian Md. Shamim Ahsan, Assistant Attorney General and Ms. Yeadia Zaman, Assistant Attorney General appeared on behalf of the State and supported the Death Reference and opposed the Criminal Appeals and the Jail Appeals. They first took us through the F.I.R, charge sheet, the lengthly evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the impugned judgment and order dated 24.01.2008, confessional statements made by five accused, namely, Tohurul Islam, Nurul Islam, Md. Shafiqul Islam, son of Mobarak, Roghunath Barmon and Abdul Karim, inquest reports, postmortem reports and other relevant papers available in the paper book. The learned Deputy Attorney General then submits as under:
  1. the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the condemned prisoners and the accused-appellants beyond all reasonable doubt and that as such there is no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order dated 24.01.2008 passed by the learned Judge of the Druto Bichar Tribunal, Rahshahi by this court;
  2. there are sufficient evidence against the condemned prisoners and the accused appellants to show that they were the actual assailants of the victims;
  3. confessional statements of accused Tohurul Islam, Nurul Islam, Md. Shafiqul Islam son of Mobarok, Roghunath Barmon and Abdul Karim are inculpatory in nature and that their confessional statements are voluntary and true and  that there is no reason to disbelieve their statements;
  4. the learned Magistrate complied with all the provisions of sections 164 and 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before recording the statements of the 5(five) accused under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; 
  5. the prosecution witnesses have proved the time, place and manner of occurrence beyond doubt and that there is no discrepancy in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in respect of time, place and manner of occurrence;
  6. the confessing accused in no uncertain terms stated that the accused were present at the conspiracy held on 21.08.2006 and that they were also present at the time of occurrence held on 25.08.2006 and took active part in killing the victims;
  7. the occurrence took place in pursuance of the conspiracy held on 21.08.2006 and that as such the learned Judge of the Druto Bichar Tribunal correctely found the accused guilty under sections 120B/396 of the Penal Code and that the Tribunal convicted and sentenced them rightly;
  8. the condemned prisoners and the accused-appellants have jointly committed the heinous offence and that they do not deserve any sympathy from the court.
With these few words, the learned Deputy Attorney General recommends for acceptance of the reference and dismissal of the appeals.
 
Ms. Mahmuda Khatun, the learned State Defence Lawyer appearing on behalf of the condemned prisoners, on the other hand, submits as under:
  1. the informant has not mentioned any name in the FIR.
  2. the confessional statements of the condemned prisoners are not voluntary and true and as such the order of conviction and sentence passed against the condemned prisoners cannot sustain in law.
  3. there is no occular evidence in this case and that the confession of the condemned prisoners are the product of police torture and intimidation.
  4. the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the case against the condemned presoners and that as such they are entitled to be acquitted.
With these few words the learned State Defence Lawyer prays for rejection of the reference and set aside of the impugned judgment and order dated 24.01.2008 so far as it relates to the condemned prisoners and also prays for acquittal of the condemned prisoners.
 
Mr. Fazlul Haque Khan Farid, the learned Advocate appeared on behalf of the accused appellants, namely, Abdul Karim, Sanaul Islam and Ahmed Shah Nurul. These accused-appellants have preferred Criminal Appeal No. 913 of 2008. The learned Advocate, however, submits as under-
  1. the prosecution has not been able to prove the case against the accused appellants beyond doubt;
  2. no name has been mentioned in the F.I.R. The brother of deceased Nojer Ali also lodged an F.I.R. and in that F.I.R he mentioned the name of 5 accused, but police did not investigate the case against them and did not include their names in the charge sheet;
  3. Abdul Zalil, the brother of deceased Najer Ali has not been examined by the police and that he has not been cited as witness in this case;
  4. there is no eye witness in this case and that the accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced purely on surmise and conjecture;
  5. The confessional statement of Abdul Karim is exculpatory in nature and that he has not involved himself in this case;
  6. accused Sanaul Islam and Ahmed Shah Nurul have not given any confessional statement and that there is no evidence against them in respect of  conspiracy and killing of the deceased;
  7. during framing of charge, the accused were not confronted with their alleged involvement in the conspiracy and that as such charge under section 120B of the Penal Code has been framed against the accused illegally;
  8. Police submitted charge sheet without proper investigation.
With these few words the learned Advocate for the accused appellants prays for set aside of the impugned judgment and order dated 24.01.2008 so far as it relates to accused-appellants, namely, Abdul Karim, Ahmed Shah Nurul and Sanaul Islam and also prays for allowing of the Criminal Appeal No. 913 of 2008.
 
Mr. S.M. Shahjahan, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of accused-appellant Haji Azimuddin (Criminal Appeal No. 973/2008) and the condemned prisoner, nemely, Shafiqul Islam, son of Habibur Rahman (Criminal Appeal No. 1020/2008 and Jail Appeal No. 147/2008) He, however, submits as under:
  1. the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the case against condemned prisoner Shafiqul Islam, son of Habibur Rahman and accused-appellant Haji Azimuddin;
  2. though five accused made confessional statements but accused Shafiqul Islam, son of Habibur Rahman did not make any confession;
  3. out of 5 confessing accused only accused Nurul Islam @ Shine mentioned the name of accused Shafiqul Islam son of Habibur Rahman and no other confessing accused implicated him in this case;
  4. condemned prisoners, namely, Nurul Islam, Tohurul Islam implicated Haji Azimuddin in their statements under section 164 Cr. P.C. but did not mention any specific overt act against accused Haji Azimuddin. This accused did not take part in killing of the victims;
  5. condemned prisoner Nurul Islam only mentioned that Haji Azimuddin was present at the meeting held on 21.08.2006 but did not mention anything about his participation in the killing;
  6. none of the confessing accused stated anything about the participation of accused Haji Azimuddin and Shafiqul Islam son of Habibur Rahman. The confession of co-accused cannot be used as evidence against other accused and that conviction cannot be based on the basis of confession of co-accused without other corraborative evidence;
  7. in fact, there is no evidence against these accused to show that they were involved in the conspiracy or in the killing of the deceased except confession of co-accused and as such the conviction and sentence passed against condemned prisoner Shafiqul Islam son of Habibur Rahman and accused-appellant Haji Azimuddin cannot sustain in law.
With these few words, the learned Advocate prays for rejection of the reference so far as it relates to condemned prisoner, namely, Shafiqul Islam son of Habibur Rahman and also prays for allowing of the Criminal Appeal No. 1020/2008 and Jail Appeal no. 147/2008. The learned Advocate again prays for set aside of the impugned judgmetn and order dated 24.01.2008 so far as it relates to accused-appellant Haji Azimuddin and also prays for allowing of the Criminal Appeal No. 973/2008.
 
Mr. Md. Zahidul Haque, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of condemned prisoner Md. Shafiqul Islam, son of Mobarok Khan, (Criminal Appeal No. 983/2008 and Jail Appeal No. 148/2008) and accused-appellant Shree Roghunath Barmon @ Hiro (Criminal Appeal No. 989/2008) submits as under:
  1.  the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against condemned prisoner Md. Shafiqul Islam son of Mobarok and that the accused appellant Roghunath Barmon by producing cogent evidence against them;
  2. condemned prisoner Shafiqul Islam, son of Mobarok is a Branch Manager of the CARB office and that there is no reason for his involvement in this case;
  3. police arrested him on 29.09.2006 and that police took him on remand for 4 (four) days and that inhumanly tortured him and extracted confession from him;
  4. condemned prisoner Shafiqul Islam, son of Mobarok made confession under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but the confession is a product of inhuman torture by the police;
  5. prosecution has examined as many as 39 witnesses in this case but none saw the occurrence;
  6. condemned prisoner Shafiqul Islam, son of  Mobarak was brought before the Magistrate for recording confessional statement direct from the police custody and that his confessional statement was not voluntary and true and as such conviction and sentence passed against him cannot sustain in law.
With these few words, the learned Advocate prays for rejection of the reference so far as it relates to condemned prisoner Shafiqul Islam son of Mobarok Khan and also prays for allowing of the Criminal Appeal Nos. 983 of 2008 and Jail Appeal No. 147 of 2008. The learned Advocate again prays for set aside of the impugned judgment and order dated 24.01.2008 so far as it relates to accused-appellant Roghunath Barmon and also prays for allowing of the Criminal Appeal No. 989 of 2008.
 
Mr. Md. Aminul Haque with Mr. Ataur Rahman, the learned advocates appeared on behalf of accused-appellants, namely, Md. Abdul Mannan (Criminal Appeal No. 900/2008), Rabiul Islam and Joynal Abedin (Criminal Appeal No. 944/2008). Mr. Md. Aminul Haque, the learned Advocate, however, submits as under:
  1. there is no evidence against these accused to show that they participated at the conspiracy or in the actual killing of the deceased;
  2. these accused-appellant did not make any confession and that their conviction on the basis of statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of  co-accused cannot sustain in law;
  3. there is no ocular witness in this case and that no name has been mentioned in the FIR;
  4. these accused have been implicated in this case purely on the basis of confession of co-accused and that legal position is that conviction cannot be based on the basis of confession of co-accused.
With these few words the learned Advocate prays for set aside of the impugned judgment and order dated 24.01.2008 so far it relates to accused-appellants, namely, Abdul Mannan, Rabiul Islam and Joynal Abedin and also prays for allowing of Appeal Nos. 900/2008 and 944/2008.
 
We have already stated that in order to bring home the culpability of the accused, the prosecution has placed on record confession of 5(five) accused and also plethora of evidence. The prosecution has examined as many as 39 witnesses in this case. Now let us discuss the evidence of the witnesses adduced by the prosecution. 
 
P.W. 1 Md. Tofazzal Hossain. He is the informant of this case. He stated that on 25.08.2006 at about 18.35 hours, the Officer-in-Charge of Manda P.S. informed him that the miscreants created havoc at Chowbariahat and looted away the valuable things from the people and also killed 4 police personnel. The Officer-in-Charge passed order to him (P.W.1) to go to the place of occurrence with sufficient police force. Thereafter, he went to the place of occurrence with A.S.I Anisur Rahman (P.W. 33), P.S.I Anowar Hossain (P.W. 32) and saw that A.S.I. A.T. Firoj, Constables, namely, Askan Ali,  Farid and  Babul Miah were lying on the ground having dressed with police uniform and they were slaughtered by the miscreants and their throats were cut. He then came to know from the surrounding people that on 25.08.2006 at 18.30 hours, 20/25 unknown miscreants wearing lungi, half shirt, full-shirt and fastening gamcha on their head having rifle, pipe gun, iron rod and sharpen knife came to the bazar and looted away valuable things and killed 4(four) police personnel and one civil person. The miscreants inflicted iron rod blow upon the head of the police personnel and they fell down on the ground and thereafter the miscreants slaughtered them. The miscreants also inflicted stab injury to Izaradar Nojer Ali.  Injured Nojer Ali was taken to Rajshahi Medical College Hospital and in the meantime when he reached at Mohanpur, succumbed to his injuries. The miscreants also blasted 8/10 bombs and they also looted away Tk. 1,00,000/- from the toll house of the Izaradars. They also took away one china pistol and 8 round of ammunitions from the deceased A.S.I. A.T. Firoj and 10 round of ammunitions from Constable Askan Ali and one china rifle, 20 round of ammunitions from Constable Faridul and 10 round of ammunitions from Constable Babul Miah. They held the inquest of the deceased and thereafter came to the police station and lodged the F.I.R. He proved the F.I.R. as Ext.1 and his signature therein as Ext.1/1. He also prepared the inquest report of A.S.I. A.T. Firoj and Constable Babul and proved the inquest report as Ext. 2 and 3 respectively.

         In his cross-examination by accused Haji Azimuddin, Nurul Islam @ Shine, Shafiqul Islam, son of Habibur Rahman, Abdul Karim, Tohurul and Roghunath Barmon he stated that he could not say the actual number of miscreants. He also stated that he could not say how many accused were arrested by police. He was on duty on that day. He recorded the instruction of the Officer-in-Charge in the diary. He cannot remember when the Officer-in-Charge gave him the order. The Investigating Officer examined him. He cannot remember when he started from Thana but he reached the place of occurrence at 19.05 hours on 25.08.2006. He cannot remember how long he stayed at Naogaon. When he came at Chowbariahat, he saw some eye witnesses to the occurrence. He saw the toll house of Izaradars. He did not find any person sitting in the toll house. The Officer-in-Charge of Police Station maintains the list of the members of local miscreants and members of Purba Bangla Sarbahara Party, Lalpataka etc. He heard that police arrested one accused, namely, Sagor. He denied the suggestion that Sagor died out of police torture. He cannot say how many days after arrest Sagor died. The dead body of Sagor was handed over to his relation after postmortem examination. He stated that he knew the name of one Investigating Officer and did not know the name of other Investigating Officers. He along with S.I. Abdus Salam of Manda Police Station prepared the inquest report. He does not know who were present at the time of preparation of inquest report. He did not obtain signature from whom he heard about the occurrence. But he took the signature of the witnesses. The age of the miscreants was 25-40 years. He came to know from the local people about the age of the miscreants. He does not know if there is any tower at Chowbariahat. He prepared the inquest report of A.S.I. A.T. Firoj infront of toll house and under a bokul tree. He examined some witnesses. There were 10/12 forces with him and they all carried arms, pipe gun, L.M.G. china riffle, short gun etc. He did not find Nojer Ali when he went to Chowbariahat. He did not mention in the inquest report that the brain matter of A.S.I A.T. Firoj came out. He identified the place where the victim police personnel were found dead. He made a primary investigation of the place of occurrence before the F.I.R was lodged. He arrested Tohurul Islam on 01.01.96 and Nurul Islam on 01.01.96. He forwarded the accused to the Magistrate and prayed for remand. There was scuffling at the time of arrest of accused Shine and accused Shine was injured. He also arrested Shafiqul, son of Mobarok. He denied the suggestion that he made a perfunctory investigation.
 
The State Defence Lawyer adopted the above cross examination.
 
P.W. 2, Rahela Bibi stated that the occurrence took place before one year ago after asar prayer. She does not know anything about the occurrence. Daroga seized TV from her house and prepared seizure list and she put her signature in the seizure list. She identified her signature in the seizure list. She also proved the seizure list as Exhibit 6 and her signature therin as Ext. 6/1.
  1. At this stage this witness was declared hostile. In cross-examination by the prosecution she stated that accused Shafiqul son of Mobarak is her son. She identified accused Tohurul Islam on the dock. She used to cook for her tenants and the tenants would give her Tk. 200/- per months. Her tenants do not see TV from her house. She denied the suggestion that she knew that her tenants slaughtered the police personnel. She denied a suggestion that her tenants along with her son Shafiqul had a meeting in her house. She denied the suggestion that she deposed falsely.
         In cross examination by the accused she stated that her TV was out of order long before the occurrence took place. She did not see any dead body. None of the persons of her area knew who slaughtered the police personnel. She stated that her tenants never held any meeting in her house. She also stated that she did not know any person, named, Siddique and Khokon. She stated that police arrested Sagor and he died while he was under police custody. She stated that police threatened her and asked her to depose according to the desire of pollice. Police took her before the Magistrate forcibly. Magistrate recorded her statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as a witness and she put her signature therein. She identified her signature as ext. 7. In cross examination she stated that police took her to Thana, tortured her and gave her electric shock.

The State Defence Lawyer adopted the above corss examination.

P.W. 3 is Suresh Chandra Das. He stated that the occurrence took place one year ago. He also stated that he made a statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as a witness before the Magistrate. He put his signature in the statement and he proved the statement as ext. 8 and his signature therein as Ext. 8/1. He stated that he did not see anything.

The State Defence Lawyer adopted the above corss examination.

P.W. 4 is Md. Asaduzzaman. He stated that the occurrence took place on 25.08.2006. He took rent of one room at Chowbariahat. He is the partner of Izaradar. When he was in the room, some bombs were blasted. He along with Mahbub Alam Chowdhury (P.W.5), Md. Abul Kalam (P.W.6) and Md. A. Halim (P.W.7) were present in the room. Seeing the smoke he fled away and at the time of his fleeing away, he saw the dead body of A.S.I. A.T. Firoj. At this stage he was declared hostile.

         In cross examination by the prosecution he stated that when he was fleeing away, he saw three dead bodies of police personnel lying on the ground. He denied the suggestion that he saw that Nojer Ali was injured. From bazar he heard that the miscreants raised slogan chanting, “Purba Bangla Sorbohara Party, Lal Potaka Zindabad.” He stated that there was a quarrel among the Izaradars in respect of realising toll in Chowbariahat. On 02.06.2006, there was also a quarrel and the brother of Haji Azimuddin was confined. He heard that Haji Azimuddin got his brother released. He also heard that Haji Azimuddin threatened other Izaradars by saying that he would see how other Izaradars would collect toll.

         In cross examination, he stated that there were 11/12 partners of Izaradar of Chowbariahat but there was no written contract. Mahbub got the lease of the hat for 1413 BS and Bachchu got the lease of the hat for 14/12 BS. He did not know if Azimuddin was Izaradar of Chowbariahat. 10/12 thousand people normally assemble in the hat on the hat day. The occurrence took place on the date of weekly hat day. There are tea stalls in front of toll house. In the adjacent of toll house, there is one room of the Principal of the college. The occurrence took place on Friday. He denied the suggestion that he is not a partner of Izaradar. He also denied the suggestion that he did not see the dead body of the police personnel. Police examined him under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Thana. He heard that the brother of Nojer Ali also lodged the FIR. He went to the Thana as per request of Mahbub Alam Chowdhury (P.W.5). He was inside the room when the occurrence took place.  He heard the sound when the bombs were blasted. He saw only one dead body. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely.
 
The State Defence Lawyer adopted the above cross examination.
 
P.W. 5 is Mahbub Alam Chowdhury. He stated that the occurrence took place on 25.08.2006 at 6.00 pm. and that he was sitting inside the toll house. At that time miscreants blasted some bombs in front of toll house and after few minutes he came out from the room and saw one police was lying in front of the varandah. At this stage he was declared hostile.

         In cross examination by the prosecution, he denied the suggestion that he knew the miscreants who inflicted iron rod blow and slaughtered the police personnel. He also denied the suggestion that he knew that Nojer Ali died at Mohanpur when (Nojer Ali) he was taken to Rajshahi Medical College Hospital.

         In cross examination by the accused, he stated that he used to go to Chowbariahat but not so often as he was a sick person.
 
The State Defence Lawyer adopted the above cross examination.
 
P.W. 6 is Md. Abul Kalam. He stated that the occurrence took place on 25.08.2006 at 6.00 pm. He was one of the partners of Izaradars. He went to the place of occurrence hat at 10.00 am. He heard that total 8/10 bombs were blasted. He went out of his room and saw the dead body and later on heard that 3 police personnel died and his partner Nojer Ali also died. At this stage he was declared hostile.

         In cross examination by the prosecution, he denied the suggestion that he knew the miscreants who inflicted rod blow upon police personnel. He also denied the suggestion that Azimuddin threatened other Izaradars and stated that he would see how the Izaradars run the hat. The defence declined to cross examine him.
 
P.W. 7 is Abdul Halim. He stated that the occurrence took place on 25.08.2006 at 5.00 pm. He is an Izaradar. At the time of occurrence he was sitting inside the room and suddenly heard the sound of bomb blast and the room was filled up with smoke. People tried to flee away and he himself also fled away. Thereafter, he heard that one A.S.I. and 3 police personnel died. The defence did not cross examine him.
 
P.W.8 is Shahidul Islam. He stated that the occurrence took place on 25.08.2006 at 6.30 pm. He was staying in a room of the college adjacent to the hat and he heard the sound of bomb blast. The room filled up with smoke and they all came out of the room and saw the dead body of police personnel beneath the bakul tree. He heard that one A.S.I of police, 3 police personnel and one Izaradar died.
 
The State Defence Lawyer adopted the above cross examination.
 
P.W. 9 is Chairman Belal Hossain Khan. He stated that the occurrence took place on 25.08.2006. He was in Proshadpur and from there he came to know that one Izaradar received injury and 4(four) police personnel died. Thereafter, he went to Chowbariahat and found that Mahbub Alam Chowdhury (P.W.5) also received injury. He went to the place of occurrence and saw injured Nojer Ali who was taken to Rajshahi Medical College Hospital, but on the way he died when they reached at Mohanpur. He saw that ASI Firoj was lying under the bokul tree and he received iron rod blow on his head and his brain matter came out and he was slaughtered. The dead body of police Constable nemely, Askan was lying infront of a tea stall. The dead body of Constable Babul also was lying in front of the tea stall. He saw 4 (four) dead bodies of police personnel. Dead police personnel received serious injury on their head and their brain matter also came out. Thereafter, police held the inquest of the dead body in his presence. He proved the inquest report as Exhibit-3 and his signature therin as Exhibit-3/2. He also proved the inquest report of Constable Faridul as Exhibit-2 and his signature therein as Exhibit-2/2. He also proved the inquest report of Constable Askan as Exhibit-9 and his signature therein as Exhibit-9/1. He also proved the inquest report of Nojer Ali which was marked as Ext-10 and his signature therein as Ext-10/1.

         In cross examination he stated that the distance between Manda Police Station and Prashadpur is 14/15 kilometer and the distance between Manda Police Station and Chowbariahat is 17/18 km. He came to know about the occurrence at 7 pm. He came to know about the occurrence from one Siful Islam (not cited) over telephone. He arrived at Chowbariahat and saw 4 dead bodies of police personnel. The inquest report of Nojer Ali was prepared at 11 pm. and the inquest report of Constables, namely, Askan, Faridul and Babul were also prepared at 8 pm. The inquest report of A.S.I. A.T. Firoj was prepared at 8.45 pm. SI Tofazzol Hossain (P.W.1) prepared the inquest report of Firoj. Police examined him (this P.W. 9) 2 days after the occurrence. He denied the suggestion that the inquest report was prepared sitting in the Police Station.  
 
P.W. 10, Ashraful Islam. He stated that the occurrence took place on 25.08.2006 at 6.00 pm. He has a medicine shop at Chowbariahat and he was in his shop at 6.15pm. He heard the sound of bomb blast. All persons who came to the hat started fleeing away. He came to know that the miscreants blasted bombs and 4 police personnel were slaughtered. He closed his shop and left for his home at 7.15pm. He also came to know from the people of Chowbariahat that miscreants blasted bomb and slaughtered 4 police personnel. Police seized one TV from the house of Rahela Begum (P.W.2) and he put his signature in the seizure list. He proved the seizure list as Ext-6 and his signature therein as Ext-6/2.

         In cross examination he denied the suggestion that police tortured him. He also stated that IO examined him. He does not know on which date police recorded his statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He also cannot say whether police examined him on 18.2.2007. He did not know the house of Rahela Begum (P.W.2) before the occurrence took place. He denied the suggestion that he did not go to the house of Rahela Begum.
 
The State Defence Lawyer adopted the above cross examination.
 
P.W. 11 is Md. Nazmul Huq. He stated that the occurrence took place on 25.08.2006 just before Magrib prayer. He has a V.C.D. repairing shop at Chowbariahat. All on a sudden he heard the sound of bombs blast and people started running away. People were trying to find out their cattle. The people also stated that 15/16 miscreants slaughtered 4 police personnel and took away the arms chanting slogan “Lalpataka Zindabad” and left the place. On 30.09.2006, police went to the CARB office with one accused. The house of Rahela Begum (P.W.2) was adjacent to CARB office. Police seized one 14" T.V. and asked him to put his signature in the seizure list. He proved the seizure list as Ext. 6 and his signature therein as ext.6/1. There was quarrel at Chowbariahat before the occurrence. He also heard that Azimuddin had altercation with Izaradar of cattle market. In cross examination he also stated that he did not know the Bengali month when the T.V. was seized. He also stated that on 2.10.2006, police examined him and recorded his statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There were 8/10 persons when T.V. was seized. There was some altercation at Chowbariahat 2/3 months before the occurrence. He heard that Azimuddin had altercation with other Izaradars 2/3 months before the occurrence. He cannot remember from whom he heard this. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely.
 
The State Defence Lawyer adopted the above cross examination.
 
P.W. 12 is Md. Farhad Hossain. He stated that the occurrence took place on 25.08.2006 before Magrib prayer. He heard from his own business centre that there was quarrel is Chowbariahat. He tried to ascertain by cell phone what actually happened, but could not get the actual information. Thereafter he went to Chowbariahat by motor cycle and came to know that 4/5 police personnel were killed and 2/3 persons were injured. People gathered at Chowbariahat and saw the dead body of A.S.I. Firoj lying under the bokul tree. He also saw the dead body of 3 police personnel, namely, Babul, Firoj and Askan. He also saw the injuries on their head. Police held the inquest. He put his signature in the inquest report of A.S.I. Firoj. He proved the inquest report as Ext-3 and his signature therein as Ext-3/3. He also proved the inquest report of Constable No. 545 Babul Hossain as Ext-11 and his signature therein as Ext-11/1. He also proved the inquest report of Nojer Ali which was marked as Ext-10 and his signature therein as Ext-10/2. He stated that police seized blood stained earth, 54 net kathi (জালের কাঠি), 16 steel balls. He also proved the seizure list as Ext-12 and his signature therein as Ext-12/1. He proved the blood stained earth, net kathi and steel balls which were marked as material Ext-II, III, IV.

         In cross examination he stated that the distance between his home and Manda Police Station is 20/22 kilometre. The dead body of ASI Firoj was lying in front of the toll house and the dead body of Constables, namely, Askan, Faridul and Babul were also lying in the west of toll house. He went his home when preparation of the inquest report was over. When he came to Deldua Bari he heard that Nojer Ali died. Police called him 2 days after the occurrence and recorded his statement. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely.
 
The State Defence Lawyer adopted the above cross examination.
 
P.W. 13 is Md. Monwarul Iqbal. He stated that on 25.08.2006, he went to Chowbariahat. He put his signature in the inquest report of Constable Faridul. He proved the inquest report as Ext-2 and his signature therein as Ext-2/3. He also proved the inquest report of Constable No. 545 Babul Hossain which was marked as Ext-11. He also saw the dead body of 4 police personnel lying at Chowbariahat.
 
The State Defence Lawyer adopted the above cross examination.
 
P.W. 14 is Principal Md. Rafiqul Alam. He stated that the occurrence took place on 25.08.2006 at 5.45 pm and on that day he went to cattle market of Chowbariahat. He is the Principal of Chowbaria College. The vacant land of Chowbaria College was given lease to the Izaradars of cattle market by the T.N.O. He stated that half an hour before the occurrence, he went to the cattle   market and from there he went his home and saw that people were running hither and thither and on query he came to know that bombs were blasted at Chowbaria cattle   market and many people died there. On hearing this, he went to Chowbariahat and saw that 4 police personnel died and their throat were cut and thereafter, he came back home. On 18.02.2007, Police examined him under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He himself did not see blasting of bombs. He then stated that one room of the college was used as toll house. Previously, there were other Izradars who took lease of the land of the college. He saw the dead body from a distance. When he came to the hat, he saw 5/7 Izradars there. He heard that bombs were blasted and people died at the Chowbariahat. He was also present in the hat from 5.00 to 530 P.M. and thereafter he left the place. He heard the sound of explosion of bombs and people ran away out of fear. He never visited CARB office. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely.

The State Defence Lawyer adopted the above cross examination.

P.W. 15 is Ataur Rahman. He stated that he could not remember the date of the occurrence. He is a businessman. He heard that the tower of the palli viddut was collapsed and as a result some people died.
In cross examination he stated that he did not know which tower of the palli viddut was collapsed.

The State Defence Lawyer adopted the above cross examination.

P.W. 16 is Md. Kazemuddin. He stated that the occurrence took place on 25.08.2006 at the evening. He was on duty at Chowbariahat with Dhiren Chowkidar (Dhiren Chowkidar not examined) When bombs were blasted people were running hither and thither. After 5/7 minutes he came to hat again and saw Rahim, Dhiren, Yeasin, Amulla Chowkidar there. He saw the dead body of Firoj Daroga with throat cut and there were no arms with him.  He also saw Constable Farid and he found that his throat was also cut and there were injuries on his head. He also saw the dead body of other two policemen having cut of their throat. Thereafter, police came there and the Officer-in-Charge also came there. He denied the suggestion that he did not state to I.O. that Chowkidar Dhiren and Rahim were with him. When he came home from Chowbariahat it was 12-30 A.M. Daroga took his statement 3 times but 3(three) months after the occurrence. He did not see who killed the deceased. Police came there almost one hour after the occurrence. He stated that there was some altercation on realization of toll. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely.

The State Defence Lawyer adopted the above cross examination.

P.W. 17 is Mirza Abdus Salam. He is Police Inspector. He stated that on 25.08.2006 he was serving in Manda P.S and he heard that the miscreants exploded bombs in cattle market at Chowbariahat and some police personnel were slaughtered. The miscreants also took away money from the Izaradars. Thereafter, he entered the G. D. Entry No.1139 dated 25.08.2006 and went to the place of occurrence with Officer-in-Charge of Manda P.S. and other forces and arrived there at 19.05 hours and saw the dead body of police personnel lying infront of the office of Izaradar. On the direction of the T.N.O. and the Officer-in-Charge, he prepared the inquest report of Constables, namely, Askan Ali and Babul Hossain. S.I. Tofazzal Hossain prepared the inquest report of other police personnel. Thereafter, he came to Prosadpur with the dead body and he also prepared the inquest report of Nojer Ali at Prasadpur. He brought the dead body of the deceased to the morgue of Naogaon Sadar Hospital for post mortem examination. He proved the inquest report of Constable No. 545 Babul Hossian as Ext. 11. He also proved the inquest report of deceased Nojer Ali as Ext. 10. He also proved chalan as Exts. 13, 14, 15 and his signature therein as Ext. 13/1, 14/1, 15/1.

In cross examination he stated that he prepared the inquest report of Constable Askan and Constable Babul Hossain on 25.08.2006 at 19.05 hours. In the inquest report it has been mentioned that the shirt, trouser and vest (genji) of the deceased were smeared with blood. He went to the place of occurrence at 19.05 hours and saw the dead body of police personnel.  He was examined by the Daroga.

The State Defence Lawyer adopted the above cross examination.

P. W. 18 is Md. Rafiqul Islam. He stated that the occurrence took place on 25.08.2006 and he went to the place of occurrence at 7.00 P. M. and saw that Constable No. 285 Faridul received injury on his head and he was lying on the floor having throat cut. A. S. I. Tofazzal Hossain prepared the inquest report in his presence. He put his signature in the inquest report. On 26.08.2006 at 09.00 A. M, Officer-in-Charge Shahidar Rahman seized the uniform of police. He put his signature in the seizure list. He proved the seizure list as Exhibit 16 and his signature therein as Exhibit 16/1. As many as 26 items were seized and he put his signature therein. He proved 26 seized items which were marked as Material Exhibit V-XXX.

In cross-examination, he stated that he went to the place of occurrence at 07.00 P.M alongwith A. S. I. Tofazzal Hossain (P.W. 1). He first saw the dead body which was lying under the open sky. The dead body was taken infront of toll house and the inquest report was prepared there. He denied the suggestion that on 25.08.2006, he did not go to the place of occurrence.

The State Defence Lawyer adopted the above cross examination.

P. W. 19 is Manik Hossain. He stated that on 25.08.2006, he was on duty in Naogaon Police Station. He went to Chowbariahat at 07.00 P. M. and saw that 04(four) police personnel were lying dead having throat cut. He brought the dead body to Naogaon Sadar Hospital for post mortem examination. He brought back the dead body and handed over the dead body of Nojer Ali to his relatives. He brought back the dead body of police personnel and handed over the same to police line. He proved the chalan of dead body of constable Askan Ali as Exhibit 13 and his signature therein as Exhibit 13/2, constable Babul Miah as Exhibit 15 and his signature therein as Exhibit 15/2 and the chalan of dead body of Nojer Ali as Exhibit 14 and his signature therein as Exhibit 14/2.

In cross-examination, he stated that he does not know if police assaulted anybody. On 25.08.2006 at 7.00 P.M, he went to Chowbariahat. He was not examined by the Investigating Officer. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely.

The State Defence Lawyer adopted the above cross-examination.

P.W. 20 is Md. Mamnur Rashid. He stated that on 02.10.2006 at 06.30 P. M, police seized one red colour motor cycle, Bajaj Metro Ga 11-0863. He put his signature in the seizure list. He proved the seizure list as Exhibit 17 and his signature therein as Exhibit 17/1.

In cross-examination, he stated that when he put his signature in the seizure list his age was 17 years. His house is situated adjacent to the house of accused Abdul Karim and accused Karim is his elder uncle.

The State Defence Lawyer adopted the above cross-examination.

P. W. 21 is Md. Alauddin. He is S. I. of Naogaon Court. He stated that on 11.11.2006, he was serving as T. S. I. in Naogaon Police Station. At the time of occurrence, he was on training at Sarda Police Academy. He brought a letter from Officer-in-Charge of Manda Police Station to the CARB Office and handed over the same to one Abdur Rahman. Abdur Rahman gave him few photographs and told him (P.W.21) that he (Abdur Rahim) would send the rest photographs to the Thana at his (Abdur Rahman) own initiative. He proved the letter as Exhibit 18. Abdur Rahman gave him few photographs in closed cover and he handed over the same to the Officer-in-Charge.

In his cross-examination, he stated that Investigating Officer did not seize the letter which he brought from CARB office.

The State Defence Lawyer adopted the above cross-examination. 

P. W. 22 is Md. Meser Ali. He is a retired teacher of a private school. He stated that the occurrence took place on 25.08.2006 at 06/6.30 P.M. He has a medicine shop at Chowbariahat. At the time of occurrence he was in his shop. He saw that people were leaving the hat with cattle   and on query he came to know that bombs were exploded in the cattle  market and people were injured and 04 (four) police personnel were killed. He also heard that Izaradar received injury and he succumbed to his injury when he was taken to hospital.

In cross-examination he stated that he heard the sound of explosion of bombs at 5/5.15 P.M. Police recorded his statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 18.02.2007.

The State Defence Lawyer adopted the above cross-examination.

P. W. 23 is Md.Altaf Uddin Prang. He stated that on 10.11.2006 at 04.30 P.M, police seized one silver colour utensil in his presence and prepared the seizure list. He put his signature in the seizure list. He proved the seizure list as Exhibit 19 and his signature therein as Exhibit 19/1. He proved the utensil as Material Exhibit XXX-1.

In his cross-examination he stated that he cannot remember the date of occurrence. He also stated that such kind of utensil is available in every house. He stated that in the seized utensil rice could be cooked for 6/7 persons in the seized utensil. He stated that police seized the utensil before he went there.

The State Defence Lawyer adopted the above cross-examination.

P. W. 24 is Md. A. Baki Mondal. He stated that he was going home and at that time police called him and took him to the house of Rahela (P. W. 2). Other persons were present there. He saw that one person, named, Roghunath Borman was present there and he was handcuffed. Police recovered one utensil from the house of Rahela (P. W. 2). Officer-in-Charge stated to him that meat was cooked in that utensil. Police seized the utensil and took his signature in the seizure list. He proved the seizure list as Exhibit 18 and his signature therein as Exhibit 18/2.

In his cross-examination, he stated that he saw the utensil in the varandah of Rahela. He also stated that police went inside the house of Rahela before he went there. He again stated that there is no identification mark in the seized utensil. 

The State Defence Lawyer adopted the above cross-examination.

P. W. 25 is Md. Chimon Ali. He has been tendered by the prosecution.

In his cross-examination by the accused he stated that there is a tower of Grameen Phone half a kilomiter west of Chowbariahat.

The State Defence Lawyer adopted the above cross-examination.

P. W. 26 is Md. Shafiqul Islam. At present he is the Upazila Nirbahi Officer (UNO) of Bhanga, Faridpur. He stated that on 07.09.2006, he was serving as Magistrate, First Class, in Naogaon Collectorate. On 25.08.2006, Police brought accused Nurul Islam @ Shine before him for recording his statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He kept the accused under the care of Ashraful Islam, MLSS for 03 (three) hours and gave him reflection time for 03 (three) hours. He cautioned the accused that he was not bound to confess and if he would confess it might be used against him as evidence. There was no police personnel with him or in his room. He did not find any sign of injury on the person of the accused. After 03 (three) hours, the accused gave consent to give his statement. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of accused Nurul Islam @ Shine after compliance with all the provisions of sections 164 and 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He put his 07 (seven) signatures in the statement of accused Nurul Islam @ Shine. He stated that the statement of Nurul Islam @ Shine was voluntary. He proved the statement as Exhibit 20 and his signature therein as Exhibit 20 series.

On the same date police also brought accused Tohurul Islam for recording his statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal procedure. He also cautioned him and told him that he was not bound to confess and if he would confess it might be used against him as evidence. He was given 3 (three) hours reflection time. Thereafter, he gave consent for recording his statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The confessional statement of accused Tohurul Islam was voluntary. At the time of recording of his statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appearence of the accused looked normal and he was in good health. He proved the statement as Exhibit No. 21 and his signature therein as Exhibit 21 series.

He also stated that police brought accused Abdul Karim before him for recording his confessional statement. He cautioned the accused that if he would confess it might be used against him as evidence and that he was not bound to confess. He also gave him 03 (three) hours time for reflection. The accused was kept under the care of Babor Ali, nightguard. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of accused Abdul Karim under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The statement was read over to him and he put his signature therein. He proved the statement as Exhibit-22 and his signature therein as Exhibit 22 series. According to him (P.W. 26) the confession was voluntary.

On 03.10.2006, police brought accused Shafiqul Islam son of Mobarok Hossain before him. He also gave him 3 (three) hours time for reflection and he was kept under the care of Ashraful Islam, M. L. S. S./Peon. He recorded the statement of accused Shafiqul Islam son of Mobarok Hossain under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He proved the statement as Exhibit- 23 and his 5 (five) signatures therein as Exhibit 23 series. 

On 12.11.2006, police brought accused Sree Roghunath Borman before him for recording his statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He was kept under the care of Ashraful, peon. He also gave the accused 03 (three) hours time for reflection. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of the accused after compliance with all the provisions of section 164 and 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He proved the confessional statement of accused Roghunath Borman as Exhibit-24 and his 5 (five) signatures therein as Exhibit-24 series.

He recorded the statement of witness Suresh Chandra Das (P.W. 3) under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He proved the statement of witness Suresh Chandra Das (P.W. 3) as Exhibit-8 and his signature therein as Exhibit 8/2.

On 12.11.2006, he also recorded the statement of witness Rahela Begum (P. W. 2). He proved the statement of witness Rahela Begum as Exhibit-7 and his signature therein as Exhibit 7/2.

In cross-examination by accused Nurul Islam @ Shine he stated that police arrested accused Nurul Islam @ Shine following the night of 01.09.2006 at 01.00 A. M. He was forwarded to Court on 03.09.2006. Before forwarding to Court the accused was under police custody for 32 (thirty two) hours. Inspector Shahidar Rahman recorded the case and he himself took the charge of investigation. On 03.09.2006, S. I. Tofazzal Hossain prayed for remand. In the order sheet dated 04.10.2006, it has been mentioned that the accused Nurul Islam @ Shine complained of inhuman police torture. It has also been mentioned in the order sheet that the Court directed the Jail Super, Naogaon to provide with necessary treatment to accused Nurul Islam @ Shine. It has also been stated by the Superintendent of Jail that a report relating to the health condition of accused Nurul Islam @ Shine was submitted before the Court. In the order sheet dated 21.11.2006, it has been mentioned that there was injury in the right leg of the accused, 5th matatarsul bone and there was swelling on the body of the accused. Swelling was present over the ear and front of knee to hip and over the arms of both sides. There was also painful swelling over the chest including right shoulder rigion. It has also been stated that he was provided with treatment in prison hospital. His condition improved little but the doctor advised to transfer him to Naogaon Sadar Ortheopedic Hospital. The consultant of Naogaon Sadar Orthopedic Hospital gave prescription and his ticket number was 27685/23 dated 04.11.2006. In his X-ray report it was found that he had left clavicle fracture, G.O.T triangular slant (rt) side and left foot. Hematoma was also found. He was under the treatment of Assistant Surgeon. He (P.W.26) put his signature on the medical report relating to his (accused) health. On 04.10.2006, accused Nurul Islam @ Shine prayed for retraction of his confession which was kept with the record. In the forwarding letter dated 03.09.2006 at page 2, it has been mentioned relatively with small letter that there was swelling in the body of accused Nurul Islam @ Shine because of scuffle. He cannot remember when accused Nurul Islam @ Shine was exactly sent to prison. He denied a suggestion that the confessional statement of accused Nurul Islam @ Shine was not true and voluntary.

This P.W. (P.W. 26) stated that in the forwarding dated 07.09.2006, it has been mentioned that accused A. Karim was suspected accused. On 07.09.2006, 06 (six) day remand was granted for accused Abdul Karim.  Police arrested accused A. Karim on 05.02.2006 at 3/4 A. M. He does not know whether accused A. Karim was produced before him 31 hours after his arrest. He did not enquire whether police tortured accused Abdul Karim or not or whether he (Abdul Karim) got himself admitted into the Hospital. He was under the care of Babar Ali, nightguard. He does not know if accused Karim was assaulted by police and he got himself admitted into the Hospital. He denied the suggestion that the statement of accused Karim was a product of police torture.

In his cross-examination by accused Tohurul and Roghunath Borman, he stated that accused Tohurul was arrested on 01.09.2006 at 11.00 P. M. and he was forwarded to the Court on 03.09.2006. Accused Tohurul was brought before the Court within 34 hours. On 07.09.2006, Tohurul was brought before him for recording his statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He was kept under the care of Ashraful, peon in his chamber from 13.25 to 16.25 hours. He recorded the statement of accused Tohurul from 4.35 to 5.25 P.M. He does not know how many days the accused were under police custody. He did not find any mark of injury in the body of the accused. He denied the suggestion that the health condition of accused Shine and Tohurul were very bad when they were brought before him (P.W.26). He denied the suggestion that the confession of Tohurul was extracted by way of police torture.

This P.W. 26 also stated that accused Roghunath was brought before him on 12.11.2006. It has not been mentioned when police arrested Roghunath. Roghunath put his L. T. I. in his statement. There is no mention who took his L. T. I. P.W. 26 denied the suggestion that he recorded the statement of Roghunath according to police desire.

In cross-examination by accused Shafiqul Islam, son of Mobarak he (P.W. 26) stated that police of Manda Police Station brought accused Shafiqul, son of Mobarak before him. Police arrested accused Shafiqul from Sunahat. Accused Shafiqul is a service holder. Police arrested him on 28.09.2006 at 05.00 P. M. This accused was brought before the Court on 30.09.2006 and on 30.09.2006, police took him on remand. After arrest, police took him to Manda Police Station from Prosha Police Station. P.W. 26 does not know if the accused was under police custody for 30 hours before he was brought before him. This accused was brought before him on 03.09.2006 at 12.15 hours. Police took him on remand for 04 days. He started recording the statement at15.20 and finished the same at 16 hours. He does not know if accused Shafiqul Islam son of Mobarak retracted his confession.

In cross-examination by accused Ahmed Shah Nurul and Sana Ullah, he stated that Shafiqul Islam son of Mobarak did not state in his confessional statement dated 25.08.2006 that on 25.08.2006 there was a meeting in Chowbariahat. But accused Abdul Karim stated in his confessional statement that on 25.08.2006, there was a meeting in CARB office. Accused Nurul Islam @ Shine also did not state that on 25.08.2006, there was a meeting in Chowbaria CARB office. Accused Ragugnath also did not state in his statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that on 25.08.2006, there was a meeting at Chowbaria CARB office. Roghunath in his confessional statement of did not mention the name of father of accused Sana Ullah. Accused Roghunath did not mention the name of accused Ahmed Shah Nurul. Accused Roghunath mentioned the name of accused Sana Ullah but he did not mention the name of father of Sana Ullah. He denied the suggestion that he recorded the confessional statement in presence of police personnel of Manda Police Station.

Accused Nurul Islam mentioned the name of Khairul, Majed, Pintu, Tomal and Rabiul, but did not mention the name of their father. Accused Tohurul mentioned the name of Dilip, Tomal, Pintu, Sonjoy and Khairul, but did not mention the name of their father. Accused Shafiqul Islam son of Mobarak also mentioned the name of Robiul, Khairul but did not mention the name of their father. The name of village of Sonjoy has been mentioned as Godagari and the name of village of Robiul has been mentioned as Khakonhat. Accused Roghunath mentioned the name of Pintu but did not mention the name of the father of Pintu. He also mentioned the name of Sonjoy but did not mention the name of his (Sonjoy) father and his (Sonjoy) address. Accused Abdul Karim did not mention the name of Dilip, Sonjoy, Khairul, Majed Ali, Pintu, Tomal, Rabiul, Abdul Awal and Abdul Mannan.

P. W. 27 is Md. Shamim Chowdhury. He stated that the occurrence took place one year two months ago. Mahbub Ali (P. W. 5), Asaduzzaman (P. W. 4), Md. Abul Kalam Azad (P. W. 6), Nojer Ali (since dead) and 2/4 persons were present at the hat. He heard that bomb was exploded. Upon hearing this news, they came to Delduar Bari Bazar with 10/15 motor cycle. He talked to Mahbub Ali (P. W. 5) over mobile phone and Mahbub requested him to take him to the hat. He went to near the hat and saw there some police van, motor cycle and microbus. Police prepared the inquest report. He put his signature in the inquest report of deceased, A.S.I. A.T. Feroz. He proved the inquest report as Exhibit 6 and his signature therein as Exhibit 6/4. He also proved his signature in the inquest report of Constable No. 285 as Exhibit 2/4. He also proved his signature in the inquest report of Constable Askan Ali which has been proved as Exhibit 9/4. He proved his signature in the inquest report of Constable Babul Mia as Exhibit 10/4. Police also seized some Kathi of net (জালের কাঠি), cycle ball, blood stained earth.

In his cross-examination he stated that there were 15/20 tea stall in Chowbaria cattle market. The distance between his house and Chowbariahat is 12/13 K.M. His house is situated near Proshadpur Bazar. From there he got the information about the occurrence of Chowbariahat over cell phone. The inquest report of police personnel was prepared in his presence. He put his signature in the seizure list at 8.00 P.M. but the seizure list was not read over to him. One Sagor died during police custody.

The State Defence Lawyer adopted the above cross-examination.

P. W. 28 is Babul Ahmed. He stated that on 10.10.2006, police prepared seizure list in his presence. He put his signature in the seizure list and he proved the seizure list as Exhibit 25 and his signature therein as Exhibit 25/1. Police seized two papers which are proved as meterial Exhibit XXXIII.

In cross-examination by the accused, he stated that he cannot say the month when the seizure list was prepared. He also stated that the distance between Manda Police Station and his house is 06 Kilometer. The paper in which he put his signature were not read over to him. He does not know what were written in those papers. He does not know also if the papers were photocopy or original copy.

The State Defence Lawyer adopted the above cross-examination.

P. W. 29, Md. Abdus Salam. He was tendered by the prosecution.

In his cross-examination he stated that he did not go to Chwobariahat on the date of occurrence.

The State Defence Lawyer adopted the above cross-examination.

P. W. 30, Sree Khitendra Nath. He stated that he had a tea stall in the cattle market of Chowbariahat. When he was in tea stall it was about dusk. He heard the sound of explosion of bomb. He started running hither and thither. He was also trying to flee away. After one hour, he came back to his tea stall and found that two utensils from his tea stall were missing. He also saw that 04 police personnel were lying down dead. Thereafter, he left the place out of fear.

In his cross-examination, he stated that he had been running the tea stall for 8/9 years. He did not see the miscreants.

The State Defence Lawyer adopted the above cross-examination.

P.W. 31 is Dr. Istiaque Chowdhury. He stated that on 26.08.2006 he was serving as Medical Officer at Naogaon General Hospital.  On that day the dead body of Constable No. 486 Askan Ali was brought before him for post mortem examination. He found the following injuries on the person of the dead body;

“1. One cut throat wound on anterolateral sides of the lower part of neck with cutting of muscles, blood vessels, trachea, oesophagus, Size – about 05″X02″X2½″.
2.   Haemotoma on Rt. Occipital region of head (back), size-about 02″ in diameter.
3.               Cut injury on Lt. auricle (ear), size-about 01″X¼″X¼″.
      On dissection of  the above injuries congestion of underlying soft tissues, Muscles, nerves, blood vessels with cutting of muscles, blood vessels, trachea, oesophagus & antemortem clotted blood was found.
      In thier opinion the cause of death of the deceased was due to the above described injuries which were antemortem & homicidal in nature.”
        
He proved the post mortem report as Exhibit 26 and his signature therein as Exhibit 26/1. The other members of the Board also put their signatures in the post mortem report.
 
On the same day, the dead body of Constable No. 545 Babul Mia was also brought before the Board for post mortem examination.
 
At the time of autopsy, he found the following injuries on the person of the dead body;

“1. Lacerated injury over occipital region of the skull of size 2 ½ ″X ½ ″X Bony depth. Fracture of occipital bone.
2.   Incised injury over anterior aspect of the throat at the level of upper part of the neck.  Size 5 ½ ″X1 ½ ″X3″.
      One dissection of the injuries described above showed congestion of underlying soft tissues, muscle, nerve, blood vesicles, brain matter, and antemortem clotted blood was present.
      In their opinion the cause of death of the deceased was due to shock & haemorrhage as a result of the injuries described above, which were antemortem & homicidal in nature.”
        He proved the post mortem report of Constable Babul Mia as Exhibit 27 and his signature therein in Exhibit 27/1.
 
On the same day the dead body of Constable No. 258 Faridul was brought before him for post mortem examniation. He held the post mortem examination and found the following injuries on the person of the dead body:

“1. One cut throat wound on anterolateral aspect of lower part of the neck, measuring about 5 ½ ″X2″X3″ with cutting of neck, muscles, vessels, nerve, esophagus and trachea.
One dissection injury No. (1) showed highly congestion of underlying soft tissues, muscles and nerves of neck, cutting of esophagus and trachea and antemortem clotted blood was found. Injury No. (II) showed highly congestion of underlying soft tissue, antemortem clotted blood was found.”
2.   One Haemotoma on Lt. occipital region – Size 1½ ″X1″
         In their opinion the cause of death of the deceased was due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of the injury No. (1) which was ante mortem and homicidal in nature.
         He proved the post mortem report as Exhibit 28 and he also proved the signature of Dr. Mafuzur Rahman as Exhibit 28/1.
 
On the same day the dead body of Feroz Ahmed was also brought before him by Constable No. 695 Ferdous Ali for post mortem examination. He examined the dead body and found the following injuries on the person of the dead body;

“One cut throat wound over the anterolateral aspect of the neck. Cutting the trachea, Oesophagus, vessels, muscles, nerves, completely, measuring 5″X2″ in length.
One lacerated injury over the rt. parietal region measuring 3″X2″ in length.
One dissection the above injuries showed marked congestion of underlying soft tissues, vessels, muscles, nerves, oesophagus, trachea and ante mortem clotted blood was present.”
         In their opinion “the cause of death of the deceased was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of above mentioned injuries which were ante-mortem and homicidal in nature.”
         He proved the post mortem report as Exhibit 29 and his signature therein as Exhibit 29/1.
 
On the same day the dead body of Nojer Ali was also brought before him by Constable No. 400 Manik Hossian for post mortem examination. He examined the dead body and found the following injuries on the person of the dead body.

“One perforating wound on the anterolateral aspect of the neck caused lacerated injury to the trachea, aesophagus, vessels, muscles, nerves measuring 5″X2″ in length.
The above injuries showed marked congestion of underlying soft tissues, vessels, musceles, nerves antemortem clotted blood was present.
In their opinion the cause of death of the deceased was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of above stated injuries which was antemortem and homicidal in nature.”
         He proved the post mortem report which was marked as Exhibit 30 and his signature there in as Exhibit 30/1.
         In cross-examination, he stated that he did not prepare any post mortem report of accused Sagor. His (Sagor) post mortem report was prepared by Dr. Zahid Nazrul Chwodhury on 08.09.2006. He provided treatment to accused Karim in the hospital. He submitted a report in respect of the health condition of Nurul Islam @ Shine to the Magistrate, 1st Class, Cognizance Court, Naogaon, vide Memo No. 614 dated 22.10.2006. It was written in the report that there was “Metatarsal bone injury, swelling in the right leg of the accused and there was ecyomisis swelling present over thigh from knee to hip and over the arms on both sides.” There was also painful swelling over the chest including rt. shoulder region. They arranged to send him to Orthopedic Consultant in Naogaon hospital and X-Ray was done and in his X-Ray it was found that there was left Clevicle fractures. There was sign of haemotoma. He proved the report as Exhibit-Ka and his signature therein as Exhibit-Ka/1. There is no mention about the age of injury. He stated that most of the accused received injuries in the back of their head. He did not put his signature on the post mortem report of Faridul.
 
The State Defence Lawyer adopted the above cross-examination.
 
P. W.  32 is Md. Anwar Hossain. He was Upazila Nirbahi Officer of Manda Police Station. On 25.08.2006, he came to know that there was a quarrel in Chowbariahat and that the miscreants blasted bomb and police died. After hearing this, he went to the place of occurrence and saw the Officer-in-Charge of Manda Police Station and other police personnel there. He saw 04 (four) police personnel with cut of their throat.  The Deputy Commissioner and Police Super of Noagoan were present there. Police took the dead body by police van and thereafter he (P.W.32) came back to his office. He also saw the dead body of Nojer Ali at Proshadpur Bazar at 9/10 P. M.

         In his cross-examination, he stated that he saw the alamat at the place of occurrence. He cannot remember whether police recovered any alamat in his presence. He saw the dead body. From there he went to his own work place. Police took away the dead body in his presence. At that time 15/20 police personnel were there. The distance between his work place and Chowbariahat is 12/13 Kilometer. His staff Prodip and Driver Bablu were with him. He also stated that the Assistant Commissioner (Land) was also with him.
 
The State Defence Lawyer adopted the above cross-examination.
 
P.W. 33 is Md. Anisur Rahman. He stated that he went to Chowbaria cattle market with S. I. Tofazzal Hossain and saw the dead body of A. S. I. A.T. Feroz lying there. He also saw that the dead body of Constables, namely, Askan, Babul Miah, Farid were lying near the tea stall. They were also wearing police uniform and all of them had throat cut and injury on their head. 20/25 unknown persons told him that the miscreants slaughtered the police personnel and took away their arms. He seized the motor cycle from accused Abdul Karim (motor cycle No. Raj Metro Ha 11-0863) in presence of the witnesses. He handed over the seized motor cycle to the Investigating Officer. He proved the seizure list as Exhibit 17 and his signature therein as Exhibit 17/2. He seized the motor cycle from Tanur Police Station and he transmitted wireless message to Tanur Police Station. He seized the motor cycle in connection with Manda P.S. Case No. 23 dated 25.08.2006 under sections 353/396 of the Penal Code. The Investigating Officer did not record his statement.
 
The State Defence Lawyer adopted the above cross-examination.
 
P. W. 34 is Md. Nur Alam. He stated that on 15.03.2007, he was serving in Manda Police Station as A. S. I. and at that time Officer-in-Charge Md. Ilias Fakir seized 21 pictures by preparing seizure list. He put his signature in the seizure list. He proved the seizure list as Exhibit 31 and his signature therein as Exhibit 31/1. He proved the pictures as material Ext. XXXIV series. On 18.03.2007 at 23.55, Officer-in-Charge Md. Ilias Fakir seized 02 (two) C. D. He put his signature in the seizure list. He proved the seizure list as Exhibit 32 and his signature therein as Exhibit 32/1.

         In his cross-examination, he stated that he did not know who snapped the photograph. He has no personal knowledge about the photograph and the C. D. He does not know what the C. D. contains about. There is no signature on the cover of the C. D.  But there is signature of Officer-in-Charge in the cover of the C. D. He just put signature in the seizure list on the request of the Investigating Officer. He never visited Chowbaria cattle market before 15.03.2007. The C. D. was not placed before him.
 
The State Defence Lawyer adopted the above mentioned cross-examination.
 
P. W. 35 is Md. Shahadat Hossain. He stated that on 15.03.2007, Daroga S. I. Anisur Rahman deposited 21 pictures in Manda Police Station. He put his signature in the seizure list. He proved his signature which has been marked as Exhibit 31/2.

         In his cross-examination, he stated that he never visited the house of Karim. He does not know who snapped 21 (twenty one) photographs of 21 persons. He also stated that no camera was seized.
The State Defence Lawyer adopted the above cross-examination.
P. W. 36 is Md. Afsar Ali Mondal. He stated that on 18.03.2007 at 12.00, Officer-in-Charge of Manda Police Station seized two C. D. He put his signature in the seizure list. He proved his signature therein as Exhibit 32/2.

In cross-examination, he stated that he did not know what the C. D. contains about. Police took his signature in the seizure list. He did not put his signature on the cover of the C. D.

The State Defence Lawyer adopted the above cross-examination.

P. W. 37 is Md. Shahider Rahman. He stated that on 25.08.2006, he was serving as Officer-in-Charge of Manda Police Station. On 25.08.2006 at about 18.30 hours, some unknown 20/25 miscreants attacked Chowbaria cattle market and created havoc and also slaughtered 04 (four) police personnel and one Izradar, namely, Nojer Ali. Nojer Ali was taken to Rajshahi Medical College Hospital for treatment but in the meantime when they reached at Mohanpur, Nojer Ali succumbed to his injury. The miscreants dealt iron rod blow on the head of the deceased. The miscreants also exploded bombs and created panic.  S. I. Tofazzal Hossain lodged the F. I. R. and he filled up the F.I.R form. He proved the F.I.R form as Exhibit 33 and his signature therein as Exhibit 33/2. He himself took the charge of investigation and during investigation he visited the place of occurrence, prepared the sketch map with separate index thereof and seized the alamats. The inquest report of the deceased was prepared before the F.I.R was lodged. He arrested 15 accused. He examined 17 witnesses and recorded their statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accused Tohurul and Shine made confessional statements. Statement of one witness was also recorded by the Magistrate. One accused, namely, Sagor died out of heart failure. Thereafter on 09.09.2006, he handed over the case docket to Inspector Kosim Uddin new Investigating Officer. He (P.W. 37) proved the sketch map with index as Exhibit 34, 35 and 36 and his signature therein as Exhibit 34/1, 35/1, 36/1. He also put his signature in the margin of the FIR form and he proved his signature therein as 1/2.

In cross-examination, he stated that he did not treat the information given by the brother of Nojer Ali as F.I.R. They received the F.I.R of the brother of Nojer Ali at 01.00 P. M. and entered the information in the G. D. entry No. 1139 dated 25.08.2006. He passed order to S. I. Tofazzal Hossain (P.W.1) to go to the place of occurrence. He does not remember when he went to the place of occurrence. He went to the place of occurrence first on 25.08.2006. On 28.05.2006, the occurrence took place at 19.05 hours. He did not prepare any inquest report. He was in the place of occurrence on 26.08.2006 at 12.05. He issued direction upon S. I. Tofazzal Hossain (P.W.1) to arrest Tohurul and Shine. He was present when accused Sagor was arrested. Sagor had chest pain at 10.45 minutes at night and at that time Sagor was in their Van. He forwarded a report to the Superintendent of Police, Naogaon stating that 8/10 persons were injured, one Abdur Rahim was also injured when he came to the cattle market. S. I. Tofazzal Hossain arrested accused Tohurul and Shine. They were forwarded to the Court on 03.09.2006. He denied the suggestion that Tohurul and Shine were kept under police custody for more than 48 hours. He received information on 25.08.2006 that a meeting held in CARB office. During his investigation he recorded the statement of 17 witnesses. He did not get any documentary evidence to show that on 25.08.2006, a meeting held in CARB office. He denied the suggestion that he did not seize any blood stained earth from the place where 04 (four) dead police personnel were lying. He did not send blood stained earth for chemical examination. He continued the investigation till 09.09.2006. He prayed for remand for 08 accused. S. I. Tofazzal Hossain prayed for remand for 03 accused, namely, accused Firoj, Nurul Islam @ Shine and Tohurul Islam. Accused Sana Ullah was not taken on remand. He prayed for 10(ten) days remand for Ahamed Shah Nurul. Accused Sagor died under police custody during investigation. There was commotion outside the Thana and the hospital over the death of accused Sagor. He could not recover any rifle, ammunition and other arms. He could not recover any leaflet or hand bill from any of the accused.
He arrested accused Abdul Karim on 06.09.2006 at 02.05. Accused Karim was forwarded to Court on 07.09.2006. He was given remand for 06 days. He denied the suggestion that accused Abdul Karim was mercilessly beaten by police during remand period. He did not arrange for holding any Test Identification Parade (T.I. Parade). It has been stated in the F.I.R that 15/20 bombs were blasted in front of toll house. It has also been stated in the F.I.R that when police came to help Nojer Ali, police received severe injuries. Haji Azim Uddin had enmical relationship with other people of the hat. The witnesses did not state to him (this P.W.37) that the assailants used musk at the time of killing. The distance between Rajshahi and Chowbariahat is 45 kilometer. He can not say the exact distance between Godagari and Chowbariahat. He heard that the head office of CARB is in Godagari. He received an information that a meeting held in CARB office at Godagari on 25.08.2006. He does not know if the meeting continued from 09.00 A. M. to 05.00 P. M. He denied the suggestion that he did not properly investigate the case.

P. W. 38 Md. Ismail Mia is the Office-in-Charge of Atrai Police Station. He stated that on 27.11.2006, he joined Manda Police Station as Officer-in-Charge. On the verbal instruction of Police Super, Naogaon he took up the charge of investigation of the case. He perused the case docket and found that previously 03 persons investigated the case. He also perused the sketch map and index and found that the sketch map and the index were correctly prepared. He also perused the statements of the witnesses recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the previous Investigating Officers. He took remand of accused Khokan and Abu Bakkar and he interrogated them. He also recorded the statement of 04 witnesses under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He tried to arrest the accused, recover the arms and other looted properties. He arrested accused Sanaul and thereafter he was transferred to other place. He then handed over the case docket to next Investigating Officer, namely, Elias.

In his cross-examination, he stated that on 03.01.2007, he examined Chima Ali, Abul Hossain, the owners of the tea stall, Ataur Rahman, businessman and recorded their statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He also recorded the statement of Khithen Chandra. He stated that Chima Ali stated in his statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the age of miscreants was 20-30 years. He submitted a report before the higher authority on 03.12.2006 and in that report he mentioned that Haji Azim Uddin had bad blood with other Izaradars of the hat. He stated that he arrested accused Sanaullah on 25.01.2007. There was quarrel between Haji Azim Uddin and other Izaradars. He did not arrest accused Ahmed Shah Nurul. He visited some of the office of CARB in Manda Police Station. He visited 3-4 CARB Offices. He did not take any step for holding T. I. Parade of the accused. He visited CARB office and he did not know the distance between Godagari to Chowbariahat CARB Office. He does not know if on 25.08.2006 any meeting held in the CARB office of Chowbaria from 09.00 A. M. to 05.00 P. M. He denied the suggestion that he did not investigate the case properly.

The State Defence Lawyer adopted the above cross-examination.

P. W. 39 is Md. Elias Fakir. He was the Officer-in-Charge of Manda Police Station at the relevant time. He stated that he had been serving in Manda Police Station as Officer-in-Charge since 27.09.2006 to 26.11.2006. Thereafter, he was transferred to other place. Again, he was posted to Manda Police Station as Officer-in-Charge on 09.02.2007 and since then he has been serving in Manda Police Station till date. He received the case docket from previous Investigating Officer Kosim Uddin. Therafter, he again visited the place of occurrence, perused the case docket and also saw the alamat. He again interrogated the witnesses who were examined by previous Investigating Officer. He also perused the statements of the witnesseses under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He tried to arrest the absconding accused and he also seized some of the alamats and thereafter he was transferred from Manda Police Station. Again on 09.02.2007, he was posted in Manda Police Station as Officer-in-Charge and took up the charge of investigation of the case from Ismail Hossain Mia (P.W.38). He consulted the higher authority and submitted charge sheet No. 71 dated 16.04.2007 against 21 accused under sections 120B/400/402/353/396 of the Penal Code as a prima-facie case was made out aginst them. He arranged recording the statement of the accused under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he also recorded the statement of the accused in video. He submitted those video in the Court. He also prepared another sketch map with index. D.B. Inspector Kosim Uddin investigated the case from 10.09.2006 to 27.10.2006. Kosim Uddin is now in abroad.

In his cross-examination he stated that he sent an information slip to Gumastapur Police Station to know about the PCPR of accused Shafiqul Islam, son of Mobarak. Gumastapur Police Station mentioned that the PCPR of Shafiqul Islam, son of Mobarak was nill. The PCPR of accused Shah Nurul was also nill. The PCPR of accused Sanaul was also nill. He did not arrest accused Shafiqul Islam, son of Mobarak. From C. D. he understands that accused Shafiqul Islam, son of Mobarak was arrested on 30.09.2006 and he was taken on remand for 04 days. Accused Shafiqul Islam, son of Mobarok made the confessional statement on 03.10.2006. He denied a suggestion that the confession of accused Shafiqul Islam, son of Mobarak was the product of police torture and intimidation. The confessing accused in their statement mentioned the name of other accused. Except 04 accused, all other accused used to serve in the CARB Office. He himself did not visit CARB office. He sent P.S.I Md. Alauddin to visit the CARB office. He denied the suggestion that on 25.08.2006, accused Abdul Karim along with other accused were present in the CARB office. In the sketch map he has shown one room and the accused held meeting in that room. He came to know from the confessional statement of the accused that the accused held a meeting in the CARB Office. The miscreants did not use musk. He did not arrange for holding any T. I. parade. Other Investigating Officer also did not arrange for holding any T. I. parade. In connection with this case one G. D. was lodged in Manda Police Station. As per the direction of police head quarter, a 11-member monitoring team was formed for supervision of the investigation of the case. Accused Sagor was arrested by Porsha Police Station. He stated that it has been mentioned in the C. D. that Officer-in-Charge of Manda of Police Station received accused Sagor on 07.09.2006. He has not sent up 15 accused including Akbor, Mofizul, Mojid, Ishaque Ali etc. in the charge sheet. He did not find any prima-facie case against Mojid, Akbor Ali, Mofijul Islam and Ishaque Ali. He did not visit the house of accused Haji Azim Uddin. He seized the leaflet of Sorbahara Party. He got the information that Izaradar of Chowbariahat used to realize excessive toll from the people of Manda and Neamotpur Police Station. He did not cite Abdul Jalil, brother of Nojer Ali as witness to this case. Inspector Kosim brought accused Karim before the Magistrate for recording his statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accused Abdul Karim stated in his statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that on the date of occurrence he was present at Godagari CARB office from 09.00 A. M. to 4.45 P. M. He sent information slip to Tanur Police Station for giving the antecedent of accused Abdul Karim but Tanur Police Station did not reply. He seized the T.V, utensils, motor cycle. The seized utensils were used for cooking beef and accused Roghunath being a Hindu did not eat beef. He himself arrested accused Roghunath on 05.10.2006 under section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He denied the suggestion that accused Roghunath made the confession out of police torture. The PCPR of accused Tomal @ Ferdous, Sonjoy, Abdul Mannan, Robiul and Dilip and Majed Ali is nill. There are 07 cases pending against accused Nurul Islam @ Shine. Among 05 confessing accused, 04 were serving in CARB office. The total accused is 21 and out of 21 accused, accused Sonjoy, Awal, Robiul, Joynal, Khairul, Mannan, Tohurul, Karim, Shafiqul Islam, son of Mobarak, Nurul Islam @ Shine total 12 persons used to serve in the CARB office. Accused Shafiqul Islam, son of Habibur, Abu Bakkar, Nurunnabi, Haji Azim Uddin, Dilip, Mannan would not serve in the CARB office. He cannot say the distance between Godagari and Chowbaria. He denied the suggestion that on 25.08.2006, a seminar of farmers/cultivators held in the CARB office. He did not verify whether on 25.08.2006, a seminar held in the CARB Office at Godagari. He stated that he prepared total 05(five) seizure list. He also seized a leaflet relating to telefilm. He prepared the seizure list relating to utensil on 10.11.2006. He proved his signature in the seizure list as Exhibit 19/3. On 15.03.2006, he seized total 10 items including pictures. He seized C.D. casette. He proved his signature in the seizure list of C.D. casette as Exhibit 32/3. He stated that there is no signature of any witness on the seized alamat.

The State Defence Lawyer adopted the above cross-examination.

The defence examined 01 witness namely, Abdur Rahman as D.W. He is the operating director of the CARB office of Godagari. He stated that he had been serving in the CARB office, Godagari since 01.12.2001. The CARB is a non-governmental organisation (NGO). The purpose and function of the CARB is to distribute the necessary tools among the farmers for cultivation. He stated that on 25.08.2006, there was a meeting among the cultivators in the CARB office at Godagari. The meeting started at 11.00 A. M. and ended at Asar prayer. Again after Asar prayer it started and continued till dusk. In that meeting 30 cultivators were present. All the cultivators were given travel expenses. The Branch Manager of each CARB office identified the cultivators of his office. He proved the paper by which the cultivators were identified. He proved the paper as Exhibit Ka and his signature therein as Exhibit Ka-1, Ka-2, Ka-3 and Ka-4. Some photographs were taken on that day and he submitted 4(four) photographs. He proved the photographs which were proved as Exhibit Kha, Kha-1, Kha-2 and Kha-3. The photograph of accused Abdul Karim is seen in the photograph. The photo of Ahmed Shah Nurul, Robiul Haque (Area Manager) are also seen in the photographs. He knew that 12 persons of CARB office were made accused in this case. They are Ahmed Shah Nurul, (Branch Manager), Abdul Karim, Abdul Mannan, Sonjoy, Nurul, Robiul, Sanaul, Khairul, Tohurul, Shafiqul Islam. During meeting the participants exchanged views and shared their experiences. Many officers of the CARB office were present. He did not find any Branch Manager, Firm Manager, Area Manager to get involved in politics.

In his cross-examination, he stated that he is the operating director of the CARB at Godagari. He is still in service. There are many other N.G.Os in Naogaon like BRAC, ASA, TMSS etc. All the papers he submitted were photocopy, and the papers were not attested by proper authority. He does not know who snapped the photographs. Among 12 accused, accused Abdul Karim, Nurul Islam, Sana Ullah and Shafiqul Islam were present in the Court. The 12 accused who were serving in CARB office do not go to office now-a-days. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely to save the employees of the CARB.
These are all the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the defence. In order to ascertain whether the prosecution has been able to prove the charge against the accused, let us carefully examine and analyze the evidence of the witnesses, adduced by the prosecution.

Out of 39 P.Ws, we find that P.W.1 is the informant, P.W. 2 is Rahela Begum. She has been declared hostile. She is the wife of late Habibur Rahman. Accused Shafiqul Islam is her son. P.W.3 is a private witness. P.W. 4 is also a private witness and he has been declared hostile, P.W.5 is also a private witness. P.W.6 is also a private witness and he has also been declared hostile. P.W Nos. 7, 8 are private witness, P.W.9 is the Chairman of Prasadpur Union Parishad. He is the witness to the inquest report of A.S.I. A.T .Firoj, Farid, Askan and Nojer Ali. P.W.10 Ashraful Alam. He has a medicine shop at Chowbariahat. He is the seizure list witness of TV which was seized from the house of Rahela Begum (P.W.2). P.W.11 is Md. Nazmul Haq and he has also a VCD repairing shop in Chowbariahat. He is also the seizure list witness of TV which was seized from the house of Rahela Begum (P.W. 2). P.W. 12 Mohammad Farhad Hossain is the witness of inquest report of A.S.I. A.T. Firoj Askan, Babul Hossain and Nojer Ali. Blood stained earth was also seized in his presence. These alamats were seized from the place of occurrence. P.W. 13 is Md. Monwarul Iqbal. He put his signature in the inquest report of Constable Faridul and Babul. P.W.14 is the Principal of the college. He came to the place of occurrence after the occurrence was over. P.W.15 is a private witness. He heard about the occurrence and he has no personal knowledge about the occurrence. P.W.16 is the Chowkidar who was on duty on the date of occurrence. He stated that he did not know who killed the police personnel. P.W.17 is Police Inspector. He prepared the inquest report of Constable Askan, Babul and also Nojer Ali. He brought 5 dead bodies to Prasadpur by police pickup van. P.W.18 is the witness to the inquest report of Constable Farid. He is also the witness of the seizure list of the uniform of the deceased police personnel. P.W. 19 also brought the dead body of Constables, namely, Askan, Babul and Izaradar Nojer Ali to Naogaon Sadar Hospital for post mortem examination. He brought the dead body by a chalan and he handed over the dead body of Nojer Ali to his relatives. P.W. 20 is a private witness and he is the witness to the seizure list. P.W. 21 is a police Constable. He carried a letter from the Officer-in-Charge of Manda Police Station to CARB office. P.W. 22 and 23 are private witnesses. They are seizure list witnesses of the utensils which were seized from the house of Rahela Begum (P.W. 2). These utensils were used for cooking beef. P.W.24 and 25 have been tendered. P.W.26 is the Magistrate. He recorded the statements of 5 accused under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He also recorded the statement of the witnesses, namely, Suresh Chandra Das (P.W. 3) and Rahela Begum (P.W.2) under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. P.W.27 is a private witness. He is also the witness to the inquest report of Firoj, Askan, Babul and Faridul. He also put his signature in the seizure list. P.W.28 is a private witness. He is the seizure list witness of two papers. P.W.29 has been tendered. P.W.30 is a private witness. He is the owner of a tea-stall situated at Chowbariahat. P.W.31 is the Doctor. He held the post mortem examination of 5 deceased. P.W.32 is a public witness. P.W. 33 seized the motor cycle from accused Abdul Karim. P.W.34 is Md. Nur Alam. P.W. 35 put his signature in the seizure list of the seized photographs. P.W. 36 put his signature in the seizure list of the seized 2 C.D. P.W. Nos. 37, 38 and 39 are the Investigation Officers.

Out of 39 witnesses P.W. Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28 and 30 are private witness.

P.W. Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 have been declared hostile. Two witnesses that is, P.W. Nos. 25 and 29 have been tendered.

Admittedly in this case there is no eye-witness. None of the witnesses saw the accused killing the deceased. Therefore, we have to rely upon the circumstantial evidence and also on the confessional statements given by 5 accused, namely, Nurul Islam, Tohurul Islam, Roghunath, Abdul Karim and Shafiqul Islam. Now let us analyse the confession of 5 accused one by one.

The occurrence took place on 25.08.2006 at 18.30 hours;
The FIR was lodged on 25.8.2006 at 23-25 hours;
Police arrested Nurul Islam @ Shine on 2.9.2006 and he was forwarded to the Court on 3.9.2006;
Police took him on remand for 10 days;
He was brought before the Magistrate on 07.09.2006 and his confession under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded on 07.09.2006.
        
Now, let us re-produce the confession of accused Nurul Islam @ Shine which runs as under:

নূরতল ইসলাম @ শাহিন-এর জবানবন্দি
আমি দেলুয়ার বাড়ী CARB অফিসে ব্র্যাঞ্চ ম্যানেজার হিসাবে চাকুরী করি। ১০/০৮/০৫ খ্রিঃ তারিখ থেকে আমি ২০০৩ সালে দিলীপ, পিতা নাছির সাং মাচনা, নিয়মাত এর মাধ্যমে পূর্ব বাংলা কমিউনিস্ট পার্টি (লাল পতাকা) এর সদস্য হই। ২১.০৮.০৬ খ্রিঃ সোমবার বিকাল ৫.৩০ রাত ৮.০০ টা পর্যমত চৌবাড়িয়া CARB অফিসে মিটিং করি। তহুরতল ঐ CARB অফিসের ফার্ম ম্যানেজার এবং লাল পতাকার কমান্ডার। দিলীপ ঐ মিটিং এ নেতৃত্ব দেয় মিটিং ১) আমি ২) দিলীপ ৩) তহুরতল ৪) আতাউর পিতা অজ্ঞাত ৫) শফিকুল পিতা অজ্ঞাত সাং আনারপুর গোমসতাপুর, চাঁপাইনবাবগঞ্জ, ৭) আঃ করিম, পিতা অজ্ঞাত সাং অমৃতপুর, তানোর, রাজশাহী, ৮) সাগর, পিতা অজ্ঞাত সাং কালী গ্রাম, মান্দা, নওগাঁ, ৯) মাজেদ আলী, পিতা অজ্ঞাত সাং নাকইল, নিয়ামতপুর, নওগাঁ, ১০) পিন্টু, পিতা অজ্ঞাত সাং বোয়াল ডাঙ্গা, নিয়ামতপুর, নওগাঁ, ১১) খোকন, পিতা অজ্ঞাত সাং শিবপুর, নিয়ামতপুর, নওগাঁ, ১২) আহমেদ শাহ নূরতল, পিতা অজ্ঞাত সাং বজেরাটেক, ভোলাহাট, চাপাইনবাবগঞ্জ, ১৩) শফিকুল ইসলাম, পিতা হাবিবুর রহমান, চৌবাড়িয়া, মান্দা, ১৪) তমাল, পিতা অজ্ঞাত সাং অজ্ঞাত, রানী নগর, নওগা, ১৫), সিদ্দিক, পিতা অজ্ঞাত, সাতক্ষিরা, ১৬), হাসান, পিতা অজ্ঞাত, ১৭) রবিউল পিতা অজ্ঞাত সহ মোট ২০ জন মিটিং করি। মিটিং এ সিদ্ধামত হয়। হাটের ইজারাদার লুৎফর, কাদের এবং আফজালকে খুন করতে হবে। পুলিশ বাধা দিবে বলে তাদের খুন করে অসএ লুট করে নিতে হবে। হাজী আজিমুদ্দিন দিলীপের সাথে তার তহুরতলের সাথে কন্ট্রাক্ট করে ইজারাদারদের  খুন করলে সে পার্টিকে মোটা অংকের চাঁদা দিবে। পুলিশের অসএগুলো পার্টিকে দিবে। হাজী আজিমউদ্দিনের সাথে মাস দুয়েক আগে হাটের ইজারাদারের গন্ডগোল হয়। মিটিং শেষ করে যে, যার বাড়ী চলে যাই। মিটিং এ আরে বলে শুত্রুবার বিকাল ০৩.০০ টার মধ্যে তহুরতলের বাসায় সবাই চলে আসবে।
২৫/০৮/০৬ শুত্রুবার আমি, সাগর, করিম, সঞ্জয় অনুমান ৩.৪৫ মিঃ সময় তহুরতলের বাসায় চৌবাড়িয়া অাসি। বাকীরা অামাদের অঅগে অাসে। অনুমান ৪.১৫ টার দিকে আমার ২০ জন প্রতি গ্রতপে ৪ জন করে ৫টি গ্রতপে ভাগ হয়ে চৌবাড়িয়া গরতর হাটে যাই। অামার গ্রতপে অামার এবং করিমের কাছে ১টি করে পিসতল, সাগরের কাছে বোমা, মঞ্জুরতলের কাছে বোমা ছিল। বাকী গ্রতপগুলো কাছে ছুটি, লোহার রড, বোমা ছিল। অামাদের গ্রতপের প্রটেকশনের দায়িত্ব ছিল। সময় অনুমান ৪.৩০ টার দিকে হাটে পৌছাই। অামরা ৪ জন মোবাইল টাওয়ারের পার্শ্বে দাড়িয়ে থাকি। বাকীরা নিজ গ্রতপে বিভত্তু হয়ে চা স্টলের অাশে পাশে ঘোরাফেরা করে। অনুমান ৬.০০টার দিকে অামি হাটে ইশারা দিয়ে মুখে হুক দেই। তখন সবাই রেডি হয়। বকুল গাছের নীচে এ, এস, অাই, ফিরোজ ছিল। তিনজন পুলিশ চা স্টলে বসেছিল। হাত দেখানোর সাথে সাথে যাদের কাছে বোমা ছিল তারা বোমায় ফাটায় এবং একযোগে পুলিশকে রড দিয়ে বারি মেরে মাটিতে ফেলে দিয়ে ছুরি দিয়ে জবাই করে। তহুরতল ছুরি দিয়ে দারোগা ফিরোজকে জবাই করে। দিলীপ, অাতাউর, তমাল অপর তিনজন পুলিশকে জবাই করে ছুরি দিয়ে। এ সময় হাটের টোল ঘর থেকে একজন লোক বের হয়ে এলে তহুরতলে গ্রতপ তাকে ছুরি দিয়ে গলায় অাঘাত করে। সে পরে মারা যায়। তারপর অামরা সবাই পূর্ব বাংলা কমিউনিস্ট পার্টি (এম, এল, লাল পতাকা) জিন্দাবাদ শ্লোগান দিতে দিতে পশ্চিম দিক দিয়ে বের হয়ে যায়। হাট পার হয়ে অনুমান ১ কিৎমিৎ দূরে সব অসএগুলে দিলীপের হাতে জমা দিয়ে অামি সঞ্জয়, করিম, সাগর,CARB অফিসের চৌবাড়িয়া ফিরে অাসি। মটর সাইকেল নেয়ার জন্য বাকীরা সবাই অসএ নিয়ে খড়িবাড়ী নিয়ামতপুরের দিকে রওয়ানা দেয়। অামি করিম ও সাগর মটর সাইকেল দিয়ে করিমের লাল বাজাজ ১০০ সিসি এবং সাগরের কাল রং এর বাজাজ ১২০ সিসি খরিবাড়ী মাঠের মধ্যে তাদের সাথে দেখা করি। অামাদের ২টি পিসতল পুলিশের একটি পিসতল (করিমের হাতে ছিল) সাগরকে এবং করিমকে একটি করে দেয়। অামার মটর সাইকেল দিয়ে রাত্রে করিমের বাড়ী চলে যাই করিম অামাদের মাটির দোতলায় নিয়ে গিয়ে খাটে বসতে দেয়। তার অসএগুলে এক সাথে কাপড় দিয়ে জড়িয়ে জুতার বাক্সের মধ্যে ভর খাটের নীচে রেখে দেয়। তারপর করিম অামাদের নীচে এনে তার বৈঠক খানায় বসতে দেয়। রাতে খাওয়া দাওয়া ঘুমিয়ে পড়ি। সকাল বেলা উঠে গোসল করে নাসতা খাওয়ায়। করিম তার মটর সাইকেল নিয়ে অামাদের মটর সাইকেলের সাথে চৌবাড়িয়া পর্যমত এগিয়ে দেয়। অসএগুলো করিমের বাড়ীতে থেকে যায়। এরপর থেকে অার করিমের সাথে দেখা হয়নি। বা কথা হয়নি। গত শুত্রুবার দিবাগত রাত ১.০০টটার সময় পুলিশ অামাকে CARB অফিস দেলুয়াবাড়ী হাট ব্রাঞ্চ থেকে গ্রেপ্তার করে। অামি অাপনার কাছে এবং রাষ্ট্রের কাছে ক্ষমা চাই। আমি ভাল হয়ে স্বাভাবিক জীবনে ফিরে যেতে চাই। এই আমার জবানবন্দী।

From the above confessional statement, we find that on 21.08.2006, a meeting was held at Chowbaria CARB office. In that meeting Nurul Islam @ Shine, Ataur, Shafiqul, Abdul Karim, Sagor (since dead), Majed Ali, Pintu, Khokon, Ahmed Shah Nurul, Shafiqul Islam, son of Habibur Rahman, Tohurul, Siddique, Hossain, Rabiul and others total 20 persons were present there. In that meeting it was decided that they would kill Izaradar Lutfor, Quader and Afzal. It was further decided that if police resists, they would also kill police personnel and snatch away their arms. Haji Azimuddin made a contract with accused, namely, Dilip and Tohurul. According to the contract Haji Azimuddin would give them handsome cash and also would give them looted arms. Haji Azimuddin had a quarrel with other Izaradar 2(two) months prior to the occurrence. On 25.08.2006 at 3.45 hours, 20 accused were divided into 5 groups. He and Abdul Karim were carrying pistol. Sagor (since dead) was carrying bomb. Other groups were carrying chora, iron rod etc. They arrived at Chowbariahat at 4.30 p.m. He gave signal at 6.00 P.M. and on getting the signal the other accused exploded bombs and inflicted iron rod blows on the head of police personnel and slaughtered them. Accused Tahrul slaughtered the daroga. Accused Dilip, Ataur and Tomal killed 3(three) police personnel. At that time one person came out from toll house and the accused dealt chora blow in his neck and subsequently he died. Thereafter they left the place chanting slogan “Purbabangla Communist Party Zindabad.”

This is the confessional statement given by accused Nurul Islam @ Shine. If we carefully analyse the above confessional statement of Nurul Islam @ Shine we find that according to the decision taken in the meeting held on 21.08.2006, they all came to the place of occurrence and as soon as he gave signal, other accused blasted bomb, inflicted iron rod blows on the head of the police personnel and slaughtered them. From the confessional statement of this accused, we find vivid description of the occurrence. P. W. 26 is the Magistrate who recorded the statement of this accused. He (P.W. 26) stated that he alerted the accused by saying that he was not bound to confess and if he would confess it might be used against him as evidence. The learned Magistrate also stated that he gave three hours reflection time to the accused. He complied with all the provisions of law provided under section 164 and 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before recording the confessional statement of accused Nurul Islam @ Shine.  The accused also did not complain of police torture at the time of recording his statement.

This condemned prisoner was not examined under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as he absconded during trial. He absconded since 02.12.2007. So there was no occasion to examine him under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In his confessional statement, accused Nurul Islam @ Shine stated that they slaughtered the police personnel. P. W. 31 held the autopsy. He corroborated with the statement of the accused as he found that all the dead bodies of police personnel had throat cut. The evidence of P.W. 31 fully corroborates the prosecution case. The Tribunal rightly held that the time, place and manner of the occurrence have been corroborated by the evidence of all the witnesses. His confession fully corroborates with the prosecution case. Therefore, we hold the view that the Tribunal rightly held that the confession of accused Nurul Islam @ Shine was voluntury and true. Accused Nurul Islam @ Shine filed an application for retraction of the confession. The trial court did not pass any order on the application for retraction. In fact, once a confession is taken to be voluntary and true, the application of retraction has no value. We shall discuss the value of retraction of confession later in the body of the judgment.

Confession of accused Tohurul Islam, aged 24:-
Now, let us, scrutinize and analyze the confessional statement of accsued Tohurul Islam.
Police arrested accused Tohurul Islam on 01.09.2006 at 11.00 P. M. and forwarded him to the Court on 03.09.2006.
Police took him on remand for 10 (ten) days.
On 07.09.2006, he made confessional statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
He filed an application for retraction of his confession but his application for retraction was rejected. 
He was enlarged on bail on 26.07.2007 and thereafter he absconded and did not face trial.
His bail was cancelled on 02.01.2008.
As he absconded during trial, he could not be examined under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The confessionnal statement given by accused Tohurual Islam is reproduced here which runs as under:

“ তহুরতল ইসলাম @ অাজিজুল হক
অামি CARB অফিসে চৌবাড়িয়া ২৩ নং ব্র্যাঞ্চে ফার্ম ম্যানেজার হিসাবে ৬/৭ মাস কাল কাজ করছি। অামি বর্তমানে বিনোদপুর ডিগ্রী কলেজে পাশ কোর্সে ডিগ্রীতে পড়ছি। গত ২১.০৮.০৬ খ্রিঃ সোমবার CARB অফিস চৌবাড়িয়া ব্রাঞ্চের মিটিং করি। মিটিং-এ ১) অামি ২) নয়রতল ইসলাম @ শাহীন, ৩) দিলীপ, পিতা অজ্ঞাত সাং মাচনা, নওগা, ৪) কাশেম পিতা অজ্ঞাত সাং বলদারহার নিয়ামতপুর, ৫) খোকন পিতা ময়েজ সাং শিবপুর নিয়ামতপুর, ৬) হাসান পিতা অজ্ঞাত সাং ভোলা হাট, চাপাইনবাবগঞ্জ, ৭) তমাল, পিতা অজ্ঞাত সাং সমাজপাড়র, অাত্রাই, ৪) অাতাউর পিতা অজ্ঞাত সাং সমাজপাড়া, অাত্রাই, ৯) পিন্টু পিতা অজ্ঞাত সাং বলদাহার, নিয়ামতপুর, ১০) সাগর পিতা অজ্ঞাত সাং দেলয়াবাড়ী, মান্দা, ১১)সঞ্জয় পিতা অজ্ঞাত সাং গোদাগাড়ী, ১২) খায়রতল পিতা অজ্ঞাত, নাচোল চাপাইনবাবগঞ্জ, ১৩) করিম পিতা অজ্ঞাত তানোর, রাজশাহী, ১৪) সিদ্দিক পিতা অজ্ঞাত জেলা সাতক্ষীরা সহ অারো কয়েকজন ছিল। সন্ধ্যা অনুমান ৬.০০ টার দিকে মিটিং হয়। মিটিং শাহীন ও দিলীপ নেতৃত্ব দেয়। মিটিং সিদ্ধামত হয় চৌবাড়িয়া গরতর হাটে অপারেশন চালিয়ে হাটের ইজারাদার অাফজাল, ফজের কে মেরে ফেলতে হবে। হাজী অাজিমুদ্দিন তাদেরকে মেরে ফেললে অামাদের পার্টিকে ১২/১৩ লক্ষ টাকা দিবে শাহীন ও দিলীপ জানায়। হাজী অাজিমুদ্দন এর সাথে ঘটনার মাস দেড়েক অঅগে হাট ইজারাদারদের গন্ডগোল হয়।
ঘটনার দিন ২৫/০৮/০৬ শুত্রুবার এর বিকাল অনুমান ৫টার দিকে অামরা ২০ জনের একটি দল বিভিন্ন ভাবে ভাগ হয়ে চৌবাড়িয়া গরতর হাটে যাই। অামি বাজারের পার্শ্বে পর পর ৫টি বোমা ফাটাই। তার ভয়ে লোকজন দৌড়াতে থাকে তখন অামরা পুলিশদের লোহার রড দিয়ে অাঘাত করি। ৪ জনকে অাঘাত করি। অামি দারোগাকে ছুরি দিয়ে জবাই করি। পুলিশের অসএ অামরা কেড়ে নেই। অন্য তিন জনকেও জবাই করে হত্যা করা হয়। কে জবাই করে বলতে পারব না। ইজারাদার নজের কে টোল ঘর থেকে বেরিয়ে যাওয়ার সময় তাকেও জবাই করে হত্যা করা হয়। কে জবাই করে বলতে পারব না। দারোগা ফিরোজকে সিদ্দিক, খোকন, তমাল ধরে রাখে। প্রথমে তমাল ছুরি দিয়ে অাঘাত করে। তারপর অামি তার কাছ থেকে ছুরি নিয়ে জবাই করি। তারপর অামরা পূর্ব বাংলা কমিউনিস্ট পার্টি লাল পতাকা জিন্দাবাদ বলে শ্লোগান দিতে দিতে খড়ি বাড়ী ও সাদা পুরের মধ্যসহলে চলে যাই। সেখানে দিলীপ ও শাহীনকে ছুরি, রড, পিসতল ২টি, বন্দুক ৩টি জমা দিয়ে নিয়ে বাড়ী চলে যাই। অসএগুলো দিলীপ, শাহীন, করিমের কাছে অাছে। অামি এক বৎসর অাগে সর্বহারা দলের সদস্য হই। মারার জন্য এখনো কোন টাকা পয়সা পাইনাই। শাহীন ও দিলীপ জানে টাকা পয়সা দিয়েছে কিনা অামাকে গত শুত্রুবার দিবাগত রাত অনুমান ১১টার সময় চাকলা নিয়ামতপুর থেকে পুলিশ ধৃত করেন।”

From the above confessional statement, it is clear that on 21.08.2006, a meeting was held at the CARB office. In that meeting the accused and other persons were present. It was decided in the meeting that they would kill Izaradar and if they could kill Izaradars, namely, Afzal and Fazlu, accused Azimuddin would give them Tk. 12/13 lac. Haji Azimuddin had a quarrel with other Izarader, one and half months prior to the occurrence. In pursuance of the decision and agreement taken in the meeting held on 21.08.2006, the accused along with others went to the cattle market in 5 groups. He himself blasted the bombs and people started running hither and thither. The accused dealt iron rod blow on the head of 4 police personnel. He himself slaughtered the Daroga. They also snatched away the arms from police personnel. The other 3 police personnel were also slaughtered. He took the knife from accused Tomal and slaughtered Daroga Firoj. Thereafter, they left the place chanting slogan “Purba Bangla, Lal Potaka, Zindabad.”

Upon a careful scrutiny of the confessional statement of accused Tohurul, we find that this confessional statement is inculpatory in nature. The accused himself stated that he himself blasted the bomb and he himself slaughtered the Daroga taking knife from Tomal. It is true that on 04.10.2006 accused Tohurul filed an application for retraction. But his application for retraction was rejected. Accused Tohurul absconded after he was granted bail. As a result, he could not be examined under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate who recorded the confession of accused Tohurul stated in no uncertain terms that he cautioned accused Tohurul that he was not bound to confess and if he would confess, it might be used against him as evidence. He also gave the accused 3 hours time for reflection. The learned Magistrate stated that when he recoreded the confessional statement of accused Tohurul, he (accused Tohurul) looked normal and his health condition was good. The accused also did not complain of police torture before the Magistrate. The learned Magistrate complied with all the provisions of section 164 and 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before recording the confession of accused Tohurul. Therefore, we find that the confession given by accused Tohurul was voluntary. Moreover, the confession given by accused Tohurul is consistent with the prosecution case. He has stated in his confession that a meeting was held on 21.08.2006 in the CARB office. In that meeting it was decided that they would kill Izaradar and they would also kill the police personnel and take away their arms. In his confession accused Tohurul gave vivid description about the occurrence. As the confession of accused Tohurul is consistent with the prosecution case, we also hold the view that the confession of accused Tohurul is true as well.

Another accused, namely, Shafiqul, son of Mobarak made a confession. In his confession he stated as under:

অামি CARB অফিস চৌবাড়িয়া ব্রাঞ্চে গত ২১.০৫.০৬ খ্রিঃ তারিখ থেকে চাকুরী করছি। CARB অফিসের মান্দা ও তানোর থানা এলাকার এরিয়া ম্যানেজার মোঃ রবিইল ইসলাম পিতা অজ্ঞাত সাং কাকন হাট থানা- তানোর, রাজশাহী অামাকে পূর্ব বাংলা কমিউনিস্ট পার্টি এম, এল, লাল পতাকা দল করার জন্য বলে অনুমান ২ মাস অাগে বলে। অামি তার কথা মতো। ঐ দলে যোগ দেই। গত ২১.০৮.০৬ খ্রিঃ তারিখ অনুমান সন্ধ্যা ৬.০০ টার দিকে CARB অফিসে চৌবাড়িয়া ব্রাঞ্চে একটি মিটিং হয়। ঐ মিটিং এ ১) হাজী অাজিম উদ্দীন পিতা অজ্ঞাত সাং খড়িবাড়ী নিয়ামতপুর, ২) অামি, ৩) নূরতল ইসলাম ওরফে তাপস ওরফে শাহীন পিতা হাবিবুল মাস্টার সাং নিমদিঘী নিয়ামতপুর, ৪) সানাউল পিতা অজ্ঞাত দেলুয়াবাড়ী CARB ব্রাঞ্চের ফার্ম ম্যানেজার, ৫) রঘুনাথ পিতা অজ্ঞাত দেলুয়াবাড়ী CARB অফিসের বাবুর্চি, ৬) সাগর কৃষক প্রতিনিধি সাং বলিগ্রাম, মান্দা ৭) খায়রতল পিতা অজ্ঞাত ফার্ম ম্যানেজার CARB ব্রাঞ্চ চৌবাড়িয়া, ৮) তহুরতল ইসলাম পিতা অজ্ঞাত ফার্ম ম্যানেজার চৌবাড়িয়া CARB ব্রাঞ্চ, ৯) অাঃ করিম কামারপুর ব্রাঞ্চের ফার্ম ম্যানেজার, ১০) সঞ্জয় পিতা ধীরেন সাহা সাং গোদাগাড়ী, রাজশাহী, ১১) খোকন সিনজেনটা গ্রতপের মাঠ কর্মী, ১২) ছিদ্দিক সিনজেনটা গ্রতপের মাঠ কর্মী, ১৩) মোঃ শফিকুল ইসলাম, ১৪) মোঃ পিন্টু উভয় পিতা মৃত হাবিবুর রহমান, ১৫) অাঃ মান্নান CARB অাগের ব্রাঞ্চের ফার্ম ম্যানেজার, ১৬) অাঃ অাউয়াল অাগোর ব্রাঞ্চের ফার্ম ম্যানেজার উপসিহত ছিল। মির্টি এ সিদ্ধামত হয় ২৫.০৮.০৬ তাং বেলা ১২.০০ টার শুত্রুবারে চৌবাড়ীয়া গরতর হাটে অসএ লুট (পুলিশের) অার ইজারাদারদের খুন করা হবে, হাজী অাজিমুদ্দিন, নুরতল ইসলাম @ তাপস সহ অারো অনেকে বত্তুব্য রাখে। ২৫.০৮.০৬ তাং বেলা ১২.০০ টায় রাহেলা বেগমের বাড়ীতে তহুরতল ঐ বাড়ীতে ভাড়া থাকত। অামরা হাজী অাজিমুদ্দিন ব্যতিত উপরে বর্ণিত ১৫ জন এবং বহিরাগত ৫ জন মোট ২০ জন উপসিহত হই। দুপুরের খাবার দাবার রাহেলা বেগম পাক করে দেয়। খাবার শেষে অামরা ভিসিপি দেখি। বিকাল ৫.৩০ মিঃ অামরা  ২০ জন ৫ গ্রতপে এক এক গ্রতপে ৪ জন করে বিভত্তু হয়ে হাটের অপারেশনে বের হই। ১ম গ্রতপে ১) নুরতল ইসলাম @ শাহীন ২) সানাউল, ৩) রধুনাথ, ৪) সাগর ২য় গ্রতপে ১) তহুরতল, রবিউল, করিম, জয়নাল ৩য় গ্রতপে খায়রতল ২) সঞ্জয় ৩) অামি, শফিকুল, ৪) খোকন ৪র্থ গ্রতপে ১) মান্নান, ২) অাওয়াল, ৩) মোঃ শফিকুল ইসলাম, ৪) পিন্টু ৫ম গ্রতপে ১) সিদ্দিক, ২) দিলীপ এবং অপরিচিত ২ জন ছিল। নুরতল ইসলাম এবং রবিউলের কাছে ১টি করে পিসতল ছিল। সঞ্জয়, তহুরতল, সিদ্দিক, মান্নান সহ অপরিচিত ২ জনের হাতে ১টি করে বোমা ৬টি ছোরা ছিল। সানাউল ও সাগরের হাতে বোমা ছিল। করিম, অানার, খায়রতল, জয়নাল, শফিকুল, অাউয়ালের এবং পিন্টুর হাতে ও বোমা ছিল। বাকীদের হাতে লোহার রড ছিল। অসএ লুট করার দায়িত্ব ছিল। ১) তহুরতল, ২) নুরতল ইসলাম, ৩) দিলীপ, ৪) করিম এবং অজ্ঞাতনামা ২জন। ঘটনাসহলে গেছে খায়রতল এবং অাউয়াল বোমা ফাটায় লোকজন ভয়ে পালিয়ে যায়। কয়েকজন লোহার রড দিয়ে পুলিশের ৩ জন কনস্ট্যাবল এবং এ, এস, অাই ফিরোজকে এবং একজন কনস্ট্যাবলকে অাঃ মান্নান ছোরা দিয়ে জবাই করে। বাকী দুজনকে কে জবাই করে দেখি নাই। হাটের ইজারাদারকে হত্যা করা হয়। কে করে জানি না। পুলিশের ১টি পিসতল ও ৩টি বন্দুক অামরা লুট করে পূর্ব বাংলা কমিউনিস্ট পার্টি এম, এল লাল পতাকা জিন্দাবাদ শ্লোগান দিতে দিতে মান্নান মোড়ের দিকে চলে যাই। মাসতানের মোড় থেকে ২টি সাদা রংয়ের মাইত্রেুাবাসযোগে অামরা নিয়ামত থানার রামনগর মোড়ে যাই। অামি, সানাউল ও সিদ্দিক রামনগর নেমে যাই। অসএ ও বোমা গাড়ীতে থেকে যায়। বাকীতে মাইত্রেুা নিয়ে পশ্চিম দিকে চলে যায়। পরে সিদ্দিক চৌবাড়িয়ার চলে অাসে। অামিও সানাউল রামনগর থেকে ছুটাছুটি করে বাড়ী চলে যাই। ২৮.০৯.০৬ তারিখ দিবাগত রাত ৫.০০ টার সময় অামাকে নোনাহার অামার শ্বশুর বাড়ী থেকে পুলিশ গ্রেপ্তার করে। অসএগুলো এখন কার কাছে জানি না। এই অামার জবানবন্দী।

From the above confessional statement, it is clear that this condemned prisoner was present at the conspiracy held on 21.08.2006 in the CARB office at Chowbaria, that is, he actively took part in the conspiracy for taking away the arms from police personnel and also for killing the police personnel and the Izaradar. He was in group No. 3 with other accused, namely, Khairul, Sonjoy and Khokan. He stated that Khairul (a man of his group) and Awal blasted bomb. He also stated that they looted away one pistol and 03 guns from police personnel and thereafter went away, chanting slogan, “Purba Bangla Communist Party Lal Potaka Zindabad.” From the above confessional statement, it is clear that this accused Shafiqul Islam son of Mobarak took active part at the conspiracy held on 21.08.2006 in the CARB Office, Chowbaria and he was also in one of 5 groups who are responsible for killing the police personnel and Nojer Ali. According to agreement and conspiracy dated 21.08.2006 they killed police personnel and Nojer Ali and stnatched away the arms from police personnel.

Police arrested accused Shafiqul Islam son of Mobarak on 29.09.2006 at 05.00 P. M. and he was forwarded to the Court on 30.09.2006. Police took him on remand for 04 days. He did not file any application for retraction. However, he was examined under 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. At the time of recording of his confession, the learned Magistrate compiled with all the provisions of sections 164 and 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He cautioned him that he was not bound to confess and if he would confess it would be used against him as evidence. He also gave him 03 hours time for reflection. He did not complain of police torture before the learned Magistrate when his confessional statement was recorded. P. W. 26 (the learned Magistrate) was thoroughly cross-examined by the learned Lawyer appearing on behalf of the accused. From the evidence of P. W. 26 nothing came out to believe that police tortured him during his custody under police. He was examined under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 06.01.2008, i. e, he was examined under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 01 (one) year 04 (four) months after his arrest and this time he complained of police torture before the Tribunal. He could not produce any documentary and circumstantial evidence in support of his complain of police torture. We have already stated that once a confessional statement is taken to be voluntary and true, belated retraction has no value (45DLR(1993)306.)

The learned Magistrate stated that he complied with all the provisions of sections 164 and 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before recording the confession. The learned Magistrate also did not find any sign of torture on the person of accused Shafiqul son of Mobarok. The accused did not also show any sign of police torture on his person. The Magistrate gave certificate that the confession was voluntary. This confession is also consistent with the prosecution case. Since the confessional statement of this accused is consistent with the prosecution case, we are also of the opinion that the confession of accused Shafiqul Islam, son of Mobarak was voluntary and true as well.

Now, let us turn to the confessional statement of accused-appellant Roghunath Barmon.
The confession of accused-appellant Roghunath Barmon:
Police arrested Roghunath Barmon on 02.09.2006 in connection with other case.
He was shown arrested on 05.10.2006 in this case.
On 05.10.2006, he was given 04 days police remand and on 09.11.2006 he was given another 05 days police remand.
He made confessional statement on 12.11.2006.
The confessional statement of Roghunath Borman is as under:

""অামি দেলুয়াবাড়ী CARB অফিসে ভাত রান্না করার কাজ করতাম ২/৩ মাস যাবত। ২৫.০৮.০৬ শুত্রুবার সন্ধ্যা ৬.০০ টার সময় চৌবাড়িয়া গরতর হাটে ঘটনা। অামি সকালে ভাত রান্না করি। খাওয়া দাওয়া করে শাহীন ও সাগর গোদা গাড়ী যায়। মিটিং অংশগ্রহণের জন্য। নুরতল ইসলাম @ শাহীনের পিতা-অজ্ঞাত, সাং নিম দীঘি, থানা-নিয়ামতপুর এবং সাগরের পিতার নাম জানি না, সাং কালিগ্রাম, মান্দা, নওগা। তারা খাওয়ার সময় অামাকে বিকাল ৩টা ৩.৩০ টার সময় চৌবাড়িয়া হাটে যেতে বলে। অামি বিকাল ৩.৩০ টা দিকে চৌবাড়িয়া CARB অফিসের কাছে নুরতল ইসলাম @ শাহীনকে দাড়িয়ে থাকতে দেখি। শাহীন অামাকে CARB অফিসের পাশে পিন্টু পিতা অজ্ঞাত সাং চৌবাড়িয়া মান্দা এর বাড়ীতে নিয়ে যায়। যেয়ে দেখি ১৬/১৭ জন লোক টিভি দেখছে। তাদের মধ্যে শাহীন, সাগর, তহুরতল পিতা অজ্ঞাত সাং নিমদীঘি নিয়ামতপুর, সানাউল্লাহ, সঞ্জয়, পিন্টু, পিন্টুর ভাই শফিকুল অপর শফিকুল পিতা ও ঠিকানা অজ্ঞাতদেরকে চিনতে পারি। বাকীদের চিনতে পারি নাই। ওখানে কিছুক্ষণ থাকার পর শাহীন ও সঞ্জয় বোমার ব্যাগ ও পিসতল (৩টি) বের করে। শাহীনের হাতে বোমা ও ১ টি পিসতল, সাগরের হাতে ১টি বোমা ও ১টি পিসতল, সঞ্জয়ের হাতে ১টি পিসতল, শফিকুল (CARB অফিসের) এর হাতে বোমার ব্যাগ ছিল, তহুরতলের কাছে ১টি ছোরা ও ১টি বোমা ছিল। শফিকুল অামাকে বোমা দেয়। অামরা সবাই ৪ জন করে ৫টি গ্রতপের ভিবত্তু হয়ে সন্ধ্যা ৬.০০ টার দিকে হাটে যাই। অামি এবং সানাউল্লাহ হাটের পূর্ব দিকে দাড়িয়ে ছিলাম। শাহীন ও তহুরতল ইসলাম ইশার দিলে শফিকুল বোমা ফাটায়। লোকজন পালাতে লাগল। অামি ও সানাউল্লাহ ঘটনাসহলের কাছে দেখি ৪ জন পুলিশ জবাই করা অবসহায় অাছে। অামি কাউকে জবাই করতে দেখি নাই। শুনেছি তহুরতল ২ জনকে শাহীন ১ জনকে জবাই করেছে। হাটের ইজারাদার হাসপাতালে মারা যায়। তাকে কে মেরেছে জানি না। ঘটনার পর দিয়ে দেখি শাহীন সহ বাকীরা পাকা রাসতার উপর দাড়িয়ে অাছে। অামি অামার কাছে থাকা বোমাটি শফিকুলের হাতে দেই। সানাউল্লাহ সহ অামাকে রেখে বাকীরা দক্ষিণ পশ্চিম কর্নারের দিকে চলে যায়। অামি বাস করে দেলুয়াবাড়ী বাস স্ট্যান্ডে নেমে যাই । অফিসে গিয়ে রাত্রে থাকি। শাহীন ও সাগর পরের দিন সকাল ৯/১০ টার দিকে মটর সাইকেল যোগে অাসে। শাহীন অামাকে বলে সঞ্জয় পুলিশের ২টি অসএ নিয়ে গেছে। ২টি পিসতল ও ১টি পুলিশের অসএ তানোর করিমের বাড়ীতে রেখে এসেছে। পরের দিন সাগরের অসএ গুলো নিয়ে অাসার কথা ছিল। নিয়ে এসেছে কিনা জানি না। ঘটনার ৬/৭ দিন পর পুলিশ অামাকে কালী গ্রাম CARB অফিস থেকে ধরে। এই অামার জবানবন্দী।''

If we scan the confessional statement of Roghunath, we find that accused Roghunath was in killing mission and he was included in one of the 05 groups. The learned Magistrate stated that before recording the confession of Roghunath, he complied with all the provisions of sections 164 and 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He also stated that he duly cautioned accused Roghunath that he was not bound to confess and if he would confess it might be used against him as evidence. He also gave 03 hours reflection time to the accused before recording his confession. He did not complain of police torture before the learned Magistrate. He did not even say anything about police torture in his statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore we find that the confessional statement of Roghunath was voluntary.

Accused Roghunath has given the vivid description of the occurrence. He corroborated with other confessing accused and stated that there were 05 groups in the killing mission and he belonged to one of the groups. We find that the confessional statement of Roghunath is consistent with the prosecution case and as such we hold the view that the confession is also true.

Now, let us turn to the confessional statement of accused Abdul Karim.
The Tribunal has sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life.
Police arrested him on 05.09.2006 at 02.00 A. M.
On 07.09.2006, he was taken on police remand for 06 days and he made confessional statement on 10.09.2006.
He was examined under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
He was also granted bail but he could not avail of the privilege of bail because he was in the jail in another case. The confessional statement of accused Abdul Karim is quoted below which runs as under:
“মোঃআঃ করিম
অামি ২০০৪ সালের ১লা জানুয়ারী থেকে CARB অফিস কামার গা, তানোর, রাজশাহী ব্রাঞ্চে ম্যানেজার হিসাবে কর্মরত অাছি। গত ২৫.০৮.০৬ খ্রিঃ শুত্রুবার সকাল ১০টা থেকে গোদাগাড়ী CARB অফিসে স্টাফদের সমন্বয়ে একটি মতবিনিময় সভার হয় ঐ সভায় CARB এর চেয়ারম্যান ডঃ অাসাদুজ্জামান CARB এর প্রধান নির্বাহী কর্মকর্তা মোঃ মোজাহার অালী উপসিহত ছিলেন সকাল ১০টা থেকে দুপুর-এ নামাজ ও খাওয়ার জন্য ২ ঘঃ বিরতি দিয়ে অনুমান ৪.৪৫ মিঃ পর্যমত সভা চলে। অামি ঐ সভার শুরত থেকে শেষ পর্যমত ছিলাম। নূরতল ইসলাম ওরফে শাহীন ওরফে তাপস দুপুর পর্যমত ছিল। দুপুরের পর ছিল কিনা খেয়াল নাই। মিটিং শেষে অনুমান সন্ধ্যা ৭টার দিকে তালনন্দ বাজারে পৌছাই অামার নিজস্ব মটর সাইকেল দিয়ে কৃষক মোঃ শরিফ উদ্দীনকে সঙ্গে নিয়ে বাজারে চা খেয়ে বাড়ী যাওয়ার পথে অাজিজার এর গ্রামে পৌছানো মাত্র অনুমান সন্ধ্যা ৭.০০ টার সময় নূরতল ইসলাম ওরফে শাহীন অামার মোবাইল সেট নং ০১৭১৩০০৪৪০৩ এ রিং বলে অামি দেলুয়াবাড়ী যেতে পারছি না। চৌবাড়িয়াতে মারামারি হচ্ছে। অামি অাপনার এখানে চলে অাসব এবং থাকব। অামি তাকে কামার গা দিয়ে দেলুয়াবাড়ীয়া যাওয়ার জন্য বলি। সে ৫/৭ মিঃ পর তালন্দ বাজার থেকে টুনু পিতা অাঃ রহিম, তালনন্দ বাজার এর মোবাইলের দোকান থেকে পুনরায় মোবাইল করে বলে ভাই অামার খুব ভয় লাগছে। অামি যেতে পারছি না অাপনার ওখানে চলে অাসছি। অনুমান সন্ধ্যা ৭.৩০ টার সময় নুরতল ইসলাম @ শাহীন, শরীফ সাগর, পিতা অজ্ঞাত সাং কালী গ্রাম, মান্দা, নওগা কে সঙ্গে নিয়ে তার (শাহীনের) মটর সাইকেল যোগে অামার বাড়িতে যায়। রাতে ২জন অামার বাড়ীতে নীচের ঘরে থাকে। সকাল বেলা নাসতা খেয়ে অালনান্দ বাজার পর্যমত অামরা এক সাথে অাসি। অনুমান ৮.৩০ টার দিকে শাহীন ও সাগর দেলুয়াবাড়ীর উদ্দেশ্যে চলে অাসে। অামি অামার অফিসে চলে যাই। সাগর ও শাহীন ঘটনা সম্পর্কে অামাকে কিছু বলে নাই। পরের দিন তালনন্দ বাজারে ৪ জন পুলিশ এবং একজন পাবলিক মারা যাওয়ার কথা শুনি। এই অামার জবানবন্দী।”

If we scan the above confession, we find that accused Nurul @ Shine, Sagor (since dead) son of unknown came to his house with motor cycle and they stayed in his house at night and on the following morning at 08.30 A.M. Shine and Sagor (since dead) left for Deluabari. This statement of Abdul Karim is consistent with the statement of co-accused Nurul Islam @ Shine who made inculpatory statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The confession of Nurul Islam is inculpatory in nature and he categorically stated that Abdul Karim was with them in the meeting and in killing mission. This accused Abdul Karim also stated that Nurul Islam @ Shine made him a phone call by his mobile phone being No. 01713004403 and requested him to take him (accused Abdul Karim) to Deluabari as there was fight in Chowbariahat. Accused Tohurul Islam also stated that Abdul Karim was present at the meeting held on 21.08.2006 and he was also present in the killing mission. The confession of Tohurul Islam is inculpatory in nature. Accused Shafiqul Islam also stated that accused Abdul Karim was present at the meeting held on 21.08.2006 and he was in the killing mission in group No. 2. Abdul Karim admitted that accused Nurul Islam @ Shine and Sagor came to his house by motor cycle and stayed there at night. P. W. 33 seized the motor cycle from Abdul Karim, P. W. 20 is the seizure list witness of motor cycle. All these circumstances go to show that accused Abdul Karim was present at the conspiracy held on 21.08.2006 and he was also present in the killing mission on the date of occurrence and took part in the killing of 4(four) police personnel and Nojer Ali.

Police arrested accused Abu Bakkar Siddique on 14.09.2006. He was taken on police remand for 05 days and bail was granted to him on 14.05.2007. Thereafter, his bail was cancelled on 02.01.2007 and since then he has been absconding. Co-accused Nurul Islam, Tohurul Islam and Shafiqul Islam in their statements under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure mentioned the name of Abu Bakkar Siddique and stated that he was present both at the meeting held on 21.08.2006 and in the killing mission. Though police took him on remand for 05 days, this condemned prisoner did not make any confession. Though accused Abu Bakkar Siddique did not make confession, the other confessing accused mentioned his name. Accused Tohurul made inculpatory statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he specifically mentioned the name of accused Abu Bakkar Siddique. Since the confession of accused Tohurul is inculpatory in nature and since we have found his confession voluntary and true we have reason to believe that accused Abu Bakkar Siddique was present both at the compiracy held on 21.08.2006 and also in the killing mission. From the voluntary and true confession of accused Tohurul and also from other confessing accused, we find that accused Abu Bakkar Siddique was present both at the compiracy any and in the killing mission. He was also one of the members of 5th group with accused Dilip and 2 others. Therefore, we find from the inculpatory confession of accused Tohurul and from other evidence that the accused Abu Bakkar Siddique was present at the time of commssion of offence of killing of 4 police personnel and Izaradar Nojer Ali. There are long lines of decisions which have firmly settled that confession of co-accused can be used against other accused, if the confession is inculpatory in nature and other corraborative evidence is available. Our this view is getting support from the decision in the following cases.

In case of The State Vs. Mir Hossain @ Mira and other reported in 56 DLR (HCD) 124, it has been held in paragraph 34:

“34. Under Section 30 of the Evidence Act, confession of a co-accused can be taken into consideration and on the strength of that confession, another co-accused can be convicted provided the said confession is corroborated by any other evidence, either direct and circumstantial.”

In the case of The State Vs. Abul Khair and others reported in 44 DLR (HCD) 284, it has been held, inter alia, in paragraph 9 that it is clear from the terms of sections 30 of the Evidence Act that where more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, a confession  made by any one of them affecting himself and any one of the co-accused can be taken into consideration by the Court not only against the maker of the confession, but also against the co-accused. Strictly speaking, it may not be a piece of evidence within the meaning of the term, but it lends assurance to the other evidence on record
In the case of Moqbul Hossain vs State 12 DLR (SC) 217, the statement of a confessional nature were made by the co-accused affecting themselves and the appellant, the question arose as to whether section 30 of the Evidence Act could not be called in aid of the prosecution in support of the appellant’s conviction, SA  Rahman J, held:

“....... Section 30 of the Evidence Act merely provides that the Court “may take into consideration” such confessions as against the appellant, as well as against their makers. The language of the section is very guarded and lends no warrant to the inference that such a statment made by a co-acccused could be treated as substantive evidence against the other person, sufficient to sustain his conviction. It is well settled that there ought to be other evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, linking such a person with the crime, before a confession made by the co-accused could be adverted to, in adjudging the guilt of that person.”

In the case of State vs Nalini (1999) 5 SCC, 253 it has been held as under:

“A plain reading of section 30 of the Evidence Act discloses that when the following conditions exist, namely, (1) more persons than one are being tried jointly; (ii) the joint trial of the persons is for the same offence; (iii) a confession is made by one of such persons (who are being tried jointly for the same offence); (iv) such a confession affects the maker as well as such persons (who are being tried jointly for the same offence); (v) such a confession if proved in court, the court may take into consideration such confession against the maker thereof as well as against such persons (who are being jointly tried for the same offence).”

In the instant case we find that accused Nurul Islam @ Shine, accused Tohurul Islam have made inculpatory confession and in their confessions they have given vivid descriptions of the occurrence and they have confessed that they were present at the conspiracy and they themselves killed the police personnel and Izaradar Nojer Ali. We have already held that their confessions are voluntary and true.
About accused Abdul Karim, we find that accused Nurul Islam @ Shine, Tohurul Islam and Shafiqul Islam have mentioned in their confessional statements the name of accused A. Karim. He was present both at the conspiracy and the killing mission. The motor cycly of accused A. Karim was used by confessing accused Nurul Islam @ Shine and Sagor (since died). Police also seized the motor cycle from accused A. Karim. P. W. 20 Mamnur Rashid is the seizure list witness of the motor cycle belonged to Abdul Karim. P. W. 33 stated that he seized the alamat i. e. motor cycle from the house of A. Karim. So, from the inculpatory confessional statements of accused Nurul Islam @ Shine and Tohurul Islam and from the confessional statement of Shafiqul Islam son of Mobarak couple with the evidence of P. W. 20 and P. W. 33, we find accused A. Karim was present both at the conspiracy and the killing mission.

Accused Nurul Islam @ Shine, Tohurul Islam and Roghunath mentioned the name of accused Shafiqul Islam son of Mobarok. In their statements under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they mentioned that accused Shafiqul Islam son of Mobarok was present both at the conspiracy held on 21.08.2006 and in the killing mission. Accused Shafiqul Islam son of Mobarok has given vivid description about the conspiracy held on 21.08.2006 and the occurrence took place on 25.08.2006. Accused Shafiqul Islam son of Mobarok categorically stated in his confessional statement that he was present both at the meeting held on 21.08.2006 and in the killing mission and he was one of the members of group No. 3. He also stated that they looted one pistol and 03 guns and left the place chanting slogan, “Purba Bangla Communist Party, ML Lal Potaka Zindabad.” Therefore, from the inculpatory confessional statements of Nurul Islam @ Shine, Tohurul Islam and from the confession of accused Shafiqul Islam son of Mobarok himself, we find that accused Shafiqul Islam son of Mobarok was present both at the conspiracy and in the killing mission.

Accused Roghunath Borman also stated that he was in the killing mission. He also gave vivid description about the conspiracy held on 21.08.2006 and the occurrence took place on 25.08.2006. He stated that accused Nurul Islam @ Shine and Tuhrul Islam gave the signal and Shafiqul blasted the bomb and he (Roghunath) and Sanaullah saw 04 (four) police personnel were slaughtered. So, from his own confessional statement and from the inculpatory confessional statement of Nurul Islam @ Shine, Tohurul Islam and from the confession of Shafiqul Islam son of Mobarak, we find that accused Roghunath was also very much present at the killing mission, that is, he participated in the killing of 4(four) police personnel and Izaradar Nojer Ali. There is also corraborative evidence against rest accused, that is, Abu Bakkar Siddique, Nurun Nabi Hossain @ Khoka, Shafiqul son of Habibur Rahman, Sonjoy and Pintu. We find that co-accused mentioned their name in their statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and we also find other circumstantial evidence agsinst them. P. W. 2 Rahela Begum stated in her cross-examination by the prosecution (she was declared hostile) that Tohurul took rent of her house and he (Tohurul) used to live there. She also stated that Shafiqul used to live in her house as tenant. She used to cook for her tenants. She also stated that all the accused took launch from her house and watched T. V. and, thereafter, all went to Chowbariahat. Daroga seized the T. V. from the house of Rahela Begum by preparing a seizure list. She rented her house to four persons who used to serve in CARB office. P. W. 2 corraborated with other P.W.s about time, place of occurrence and manner of occurrence. She admitted that 04 persons including Tohurul used to live in her house as tenants.

Accused Tohurul Islam made inculpatory confession and he also mentioned the name of Siddique and Khokan (accused Nurun Nabi Hossain) and 14 others who were present at the conspiracy held on 21.08.2006 at the CARB office at Chowbaria. He (accused Tohurul) also stated that on 21.08.2006 about 05.00 P. M, they (20 persons) were divided into 5 groups and went to Chowbaria cattle market to execute their agreement and he himself slaughtered Daroga. He stated that accused Siddique and Khokan caught hold of Daroga, A.S.I. A. T. Firoj and he himself slaughtered Daroga. Similarly co-accused Nurul Islam @ Shine also mentioned that Khokan (accused Nurun Nabi Hossain) and Siddique were involved in the occurrence.

P. W. 10, Ashraful Islam stated that the occurrence took place on 25.08.2006 at 6/6.15 hours. He has a medicine shop in Chowbariahat. He heard that the miscreants created panic and killed 04 police personnel. Police seized 14” Black and White T. V. from the house of Rahela and prepared seizure list wherein he put his signature. P. W. 11 Nazrul Haque stated that on 30.09.2006, police officer brought accused Roghunath Borman to the house of Rahela. This P. W. 11 went to the house of Rahela alongwith other and put his signature in the seizure list when police seized 14” Black and White T. V. P. W. 11 stated that accused Roghunath Borman disclosed that he and others were watching T. V. in the house of Rahela before committing the occurrence. Rahela also stated that she cooked food for 15/20 persons and after they took their food, they all went out. P. W. 11 stated that he heard that Haji Azim Uddin had a quarrel with other Izaradar of Chowbariahat. P. W. 4 stated in his cross examination by the prosecution (he was declared hostile) that there was a quarrel over the collection of toll and he fully corroborated P. W. 11. He further stated that on 2.6.2006, there was a quarrel regarding collection of toll of Chowbariahat and the brother of Haji Azim Uddin was confined and as a result Haji Azim Uddin threatened to other Izaradars. P. W. 23 Altaf Uddin stated that on 10.11.2006, police seized utensils from the house of Rahela (P.W.2) in his presence and police prepared the seizure list wherein he put his signature. He proved his signature which was marked as Exhibit 19 and he also proved the utensils which were proved as material Exhibit-XXX. P. W. 24 Baki Mondal, stated that when he was going back home, police took him to the house of Rahela Begum. He also saw there Roghunath Borman under police custody. Police seized utensils from the house of Rahela Begum (P.W.2). The Officer-in-Charge disclosed that meat was cooked in the said utensils. Rahela Begum (P.W.2) also stated that meat was cocked in the said utensil. Roghunath in his statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also stated that on the date of occurrence dated 25.08.2006, Nurul Islam @ Shine told him to go to Chowbariahat and accordingly he went to Chowhbariahat. He went to the house of Pintu and saw that 16/17 persons were watching T. V. there. He mentioned the name of Shine, Sagor (since dead) Tohurul, Sanaullah, Sonjoy, Shafiqul brother of Pintu, Shafiqul Islam son of Mobarak and stated that they were present there. He accompanied Shine and Tohurul Islam to the house of Rahela Begum as per the decision of the meeting held on 21.08.2006. The occurrence took place in Chowbariahat on 25.08.2006. Similarly co-convict Shafiqul Islam, son of Mobarak mentioned in details about the conspiracy held on 21.08.2006. He also mentioned the name of Haji Azim Uddin, Roghunath, Sonjoy, Shafiqul Islam and Pintu who were present in the conspiracy held on 21.08.2006.

Accused Roghunath also corroborated other accused and stated in his confession that P. W. 2 Rahela Begum cooked meat and after launch all the accused watched T. V. Though accused Azim Uddin, Sanaul, Siddique, Khokan (accused Nurun Nabi Hossain) did not make any confession but their names have been disclosed by Nurul Islam, Tohurul, Shafiqul son of Mobarak and Roghunath and we also find corraborativ evidence against them.

We have considered the evidence of prosecution witnesses and we find that there was an enmity between accused Haji Azim Uddin and Izaradars of Chowbariahat and Haji Azim Uddin openly gave threat to other Izaradar and this matter of threat was disclosed at the meeting of conspiracy held on 21.08.2006. The time, place and manner of occurrence have been proved beyond doubt. It has also been proved that the house of Rahela Begum was used as shelter place before the occurrence took place.

Considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses we have reason to believe that accused Hazi Azimuddin, Siddique, Khokon (accused Nurun Nabi Hossain), Sanaul and Shafiqul son of Habibur Rahman along with 5 confessing accused, namely, Nurul Islam @ Shine, Tohurul, Roghunath, A. Karim and Shafiqul Islam son of Mobarok took active part at the conspiracy and in order to execute the decision taken at the conspiracy they actively took part in the killing of 4 police personnel and Izaradar Nojer Ali. In fact, we do not find any corraborative evidence against accused, namely, 1. Dilip, 2. Tomal, 3. Ahmed Shah Nuru, 4. Khairul, 5. Abdul Mannan, 6. Rabiul Islam, 7. Majed Ali, except mentioning their names by co-accused in their confessional statement.

There are long lines of decision which have firmly settled that confession of a co-accused is not evidence, it can only lend assurance to other evidence. Let us have a glimpse over some of the decisions of our apex Court to ascertain the evidentiary value of confessional statement of co-accused.

In the case of Amir Hossain Howlader and other Vs. The State, 37 DLR (AD) 139, the Appellate Division has held as follows:

“The statement of a co-accused does not fall within the definition of evidence as given in section 3 of the Evidence Act. This is for the simple reason that it is not made on oath, that it is not made in presence of other person affected and that its veracity not tested by cross-examination. It is therefore a very weak evidence against a co-accused, if it is regarded as evidence under section 30. It may be pointed out that the confessional statement of a co-accused is much weaker than the evidence of an approver which fulfils all the three ingredients of ‘evidence.’
 

In on such case namely, Bhuboni Sahu Vs. The king, 76 Indian Appeals, 147, the Privy Council observed:-

“ But a confession of a co-accused is obviously evidence of a very weak type, It does not indeed come within the definition of ‘evidence’ contained in section 3 of the Evidence Act, It is not required to be given on oath, nor in the presence of the accused and it cannot be tested by cross-examination. Section 30, however, provides that the court may take the confession into consideration and thereby, no doubt, makes it evidence on which the court may act; but the section does not say that the confession is to amount to proof. Clearly there must be other evidence. The confession is only one element in the consideration of the facts proved in the case; it can be put into the scale and weighed wth the other evidence.”

In the case of Joygun Bibi Vs. State, 12 DLR (SC) 156 it has been held as follows:-

It is true that if there were no other evidence against Joygun Bibi except the confession of Abdul Majid, then, the confession by itself being merely a matter to be taken into consideration, and not having the quality of evidence against Joygun Bibi, it could rightly be held in law that her conviction could not be sustained on the confession alone.

In the case of the State Vs. Lalu Mia and another, 39 DLR (AD) 117, the Appellate Division has held:-

“It is unnecessary to go into long line of decisions which has firmly settled that such confessional statement can be taken into consideration in a limited manner. But it cannot be made the foundation of a conviction if there is no other reliable evidence tending to prove the guilt of the accused. The confession made by them can be used only in support of other evidence that is to corroborate the other evidence.”

In the case of Lutfon Nahar Begum Vs. The State, 27 DLR (AD29 it was held that confession of a co-accused could not be treated as substantive evidence against another accused but that it could only be used to lend assurance to other evidence.

In a recent case of Babar Ali Mollah and others Vs. The State, 44 DLR (AD)10, the Appellate Division has held as follows:-

“Section 30 of the Evidence Act contemplates that a confession made by a co-accused in a joint trial for the same offence affecting himself and others may be taken into consideration. In other words, the confession of a co-oaccused may lend assurance to the other evidence on record. In the present case the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 5 being unreliable and insufficient to independently support the conviction of the appellants, the confession of the co-accused cannot lend any additional assurance tothe substantive evidence. Since, we have earlier held that the substantive evidence is unreliable and there being no other evidence the confession cannot be considered against the appellants in the present case.”

From the various pronouncements of the apex courts, we find that the apex Courts consistently held that confession of a co-accused is not substantive evidence and such confession cannot be the sole basis of conviction of a co-accused in the absence of independent and corroborative evidence.

It is true that accused Dilip, Tomal, Khairul, Abdul Awal and Rabiul Islam (surrendered after the judgment) absconded since begining and they did not face the trial. But abscondence itself is not the conclusive prove of guilt of the accused in absence of legal evidence. Only because of abscondence these accused could not held responsible for committing the offence.

There are long line of decisions which have firmly settled that abscondance by itself is not the conclusive proof of guilt of the accused. Our this view is getting support from a number of decisions. In the case of the State-Vs- Lalu Miah and another, 39 DLR (AD)117, it was held that abscondance by itself is not an incriminating matter, even an innocent person if implicated in the ejahar for a serious crime some times absconds to avoid harassment during investigation by the police. In the case of The State Vs. Safikul Islam 1991 BLD(AD) 121, it has been held that abscondance of the accused since the date of occurrence itself is not conclusive proof of his guilt or guilty conscience, but it lends weight to the circumstantial evidenc against him. Similar view has been taken in the cases of Ashraf Ali Munshi Vs. STate 48 DLR 590, Shahjahan Vs. State 46 DLR 575, State Vs. Balai Chandra Sarker, 47 DLR 467, State Vs. Sree Ranjit Kumar Pramanik, 45 DLR 660, Abdul Khaleque Vs. State, 45 DLR 75, State Vs. Badsha Mollah 41 DLR 11.

         Therefore, in view of the above settled principle of law, we are inclined to hold that accused Dilip, Tomal, Khairul, Abdul Awal and Rabiul Islam can not be held responsible for alleged conspiracy and murder of 4 (four) police personnel and Izaradar Nojer Ali only because they absconded after the occurrence in the absence of any other legal evidence against them.
 
The learned Judge of the Tribunal found accused,
  1. Md. Tohurul Islam @ Azizul Hoque
  2. Md. Nurul Islam @ Shine @ Tonmoy
  3. Md. Shafiqul Islam son of Mobarok
  4. Abu Bakkar Siddique
  5. Nurunnabi Hossain @ Khokon
  6. Shafiqul Islam son of Habibur Rahman
  7. Sonjoy Kumar Saha
  8. Pintu
  9. Dilip @ Mama @ Shibu and
  10. Tomal
guilty of charge under sections 120B/396 of the Penal Code and convicted and sentenced them thereunder to death. However, besides inculpatory confessions of accused Nurul Islam @ Shine and Tohurul Islam and the confessional statements of accused Md. Abdul Karim, Md. Shafiqul Islam and Roghunath, some other circumstantial evidences are available as we have discussed hereinbefore, against the following accused, namely,
  1. Md. Nurul Islam @ Shine
  2. Md. Tohurul Islam @ Azizul Haque
  3. Md. Shafiqul Islam son of Mobarak
  4. Abu Bakkar Siddique
  5. Nurun Nabi Hossain @ Khokon
  6. Shafiqul Islam son of Habibur Rahman
  7. Sonjoy Kumar Saha and
  8. Pintu 
Infact, we do not find any corraborative evidence except confession by co-accused against accused Dilip and Tomal.
 
Further, we find that evidence is available against the following accused, namely,
  1. Shafiqul Islam son of Mobarak
  2. Abu Bakkar Siddique
  3. Nurun Nabi Hossain @ Khokhon
  4. Shafiqul Islam son of Habibur Rahman
  5. Sonjoy Kumar Saha and
  6. Pintu 
The Tribuanl found accused,
  1. Roghunath Barmon @ Hiro
  2. Md. Abdul Karim
  3. Ahmed Shah Nurul
  4. Sanaul Islam
  5. Haji Azimuddin
  6. Khairul Islam
guilty of the charge under sections 120B/396 of the Penal Code and convicted and sentenced them thereunder to suffer imprisonment for life with a fine of Tk. 3,000 (three thousand) each, in default, to suffer rigoruous imprisonment for 6 (six) months more. However, we also find that evidence is available against the following accused, namely,
  1. Roghunath Barmon
  2. Abdul Karim
  3. Sanaul Islam
  4. Haji Azimuddin 
There is also no corroborative evidence on record against accused, nmely, 1. Ahmed Shah Nurul and 2. Khairul Islam except mentioning their names by co-accused.
 
It is true that accused Md. Tohurul Islam @ Azizul Haque filed applciation for retraction of his confession and the learned trial court rejected his application for retraction.
 
Accused Nurul Islam @ Shine @ Toma @ Tanmay had also filed application for retraction on 04.10.2006. But once the confession is taken to be true and voluntary, the application for retraction of confession has no value. In this regard reliance may be placed on the case of Ayesha khatun and others Vs. The State, 19 DLR (1967)818. In the case referred to above it has been held as under:

“If a court believes a confession whether judicial or extra judicial retracted or not retracted to be voluntary and true, it can convict the accused on its sole basis. This view has been expressed by a Division Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan in the case of Nawabuddin Vs. Crown. The Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of State Vs. Minhun @ Gul observed as under:

Retracted confession whether judicial or extra judicial could legally be taken in to consideration against the maker of those confessions himself and if his confessions were found to be true and voluntary then there was no need at all to look for further corraboration. It is now well settled that as against the maker himself his confession, judicial and extra judicial whether retracted or not retracted can in law validly form the sole basis of his conviction, if the court is satisfied and believes that it was true and was not obtained by torture, coercion or inducement.
 
In the case of the State Vs. Minhun @ Gul Hassan PLD 1964, Supreme Court of Pakistan at page 813, has held as under:

“Retracted confession, whether judicial or extra-judicial, could legally be taken into consideration against the maker of those confessions himself, and if the confessions were found to be true and voluntary, then there was no need at all to look for further corroboration. As against the maker himself his confesison, judicial or extra-judicial, whether retracted or not retracted, can in law validly form the sole basis of his conviction, if the Court is satisfied and believes that it was true and voluntary and was not obtained by torture or coercion or inducement. The question, however, as to whether in the facts and circumstances of a given case the Court should act upon such a confession alone is an entirely different question, which relates to the weight and evidentiary value of the confession and not to its admissibility  in law.”
 
In the case of the State Vs. Fazu Kazi @ Fazlur Rahman and others. 29 DLR (SC) (1977) 271, it has been held as under:

“A conviction of the confessing accused based on a retracted confession even if uncorroborated is not illegal, if the Court believes that it is voluntary and true”
 
In the case of State Vs. Nurul Hoque, 45 DLR (1993)306 the High Court Division has held as under:

“In the instant case the confessional statement of Semona Khatun had been retracted in her 342 statement only but not before. A confession can be taken into evidence though retracted, if found by the court to be true and voluntary and a belated retraction by a confessing accused at the end of the trial under section 342 would be of no value (Ref:PLD 1964 (AC) 813; 31 DLR 312, 16 DLR 598)”
 
In the case of Hafizuddin Vs. The State 42 DLR 397, it has been held as under:

“The law on this point is that a confessional statement, whether retracted or not if found to be true and voluntary, can form the basis of conviction of the maker”
 
In the case of Bakul Chandra Sarker Vs. The State 45 DLR 260 the High Court Division has held as under:
Ahsanuddin Choudhury, J. relying upon the decision in the case of Joygun Bibi Vs. State 12 DLR (SC)151 and the case of Moqbul Hossain Vs. The State 12 DLR (SC) 217 observed:

The retraction of a confession was a circumstance which had no bearing whatsoever upon the question whether in the first instance it was voluntarily made, and whether it was true. The fact that the maker of the confession later does not adhere to it cannot by itself have any effect upon the findings reached as to whether the confession was voluntary, and if so, whether it was true. The retraction of the confession was wholly immeterial once it was found that it was voluntary as well as true.”
 
There are other decisions too. But it will not, perhaps, be helpful to place more decisions on the same point. From all the decisions mentioned above we find that it has been firmly settled by judicial pronouncements that once a confession is found to be true and voluntary, the retraction of confession will be of no help to the confessing accused.

         As per the above pronouncements, there is no diffically in law to convict accused Md. Tohurul Islam @ Azizul Hoque and accused Nurul Islam @ Shine though they retracted their confession. We have already found that their confessions are voluntary and true.
 
In respect of imposition of quantum of sentence, the learned Lawyer appearing for the condemned prisoners refers to the case of Lal Singh vs Emperor 40 Cr LJ Allahabad 132 and submits that Court has the power to give lesser sentence under section 396 of the Penal Code, though under section 302 of the Penal Code the rule is that a sentence of death should follow unless reasons are shown for giving lesser sentences, but no such rule applies to section 396 of the Indian Penal Code. Let us have a quick glimpse of the decision of the above case, that is, Lal Singh vs Emperor 40 CrLJ Allahabad 132 which runs as under:

“There remains the question of sentence. It is true that a man was wounded in the dacoity and eventually died. It is also true that the accused carried a gun in this dacoity. But it is stated that there were several guns carried in this dacoity and none of the witnesses say that the accused was the man who fired the shot which had fatal effects. We do not consider that as a general rule a sentence of death should necessarily follow a conviction under section 396, Indian Penal Code, and this section differs from section 302, Indian Penal Code in that respect. The rule is under section 302 that a sentence of death should follow unless reasons are shown for giving a lesser sentence, no such rule applies to section 396, Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, we find no reason in this case why the sentence of death should be imposed. We, therefore, maintain the conviction of Lal Singh under section 396, Indian Penal Code, and we reduce the sentence from a sentence of death to a sentence of transportation for life.”
 
Therefore, according to the decision cited above there is scope in law to give lesser sentence in section 396 of the Penal Code.
 
In fact, it is said that the most difficult task of a Judge is to decide what would be the quantum of sentene to be awarded upon an accused for committing an offence. It is not possible to lay down any cut and dry formula for imposition of sentence upon the accused. In the case of the State vs Rokeya Begum @ Rokeya Begum (condemned-prisoner) reported in 13 BLT 337, it has been held as under:

“Sentencing discretion on the part of a Judge is the most difficult task to perform. It is, also, not possible to lay down any cut and dry formula for imposition of sentence, but the object of sentence should be to see that crime does not go unpunished and the victim of crime as, also, the society has the satisfaction that justice has been done. It will be a mockery of justice to permit the accused to escape the extreme penalty of law when faced with such evidence and cruel act perpetrated by the offenders. To give lesser punishment to the condemned-prisoners who stand convicted in a shocking and revolting crime would render the Justicing System of the country suspect. Sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to Justice System to undermine public confidence in the efficacy of law.”
 
In the case of Madan Gopal Kakkad vs Naval Dubey reported in 3 SCC (1992)204, it has been observed as under:

“We feel that Judges who bear the Sword of Justice should not hesitate to use that Sword with the utmost severity, to the full and to the end, if the gravity of the offfence so demands.”
 
We consider that both the above desicions are very good guideline for the Judges to decide the quantum of sentence to be imposed upon the accused who have committed the offence.
 
Considering the decisions cited above, the evidence on record and the circumstances, we are of the opinion that justice will be met if the impugned order of conviction and sentence of death of accused, namely,
  1. Md. Nurul Islam @ Shine @ Tapash @ Tonmoy, son of Habibur Rahman @ Habib master; and
  2. Md. Tohurul Islam @ Azizul Haque son of Monirul Islam is maintained;
and the order of conviction and sentence so far as it relates to condemned prisoners, namely,
  1. Md. Shafiqul Islam son of late Mobarok Khan;
  2. Abu Bakkar Siddique;
  3. Nurunnabi Hasan @ Khokon;
  4. Shafiqul Islam son of late Habibur Rahman;
  5. Sanjay Kumar Saha;
  6. Pintu
is altered to imprisonment for life instead of death.

We also hold the view that justice will be met if the order of conviction and sentence of accused-appellants, namely,
  1. Roghunath Bormon @ Hiro;
  2. Md. Abdul  Karim;
  3. Sanaul Islam;
  4. Haji Azimuddin
is altered and they are convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years instead of imprisonment for life.
 
The prosecution has not been able to prove the charge against condemned prisoners, namely,
  1. Dilip @ Mamu @ Manik, and
  2. Tomal @ Ferdous.
         Therefore, they are entitled to be aquitted of the charge brought against them.
We further hold the view that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge against accused, namely,
  1. Ahmed Shah Nurul (faced the trial and filed Criminal Appeal No. 913/2008);
  2. Khairul Islam (absconding since begining);
  3. Joynal Abedin (surrendered after judgment and filed Criminal Appeal No. 944/2008);
  4. Rabiul Islam (surrendered after judgment and filed Criminal Appeal No. 944/2008);
  5. Abdul Mannan (surrendered after judgment and filed Criminal Appeal No. 900/2008);
  6. Majed Ali (absconding since begining); and
  7. Abdul Awal (absconding since begining)
and as such they are entitled to be acquitted of the charge brought against them.
 
In the result, the Reference No. 7 of 2008 is accepted in part so far as it relates to condemned prisoners, namely,
  1. Md. Tohurul Islam @ Azizul Haque son of Monirul Islam, vill: Nimdighi, PS: Niamatpur, Dist- Naogaon, and
  2. Md. Nurul Islam @ Shine @ Taposh @ Tonmoy son of Habibur Rahman @ Habib Master, vill: Nimdighi, PS: Niamatpur, Dist- Naogaon
and the order of conviction and sentence of death passed against them by the learned Judge of Druto Bichar Tribunal, Rajshahi is hereby confirmed.

The reference is rejected so far as it relates to condemned prisoners, namely,
  1. Md. Shafiqul Islam, son of late Mobarok Khan, vill: Anarpur, PS: Gomostapur, Dist-Chapainawabganj;
  2. Abu Bakkar Siddique, son of Abul Hossain Gazi, vill+PS: Dhormoghat, Shamnagar, Dist-Satkhira;
  3. Nur Nabi Hasan @ Khokon, son of late-Aniser Rahman, Vill- Shibpur Bazar, PS- Niamotpur, District- Naogaon;
  4. Shafiqul Islam, son of late Habibur Rahman, vill- Chowbaria, PS- Manda, Dis-Naogaon;
  5. Shanjay kumar Saha, son of Dhirendronath Saha, vill- Bhagabantapur, PS- Godagari, Dist-Rajshahi and
  6. Pintu, son of late Habibur Rahman, vill- Chowbaria, PS- Manda, Dis-Naogaon.
and the order of conviction and sentence passed against them is altered and they are convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life instead of death, with a fine of Tk. 2,000 (Two thousand) each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 (Three) months more.
 
The reference is rejected so far as it relates to condemned prisoners, namely,
  1. Dilip @ Mamu @ Shibu @ Manik, son of Nasir Sarder, Vill- Golmaghna, PS- Niyamotpur, Dist- Naogaon, and
  2. Tomal @ Ferdous. 
The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 24.01.2008 passed by the learned Judge of the Druto Bichar Tribunal, Rajshahi in Druto Bichar Tribunal Case No. 21 of 2007 is set aside so far as it relates to condemned prisoners, namely,
  1. Dilip @ Mamu @ Shibu @ Manik, son of Nasir Sarder, Vill- Golmaghna, PS- Niyamotpur, Dist- Naogaon, and
  2. Tomal @ Ferdous
and they are acquitted of the charge brought against them.
 
The learned Judge of the Tribunal is directed to recall the warrent of arrest in respect of accused Dilip and Tomal.
 
The order of conviction and sentence passed in respect of
  1. Roghunath Barmon;
  2. Abdul Karim;
  3. Sanaul;
  4. Haji Azimuddin
is altered and they are convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years instead of imprisonment for life, with a fine of Tk. 2000 (two thousand) each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months more.
 
The impugned judgement and order dated 24.012008 passed by the learned Judge of Druto Bichar Tribunal, Rajshai is set aside so far as it relates to accused-appellant, namely,
  1. Ahmed Shah Nurul;
  2. Khairul;
  3. Abdul Mannan;
  4. Abdul Awal;
  5. Rabiul;
  6. Joynal Abedin and
  7. Majed Ali
and they are acquitted of the charge brought against them.
 
Accused-appellant Ahmed Shah Nurul (in custody), Abdul Mannan (in custody), Rabiul (in custody) and Joynal Abedin (in custody) be set at liberty forthwith if they are not wanted in connection with any other case.
 
The Tribunal is directed to recall the warrant of arrest against
  1. accused Khairul,
  2. Abdul Awal and
  3. Majed Ali. 
Criminal Appeal No. 983 of 2008 and the Jail Appeal No. 148/2008 filed by accused Md. Shafiqul Islam, son of Mobarok are dismissed with the modification of sentence as mentioned above.

         The Criminal Appeal No. 1020 of 2008 and the Jail Appeal No. 147 of 2008 filed by Shafiqul Islam, son of late Habibur Rahman are dismissed with the modification of sentence as mentioned above.

         The Criminal Appeal No. 989 of 2008 filed by accused-appellant Roghunath is dismissed with the modification of sentence as mentioned above.

         The Criminal Appeal No. 913 of 2008 so far as it relates to accused-appellant Abdul Karim and Sanaul is dismissed with the modification of sentence as mentioned above.

         The Criminal Appeal No. 944 of 2008 filed by accused Rabiul Islam (surrendered after judgment) and Joynal Abedin (surrendered after judgment) is allowed.

         The Criminal Appeal No. 900 of 2008 filed by accused Md. Abdul Mannan @ Abdul Mannan is also allowed.

         The Criminal Appeal No. 913 of 2008 so far as it relates to accused-appellant Ahmed Shah Nurul is allowed.

         The Criminal Appeal No. 973 of 2008 filed by accused-appellant Haji Azimuddin is dismissed with modification of sentence as mentioned above.

         Accused Haji Azimuddin is directed to surrender before the Tribunal within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment by the Tribunal to serve rest of his sentence imposed upon him, failing which the Tribunal shall secure the arrest of accused Haji Azimuddin. However, accused Haji Azimuddin will get the benefit of section 35 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
 
Before parting with the judgment, we like to record our some observations in respect of certain points of criminal justice.
 
We, as the part of the judiciary, strongly believe that time has come to do something for the condemned prisoners. We find that the condemned prisoners are supposed to walk to the gallows but unfortunately they are not getting opportunity to defend themselves properly. Against this background of inadequate opportunity for the condemned prisoners to defend themselve, we are inclined to record some of our observationsons on certain points of criminal justice. The observations are:
  1. In a death reference case almost all the condemned prisoners who are destined to walk to the gallows cannot afford to engage Lawyer to defend their case. According to the provisions of the Legal Remembrancer’s Manual, the condemned prisoners are provided with State Defence Lawyer. It is better, less we say, about the competence of the State Defence Lawyers. The State Defence Lawyers are appointed by the learned Solicitor of the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs. This Court notes with utter dismay that the Solicitor wing of the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs appoints the State Defence Lawyers who have very minimum knowledge about criminal cases of grave nature, like sections, 302, 396 of the Penal Code etc. We could not just allow the condemned prisoners to walk to the gallows without giving them an opportunity of being defended by a competent Lawyer. Obviously, the responsibility is upon the State. Our Human Rights Organisations sometimes are doing laudable jobs and, we believe that they may also do something for the condemned prisoners who are destined to walk to the gallows without any opportunity of being defended by the competent Lawyers. We would appreciate if our Human Rights Organisations also look into the matter and take proper steps in this regard. In fact, walking to the gallows without an opportunity of being defended by a competent Lawyer is the worst form of violation of human rights. We would, therefore, expect that the Human Rights Organisations would take steps to include the matter of defending the condemned prisoners in their agenda. The minimum that they can do, they can appoint a pannel of competent Lawyers to defend the condemned prisoners who could not appoint Lawyer of their own choice because of poverty and other reason.
  2. All State Defence Lawyers have a common grievance that they are given very minimum amount as ‘fees’ for attending the court to defend the condemned prisoners. We expect that the Solicitor wing of the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs shall take proper steps to enhance the ‘fees’ of the State Defence Lawyers so that they get the reasonable fees.
         The Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs last revised the fees of the State Defence Lawyer on 16.11.2006. Already 8(eight) years have passed since then and the State Defence Lawyers are given the same amount of fees which was fixed in 2006. This is simply denying justice to the learned State Defence Lawyer. Let us quote the last G.O. dated 16.11.2006 issued by the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs which runs as under:
সংশোধিত জি,ও
একই নম্বর ও তারিখের সহলাভিষিত্তু হইবে।
গণপ্রজাতমএী বাংলাদেশ সরকার
অাইন, বিচার ও সংসদ বিষয়ক মমএণালয়
সলিসিটর উইং, হিসাব শাখা
অ্যাটর্নি জেনারেল ও সলিসিটর কার্যালয় ভবন,
বাংলাদেশ সুপ্রীম কোর্ট প্রাঙ্গণ, ঢাকা।
নং- সল-হিসাব-৯৭/২০০৬-১৫৪৫                                  তারিখঃ ১৬/১১/২০০৬ ইং।

প্রেরকঃ    শিরীন কবিতা আখতার,        
            উপ-সলিসিটর।
প্রাপকঃ    প্রধান হিসাব রক্ষন কর্মকর্তা,
            অাইন, বিচার ও সংসদ বিষয়ক মমএণালয়,
            এ, জি, বি ভবন, সেগুন বাগিচা, ঢাকা।

বিষয়ঃ রাষ্ট্রপক্ষে নিযুত্তু স্টেট ডিফেন্স ল'ইয়ারগনের দৈনিক শুনানী ফি/সম্মানী ভাতা বৃদ্ধিকরণ প্রসঙ্গে।
         উপরোত্তু বিষয়ে নির্দেশিত হইয়া জানানো যাইতেছে যে, সরকার বাংলাদেশ সুপ্রীমকোর্টে রাষ্ট্রপক্ষে নিযুত্তু স্টেট ডিফেন্স ল'ইয়ারগনের দৈনিক শুনানী ফি/সম্মানী ভাতা পূর্ববর্তী সকল সরকারী অাদেশসমূহ বাতিলত্রুমে ১২০/-(একশত বিশ) টাকার সহলে ৩০০/- (তিনশত) টাকা নির্ধারণ করিলেন এবং প্রতি মামলায় সর্বোচ্চ অনধিক ২,০০০/-(দুই হাজার) টাকা ফি/সম্মানী ভাতা পাইবেন।
এই সিদ্ধামেত অর্থ মমএণালয়ের সম্মতি রহিয়াছে। অর্থ মমএণালয়ের নথি নং-অম/অবি/প্রবি------/সম্মানী ৪/২০০৬ এর নোটানুচ্ছেদ ৫৬-৬০ দ্রষ্টব্য।
         এই অাদেশ ০১.১১.২০০৬ ইং তারিখ হইতে কার্যকর হইবে।

স্বাক্ষরিত
(শিরীন কবিতা অাখতার)
উপ-সলিসিটর
ফোন-৯৫৫৬১১৯ (অঃ)
নং- সল-হিসাব-৯৭/২০০৬-১৫৪৫                                  তারিখঃ ১৬/১১/২০০৬ ইং।
অনুলিপি ও প্রয়োজনীয় ব্যবসহা গ্রহণের জন্য প্রেরণ করা হইলঃ
১।      অ্যাটর্নি জেনারেল অব বাংলাদেশ, ঢাকা।
২।      সিনিয়র সহকারী সচিব দেওয়ানী/রীট/ফৌজদারী/এ, টি ও এ, এ, টি শাখা, অাইন, বিচার ও সংসদ বিষয়ক মমএণালয়, সলিসিটর উইং, অ্যাটর্নি জেনারেল ও সলিসিটর কার্যালয় ভবন, ঢাকা।
সাক্ষরিত
৩/৫/০৭
(মোঃ মাইনুল হক)
সিনিয়র সহকারী সচিব
ফোন-৭১১০৯৫৫ (অঃ)
(emphasis supplied)
 
We consider that the above fee is too meagre for a State Defence Lawyer. It is not even befitting for a practicising Lawyer of the High Court Division of the Supreme Court. We find that already 8(eight) years have passed since the last G.O. was issued. Therefore, we consider that it is high time to revise the G.O. fixing the fees of the State Defence Lawyer without further delay. We strongly believe that the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamantary Affairs shall issue the new G.O. within short possible time superceeding all earlier G.Os. and fix the fees of the learned State Defence Lawyers commensurate to their services and status. The State Defence Lawyers are doing the sacred job of saving the neck of a human being. So, there is no scope to take the matter lightly, rather it should be taken into consideration with utmost seriousness.
 
With these observations we like to conclude our judgment.
 
At the end we wish to express our sincere appreciation to Dr. Md. Bashir Ullah, the learned Deputy Attorney General and his team for their lucid expression of law and for the invaluable assistance to this court.
 
Let a copy of this judgment and order be sent to the Tribunal for information and taking necessary action.

         Send down the lower court records with a copy of this judgment to the Tribunal at once.
      
        Let a copy of this judgment be sent to:
  1. Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs (Attention: learned Solicitor) for taking necessary action as per the observasation made in the body of the judgment at para ‘A’ and ‘B’.
Chairman, Human Rights Organisations to take necessary action as per the observation made in the body of the judgment at para ‘A’.

Ed.