District- Sylhet
In the Supreme Court of Bangladesh
High Court Division
(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
Criminal Appeal No 4414 of 2010
In the matter of:
An application for admission of appeal under section 410 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
And
In the matter of:
A. Kadir,
Son of A. Rahman
2. Cilik Miah,
Son of Kuthi Miah
All of Village- Pirpur,
Police Station- Balaganj,
District- Sylhet.
…………………………. Accused- Appellant
(In Jail)
Page No 2
The witness told in questioning for the favor of complaint including all fled that “I am student. This is not true that the complaint is my uncle. Our house is in the south of the defendant. We have 5 members in our family. The east side of my home is Mizanur, and south side is Nurullah other two sides there are no home. My brother as was going to the incident was 25 hands far way from me. The dag no and measurement of incident I do not know. All of 23 people of the defendants were making boarder. I found as was going about 50/60 hands of boarder is completed. There was feared as the hands of defendants there were weapon. We had no any weapon. We were about 11/12 people including the defendant. We all made restriction. The defendants have not made any restriction as Latif possessed before. The land was empty. We have not tried to flee. Latif was in the west side. Sujol was in west side. The east side of the incident place is Latif, west side dhani land, in the north side empty and then mosque, far away Rahman Mia,the home of Samsu Mia. There is remembered who were at the place of incident. They were the people of my village. There wre conflicts of about 20/ 25 minutes. There were no peope came later came, made attacked. As was the time of attack Latif and defendants went to the east side. There were the home of Eskander Ali, Gafur, Siddik Ali, and Jamsed. I have not seent the incident standing on same place I went forward andback. There was blood in the incident. There were blood in 20/25 hands places. Later I cannot say whether people came. Tempu, Kuthi Mia, Chan Mia, Abdul Aziz, Khurshid Ullah, Maksod Mia is old man. The hand of Mokoddos is bending. It has been seen that one hand of Mokoddos was unable. As the notice given from police station made voice record. It is not true that, I have not said to the police that I were with Karim in the home and I have not told Haoarunnessa, Sala, Kadir, Ataur, Khurshid, Tafur, Jafur, Ataur, Koti, Silik Mia, Salek Mia, GENDU MIAH, Khalik, Abdur Razzak, Abul Hossen, Kadir was in decorated with weapons. It is not true that Kadir hit on the shoulder of Sujel. Kadir with the rod hit on the head Latif, Salek with Digar hit on the back of Latif and Toimus hit on the back of Latif as hit on the back of Latif hit by the stick on the head of Mortuza I have not told that Torab Ali hit as Amir Ali hit there were blood as got injured the left hand. It is not true, in the view and mentioned incident have happened there. It is not true that the false voice record is made.”
The state party mentioned in the voice records of 10 no witness Aftab Ali that last dated at 17/8/2000 at around 9 AM as was in my home as heard the scream of the incident place run to the incident place. As was there Abdur Rahim, Haoarunnesa with people creating boarder. Abdul Latif, Manirul Amin Sujel, Mortuza Bibi, Abdus Sattar, Nurul Islam, Abdul Karim, Abdur Razzak, Saiful Amin, Nazrul Islam have not made restriction to create boarder. They started beating disregarding the restriction. I have not seen who beat whom. There were conflicts about 15/20 minutes. “In the time the witness declared as questioned told in the questioning that it is not true that as to protect the defendant who beat whom have not told.
As questioning to defendant party the witness told that, “the defendant is my cousin. The home of defendant is about 500/600 hands away west from my home. I have my father and cousin. They have not gone. With me and
Page No 3
No one went. As I went without the defendant there were about 10/12 people. There was no anyone else around there. Nazrul and Abdus Sattar is not my relatives. Other people names were not remembered. There was dhani land in the place of Latif. Land was not spolied. There were conflicts on the roads. There were bloods. The defendants were the same group. No one made restriction before the incident. I went to the incident place quickly. Two groups made conflicts. One group hit the other group. No one came about 20/25 minutes. It is not true the defendants were no there or no incident is made. It is not true that the false witness is given as because of relative.”
The state party 11 no witness constable Anowar Ali told in his voice record that “ As I am the police constable working in Balaganj police station in the local Pirpur village took the dead body by chalan for post mortem and then the dead body handed over to the relatives. This is the chalan given: 4 and my signature is given 4/1 as marked. The cloths were taken as was with the dead body. My signature is shown.”
The witness told in questioning is that “The dead body man is known to me. The cloths were taken before me.”
The state party 12 no witness constable Hira Lal Datta Tender is declared that and from the defendant party the witness is questioned declared declind.
The state party 13 no witness Dr. Sirajul Islam Khan mentioned in his voice record that “I am as was working in the Balaganj police station as R.M.O the man named Abdul Latif, age- 60 years, father- Md. Misir Ali, village- Chawkpirpur, police station- Balaganj, dated 17/8/2000 treated in the emergency department. There were found the injuries in his body: - 1. One incised injury over of the scalp measuring ½”X1/4” scalp depth. 2. Three peuetrating over left thigh measuring ½”x12” depth. 3. Three bruises over back measuring ½”x1”. I have given certificate based on the injuries mentioned, injury No. 1 caused by sharp cutting weapon. Injury No 2 caused by sharp pointed weapon. Inj. No.3 was caused by sharp weapon. Inj. No.1 was of grievous in nature and rest injuries simple in nature. It is my certificate shown- 5, my signature given 5/1 marked.
On the same date the man named Torab Ali, age- 30 years, father- Late Md. Kalaik as examined his body found the injuries as bellow:- 1. One Lacerated injury over left region of the sculp meg 11/2”X4”Xscalp depth. 2. One swealling over left forearm msg. 2”x11/2”. These two injuries are simple in nature and both caused by blant weapon. It is my given certificate- 6 there are my signature.
On the same date the man Mortuza Bibi, age- 50 years, husband- Abdul Latif as examined and got injury:- 1. Injury no. 1 is located injury over right region meg 3”x1/2” scalp
Page No 4
Depth. 2. Two buries over back meg 2”x1” each injuries were caused by blunt weapon. Inj. No. 1 was grievous nature and no simple and no simple in nature. This is my given shown- 7 certificate, there are my signatures.
All of three people got admitted in the hospital dated 17/8/2000 shown- 8, Abdul latif on dated 9/9/2000 on dated 9/9/2000 shown- 9, Torab Ali on dated 9/9/2000 shown- 10 got admitted in the core of release of the hospital.”
The witness told as per questioning from the complaint party, “There are more doctors in the hospital.” They do the duties in emergency department. I examined myself and this is not mentioned. Injury no. 1 not determined by x- ray, it is not true that, no injuries are serious. It is not true that, the injury is superficial or can be as have been fallen. I am related to that certificate no injury is sure by the x- ray. It is not true that, the certificate is not appropriate as per the injury. It is not true that, for the sake of the case certificate and release have been created. (Specialist SDL took the same questioning as received).”
14 no witness from the state party mentioned in his voice record that, I went to the Fazlul Haque health complex as per the order from the officer in charge as working as constable in Balaganj police station on dated 17/8/2000. From there I took the dead body Monirul Amin son of Abdul Latif by the Chalan to the Osmani Hospital. S.I took the lungi and genji which was blooded with the dead body. I gave signature in the receive paper as witness. This is marked in shown- 11 and my signature is given on 11/1 as marked.”
The witness in questioning in favor of complaint party that, “ The received sign is not in the court.”
15 no S.I Hamidur Rahman from the state party mentioned in his voice record that “As I was S.I working in Balaganj police station on dated 3/4/01 as got the duty for investigation the statement from the no 1 witness wrote. Later the complain paper is submitted as discussed the investigation work in questioning against the complaint in the crime of section 147/148/149/447/323/324/325/326/307/302/114 on dated 10/4/2001.
The witness told in questioning from the complaint party that, “I have not visited the incident place. I wrote the statement from the constable Hira Lal Datta. I have not taken sign by my own self. It is not true that, if investigated correctly I would have given the final report.”
16 no witness A.K.M Fazlul Haque mentioned in his voice record for the favor of state party that, “I am S.I police. I investigated the case as was working in the police station in Balaganj police station on dated 17/8/8/2000. Before making the case G.D no- 549 on dated 17/8/200 the dead body of late Monirul Amin known as Sujel as creating the post mortem report as I have given the order for the post mortem sent to the hospital. I took the cloths which were worn of the dead body as for sign. This is the received given: 3 and
Page No 5
My signature is given 3/2 as marked. As the case was made I visited the incident place and created a draft map given: 12 and prepared content given: 13. My signature has been shown. The statements from the witness are written. The certificate from the injury people and the post mortem from the dead body are collected. Other activities are completed. I submitted the memorandum of the dead body. The case docket has been transferred as for replacement on dated 19/3/2001. The blooded lungi, genji given in 1 and 2 as marked.”
The witness told as per questioning of complaint party that, for the first time I went to the incident place on dated 17/8/2000. I have taken the blooded soil and branches of bamboo, and boarder of bamboo is not collected. I have not taken later of the incident stick and weapon. There is no any crime report of the complaint there. The witness Nazrul Islam, has not told to me the name of complaint Salam, Aziz, Abul Hossen, Amir Ali, and the name of Moksed. He has not told Rahim and Haoarunnesa have not given boarder in the place of the incident. He has not told that Karim, Razzak, Sujel, Habibunnesa have not made any restriction. I have not told Rahim ordered for the kill. He has not told also that Rahim Gong as made barricade created conflicts on the street. I have not told that Salik hit on the shoulder of Sujel. I have not told that Falik hit on the thigh 3 times but have not told the hit on leg. The complaint Salek with Digar hit on the back of Latif is not specified. I have not told to randomly beat. I have not told Jahur Ali hit on the back of Abdul Altif. The complaint Kuthi Mia hit with the weapon to Mortuza that has not told the witness. I have not told Ataur Rahman hit with the stick on the back of Mortuza told the beat of randomly. The witness examined Abdus Sattar on dated 12/12/2000. He told the name of complaint Toimus, Tofazzel, Jafur, Tafur, Moksed, Amir Ali, and Abul Hossen. I have not told Karim, Monirul, Torab Ali, Nurullah went to the incident place as heard the screaming. I have not told Kadir beat the Monirul specificly. The witness has not told to hit on the head of Torab Ali by Amir Ali. Karim is examined on the dated 12/12/2000. The witness has not told to me the names of Ataur, Kadir, Rashid Ullah, Amir Ali, Abdur Razzak, Moksed. I have not told Kadir hit with the road on the head of Latif.Th witness have not told Salek with Dogar hit on the back of Latif. Tafur and Tofazzol hit on the head of Latif have not told. I have not told on that Torab Ali hit with the road on Amir Ali. I have not told the names of Soiful, Toimus, Tofazzol, Tafur, Jafur, Amir Abul Hossen and Moksed of the dated last 12/12/2000. I have not told Kadir hit with the rod on the head of Latif. Salek with degar
Page No 6
Tafur and Toffazal with rod hit on the back of Latif. I have not told Kadir with rod, Salek with stick hit on Sujel. I have not told that Kadir hit with rod on the head of Latif and Toimus Ali with the rod. There are total 22 witnesses in complain paper. It is not true that the complaints are not related with the killing of Sujel have not investigated correctly.”
Re: examination:- the blooded color lungi and genji as was on the body of Sujel as presented after the investigation that has been taken which is given:- in 3 and 4 as marked. In questioning: - It is not true that I have taken as controlled by the complaint. I have not examined of chemistry the blood in the sign that is of people.” (M.D.L has taken the same questioning).
17 no witness from the state party Dr M A Shahid mentioned in his voice record that “I am M a Shahid, assistant professor of forsenic medicine department, Sylhet M.A.G Osmani Mediacal Hospital. I accomplished the post mortem report of dead Monirul Amin as identified pf Kong- 472 Anowar Ali and Kong- 562 Nurunnabi on the dated 17/8/2000 and the seen injury was written. Which is given bellow:- 1. One stab wound on the left side of the chest in between 4th & 5th intercostal space measuring 1”x1/2” body cavity. 2. One abrasion on the left shoulder region measuring 1” square diameter. On dissection:- The left pleura the left lungs and the precardien of the heart was injured with blood in the thoraces cavity. The lung was congested. Other abdominal viseeras were stated above mention columns of the of the P.M. report. Opinion:- Death in my opinion due hemorrhages shock as a result of injury No. 1 caused by sharp pointed weapon in injury No. 2 and 3 caused by blunt weapon which waqs antemortem and homicidal in nature. My signature and seal in post mortem report. The post mortem report is shown and the signature of this witness is shown and identified.”
The witness told in the questioning of the present complaint that, “ As the aversion created by fallen the avarsion on the dead body of this case have not made in that way. This is not true that, the aversion on the dead body created as have been fallen. No special sign has been found on the belly of the dead body. No age of the hit is mentioned in the P. M report.” The questioning is adapted on the sate defense.
18 no witness mentioned in his voice record of the state party that last dated 17/8/2000 as I was working as the officer in charge in Balaganj police station based on the news as received went to the hospital. There in the 4 no bed of ward found Monirul Amin Sujel as dead
Page No 7
Got and his father as per his voice record the case is taken. The name of complaint is Abdul Latif. Hira Lal Datta is sent to police station as taken in kong no- 430 as taken the case. My companion SI, AKM Fazlul Haque made the investigation of dead body and other steps are taken. The investigation is directed the case of SI AKM Fazlul Haque. My signature is given in the oral case of the complaint. In that case given: 1 and my signature is given ½ on its. This is my voice records.”
The witness told in the questioning of the complaint party that, I have not participated in any way of the investigation of the case. I was presented at the time of post mortem of the dead body. Based on a G.D. The post mortem is prepared at the time on 12.15 in the health complex. The case is written in the health complex. The case is written not on my own hand. There is no signature as S.I Fazlul Haque is written that. On the 2nd page of the case it has been seen that in short the complaints hit by stick. It is true I reached to the health complex at around 12.15. I was in the health complex till writing the case at around 12.15. The case started to write at around 17.15. There has taken about 40 minutes to write the case. The case was sent to police station after the writing of case. I was in the health complex. I was at around 18.00 in the health complex. That means I was there about 6 hours in the health complex. This is not true that, as per the words of the complaint party I have not written the case I wrote the case as consulting with 6/7 hours talking with the complaint party. This is not true that The case is made by me is not G.D or case, its entry types case.”
There is seen that as per observing the witnesses of the mentioned witnesses that no 1 witness of the prosecution party Abdul Latif gave his voice record that he is the plaintiff of this case. He was in the home at around 9.00 AM on dated 17/8/2000. Then he got the news that, Abdur Rahim and Haoarunnesa and his people was giving boarder in the possesed land of the complaint. He then his son Monirul Amin Sujel, nephew Torab Ali, cousin Sattar, Nurul Islam and his wife Mortuza including as went to the incident place screamed and the complaints were making restrictions. As hearing the screaming Nurul Islam Gang came there and they were also made restriction for the complaints. Then the complaint among the complaints GENDU MIAH hit the left side of the chest of Monirul Amin Sujel of son the complaint with Silik in his hand. He has been fallen on the soil. The complaint Silik Mia with the stick in his hand to kill the son of the palintiff hit on the right side. The complaint for saving the son as came forward the complaint Karim Mia, Falik as there were Sulfi in their hand for killing the plaintiff hit three times on the thigh. The complaint Jahur road by the rod hit on the back of the plaintiff. The complaint Tofazzol made injuried hitting agin the defendant with rod. The complaint Khurshid by the stick to his nephew Torab Ali hit on the head. The complaint Amir Ali by the stick
Page No 8
Hit on the left hand of Torab Ali. The wife of the plaintiff as to save the plaintiff as came forward the complaint Abdur Razzak by the stick hit on the head and fallen on the soil. The complaint Kuthi Mia by the stick with his hand hit on the head of the plaintiff got injured seriously. The complaint Ataur hit with the stick in his hand to the wife of the plaintiff. Then the plaintiff and his people as screamed as the people was coming the complaints fled. The people there took them to the hospital in Balaganj. Then doctor made admitted in the hospital as they were seriously injuried examinig the victims. The victims got discharge certificate from the hospital. The plaintiff as got admitted in the hospital 5 minutes later received the news that the doctor in Balaganj health complex Monirul Amin Sujel declared dead to his son. He then got senseless. As he got back his sense the police questioned him. Then he told to the police about the incident and told the names of the complaints. The police recorded his speech. That has been seen from the mentioned witness that he told in his questioning that many witnesses among the witnesses are his relatives. All of the complaints are his community people. His on Nurul Amin Gang as becoming the plaintiff the civil case no 25/95 made against the complaint Vhan Mia, he does not know. He does not know about his nephew Saidul Amin Helal whther made any case or not. The incident place is about 500/600 hands away from his home. The incident place is corps land. He has feared as there was weapon in the hand of the complaints. The complaints made binded in the place therefore no they were not able to flee. There was blood in the incident place. The conflicts were about 15 minutes long. There were no people at the time of incident. They hit first to the son and then they were hit the plaintiff. He told in his questioning that it is not true, as there was conflicts between parties for the reason of land cases therefore the false report has been made. He told in his questioning also that it is not true that his son Monirul Islam Sujel has not got injuried in the incident place and there have not made any incident there in the time and place and the defendants were made involved in the false way to this case. It has been seen on the observation from the voice record and questioning that the witness is given on that the complaint Abdur Rahim and Haoarunnesa ordered the complaint GENDU MIAH then he hits in the left side of Monirul Amin Sujel. Then he has fallen on the soil the complaint Silik Mia to kill hits the right shoulders to the son of plaintiff with stick. Then complaint Abdul Kadir with the rod in his hand hit to the left side of the defendant made blooded. Then doctor declared him as dead as he has been taken the hospital as got admitted.
Page No 9
2nd no witness in prosecution party Nazrul Islam as examined his discusion that found in his voice record that, the incident date is 17/8/2000 at around 9.00 AM. Abdur Rahim and Haoarunnesa with his people as started to create boarder in th eland of Abdul Latif as made restriction and question they disregarded and creating boarder still. Then he (that witness) Karim, Alisha, Abdur Razzak, Saiful, Anis, Habibunnesa, Aftab as came stopped them. Then the defendants with sticks, sulfi, rod, weapon as was decorated made boarder around the victims by the order from Abdur Rahim and Haoarunnesa. The complaint GENDU MIAH with the sulfi in his hand hit in the left side of Monirul Amin Sujel and made blooded. Then as Monirul Amin Sujel fallen on the soil the complaint Silik with the stick in his hand hit the left side on Sujel and made him blooded. The complaint Abdul Kadir with the rod in his hand to kill Monirul Amin Sujel made injured seriously hitting the left side of the chest. Then the complaints blooded the plaintiff, his wife and nephew Torab. As questioned the mentioned witness told that went to the incident place at around 9.00 AM as heard the scream of Abdul Latif. He found the complaint with weapon in the incident place. The conflicts were in the north side of the home of Abdul Latifand he saw the attacks standing there. Monirul Amin Sujel was studying in the School of Boalzur High School. He was not gone to the school that day. As Sujel hit he has fallen on the soil. There was his father, mother beside Sujel. He told in his questioning also that, it is true that the complaints made restriction on the road andf Abdur Rahim and Haoarunnesa with the complaints attacked this has not said by the police. He told in his questioning also that it is not true that the complaints are not involved any way with the killing. He is neutral witness. It has been seen from his witness that the complaint Abdur Rahim, Haoarunnesa, GENDU MIAH, Silik Mia, and Abdul Kadir with united killed Monirul Amin Sujel.
3 no witness of the prosecution party as examined the discussion it has been seen that the witness is given on that last dated 17/8/2000 at around 8.30/8.45 minute Abdur and Haoarunnesa with people in the home of Abdul latif saw to have boarder. He gave that news to Abdul Latif. Then Abdul latif, Mortuza Bibi, Monirul Amin Sujel, Torab Ali, Nurul Islam and he went to the incident place. Then Abdur Rahim and Haoarunnesa ordered that kill the plaintiff and with this order the complaints and his people made boarder. The complaint GENDU MIAH hit the left side of Monirul Amin Sujel with stick. As Sujel got fallen on the soil the complaint with the stick in his hand hit the right shoulder of Nurul Amin Sujel and made blooded. Then the plaintiff Abdul Latif to protect his son as come forward the complaints his wife and nephew Torab made injured seriously and blooded with attack. Then as the injuries got admitted in the hospital sometimes later Monirul Amin Sujel the doctor
Page No 10
Declared dead as examined, as he questioned from the complaint party he told in his questioning that he is a farmer. He told also in his questioning that it is not true that he works in the home of plaintiff. He told in his questioning also that there were no people beside the land of him without him. He gave news that the complaints made boarder illegally. Sujel was the student of Boalzur School. The complaints made boarder and attacked. He gave voice record in Balaganj police station after about two/ two and half months later to the police at the time of investigation. He told also in his voice record that it is not true that he is a neutral witness and it has been proved from his witness that the complaint Abdur Rahim, Haoarunnesa, GENDU MIAH, Silik Mia and Abdul Kadir killed the victim Monirul Amin.
There has been seen as examined the witness no 4 of the prosecution party that the voice record is given on that he was in his home at the date of incident at 9.00 AM on 17/8/2003. He heard the scream went to the incident place. Then he saw in the possessed land of Abdul Latif the comp-laint Abdur Rahim and Haoarunnesa forcely made boarder. Then the complaint as screaming told kills the plaintiff party. And as order got from the complaint GENDU MIAH with stick in hand for killing the Monirul Amin Sujel hit on left side and he got fallen on the soil. Then the complaint Silik with stick in his hand to kill hit Monirul Amin Sujel on the right shoulder with stick. Therefore Sujel got injured seriously for that reason. Then the complaint Abdul Kadir with the rod in his hand to kill Monirul Amin Sujel made injured seriously hitting the left side of the chest. Then the complaints blooded the the plaintiff, his wife and nephew Torab. As questioned the mentioned witness told that went to the incident place at around 9.00 AM as heard the scream of Abdul Latif. He found the complaint with weapon in the incident place. The conflicts were in the north side of the home of Abdul Latifand he saw the attacks standing there. Monirul Amin Sujel was studying in the School of Boalzur High School. He was not gone to the school that day. As Sujel hit he has fallen on the soil. There was his father, mother beside Sujel. He told in his questioning also that, it is true that the complaints made restriction on the road andf Abdur Rahim and Haoarunnesa with the complaints attacked this has not said by the police. He told in his questioning also that it is not true that the complaints are not involved any way with the killing. He is neutral witness. It has been seen from his witness that the complaint Abdur Rahim, Haoarunnesa, GENDU MIAH, Silik Mia, and Abdul Kadir with united killed Monirul Amin Sujel.
There has been seen from the witness no 5 Mortuza Bibi of the prosecution party as examined the discussion that in his voice record that she was in his home at the date of incident at 9.00 AM on 17/8/2003. She heard the scream went to the incident place.
Page No 11
She was at her home got the news. Then she saw in the possessed land of Abdul Latif the complaint Abdur Rahim and Haoarunnesa forcely made boarder. Then the complaint as screaming told kills the plaintiff party. And as order got from the complaint GENDU MIAH with stick in hand for killing the Monirul Amin Sujel hit on left side and he got fallen on the soil. Then the complaint Silik with stick in his hand to kill hit Monirul Amin Sujel on the right shoulder with stick. Therefore Sujel got injured seriously for that reason. Then the complaint Abdul Kadir with the rod in his hand to kill Monirul Amin Sujel made injured seriously hitting the left side of the chest. Then the complaints blooded the the plaintiff, his wife and nephew Torab. As questioned the mentioned witness told that went to the incident place at around 9.00 AM as heard the scream of Abdul Latif. He found the complaint with weapon in the incident place. The conflicts were in the north side of the home of Abdul Latifand he saw the attacks standing there. Monirul Amin Sujel was studying in the School of Boalzur High School. He was not gone to the school that day. As Sujel hit he has fallen on the soil. There was his father, mother beside Sujel. He told in his questioning also that, it is true that the complaints made restriction on the road andf Abdur Rahim and Haoarunnesa with the complaints attacked this has not said by the police. He told in his questioning also that it is not true that the complaints are not involved any way with the killing. He is neutral witness. It has been seen from his witness that the complaint Abdur Rahim, Haoarunnesa, GENDU MIAH, Silik Mia, and Abdul Kadir with united killed Monirul Amin Sujel. People came to the incident within 25 minutes at the incident. His son Monirul Amin Sujel studied. She told in her questioning that it is not true that there was love relation with his son with the daughter of Pasondo Ullah named Jesmin and therefore there was conflict in family between. She told in her questioning also that no incident happened of the said incident palce and time and the complaint is no any way related to the Sujel killing and as because there was conflict with family of the complaint for long time therefore they have been made involved with this case. And there is no neutral witness out there and the injury report is false. There is seen from the mentioned witness that, she is the wife of plaintiff and mother of dead body victim. His witness is trustworthy that the complaint party no anything made happened in questioning of his witness that and the witness is clearly mentioned that with the real killer of the victim.
The witness no 6 Nesar Ali from the prosecution party is seen as examined the discussion that the voice record is given on that the date of incident is 17/8/2000 AD. He saw the dead body of Monirul Amin Sujel the son of Abdul Latif in the veranda of the hospital. He told in his questioning that he was the driver of the plaintiff. He told in his questioning that it is not true that the false witness is given.
The witness no 7 Saiful Amin from the prosecution party as examined his discussion it has been seen that the voice record is given on that the incident date is 17/8/2000 AD at about 9.00 AM as he was going to the store heard the screaming went to the incident place and saw that the complaints Abdur Rahim, Haoarunnesa and his people were creating boarder in the possessed land of the plaintiff. Then the complaint ordered the the complaint on that kill the people of defendants. Then other complaints made locked Abdul Latif and his companion.
Page No 12
The complaint GENDU MIAH with stick in hand for killing the Monirul Amin Sujel hit on left side and he got fallen on the soil. Then the complaint Silik with stick in his hand to kill hit Monirul Amin Sujel on the right shoulder with stick. Therefore Sujel got injured seriously for that reason. Then the complaint Abdul Kadir with the rod in his hand to kill Monirul Amin Sujel made injured seriously hitting the left side of the chest. Then the complaints blooded the the plaintiff, his wife and nephew Torab. As questioned the mentioned witness told that went to the incident place at around 9.00 AM as heard the scream of Abdul Latif. He found the complaint with weapon in the incident place. The conflicts were in the north side of the of the home of Abdul Latifand he saw the attacks standing there. Monirul Amin Sujel was studying in the school of Boalzur High school. He was not gone to the school that day. As Sujel hit he has fallen on the soil. There was his father, mother beside Sujel. He told in his questioning also that, it is true that the complaints made restriction on the road andf Abdur Rahim and Haoarunnesa with the complaints attacked this has not said by the polcie. He told in his qustioning also that it is not true that the complaints are notr involved any way with the killing. It is proved from his witness is that the killing the son of the plaintiff the complaint Abdur Rahim, Haoarunnesa, GENDU MIAH, Silik Mia and Abul Kadir is directly related.
There is seen as examined the witness from the discussion of 8 no witness in favor of prosecution party that the voice record is given on that he got informed that Monirul Islam got injured seriously. He found dead as he went to the hospital. As police made post mortem he gave signature there. He told in his questioning that there were doctors and police of about 20/25 people in the preparation of dead body. He told in his questioning that it is not true that the false witness is given.
There is seen from the examination of discussion of witness no 9 Abdur Razzak in favor of prosecution party that the voice record is given on that the incident date is 17/8/2000 at around 9.00 AM. He was with his brother Karim his nephew was on the yard of the home. . He heard the scream went to the incident place. Then he saw in the possessed land of Abdul Latif the comp-laint Abdur Rahim and Haoarunnesa forcely made boarder. Then the complaint as screaming told kills the plaintiff party. And as order got from the complaint GENDU MIAH with stick in hand for killing the Monirul Amin Sujel hit on left side and he got fallen on the soil. Then the complaint Silik with stick in his hand to kill hit Monirul Amin Sujel on the right shoulder with stick. Therefore Sujel got injured seriously for that reason. Then the complaint Abdul Kadir with the rod in his hand to kill Monirul Amin Sujel made injured seriously hitting the left side of the chest. Then the complaints blooded the the plaintiff, his wife and nephew Torab. As questioned the mentioned witness told that went to the incident place at around 9.00 AM as heard the scream of Abdul Latif. He found the complaint with weapon in the incident place. The conflicts were in the north side of the home of Abdul Latifand he saw the attacks standing there. Monirul Amin Sujel was studying in the School of Boalzur High School. He was not gone to the school that day. As Sujel hit he has fallen on the soil. There was his father, mother beside Sujel. He told in his questioning also that, it is true that the complaints made restriction on the road andf Abdur Rahim and Haoarunnesa with the complaints attacked this has not said by the police. He told in his questioning also that it is not true that the complaints are not involved any way with the killing. He is neutral witness. It has been seen from his witness that
Page No 13
The complaint Abdur Rahim, Haoarunnesa, GENDU MIAH, Silik Mia, and Abdul Kadir attacked to kill Monirul Amin Sujel.
There is seen as examined the discussion of 10 no witness Aftab Ali in favor of prosecution party he has given voice record on that last dated 17/8/2000 at around 9.00 AM the incident happened. As he heard the screaming in the south side of his home he runs there. He saw as went there Abdur Rahim and Haoarunnesa was creating boarder with people. Abdul Latif, and Monirul Amin Sujel, Mortuza Bibi and others made restriction to give boarder. Disregarding the restriction they were creating the boarder He has not seen who beats whom. He told in questing from the favor of government that it is not true that to protect the complaints that beat whom have not told. He told in his questioning as examined from the complaint party that the plaintiff is his cousin. There were conflicts on the road and there were blood on the street. The complaints are from the same community. He told in his questioning that it is not true that no incident that types happened. It has been seen the witness has not given statements of true incident and in support of his witness there is no neutral and direct witness. The witness of this witness is non acceptable.
There is seen as examined the witness from the witnesses above they have given witness which is mutually supported, reliable, and trustworthy that the complaints as was creating boarder in the land of the plaintiff the complaint Abdur Rahim, and Haoarunnesa as order given to GENDU MIAH, the complaint Abdul Kadir, the complaint Silik Mia made injured bloodly to kill the the victim Monirul Amin Sujel with different killing weapons and later the mentioned victim Monirul Amin Sujel as taken to the Balaganj hospital for the treatment the doctor declared him (Monirul Amin Sujel) dead.
The witness no 12 Hira Lal Datta as questioned from the prosecution party declared tender the complaint party has not made questioned.
11 no witness Amir Ali in favor of prosecution party as seen from the examination as discussed that in his voice record that, as was working as constable in Balaganj police station in local village in Pirpur the dead body of Suhel (Sujel) took to the post mortem of the dead body by the Chalan and then dead body later given to his relatives. He told in his questioning that his cloths were not taken.
14 no witness Nurunnabi as examined his discussion it is seen in favor of prosecution party that He took the dead body of Monirul Amin Sujel to the Osmani medical hospital by Chalan. In that he took the bloded lungi and genji. He told in his questioning that there is sign in the court.
There is seen as examined the mentioned 11 and 14 no witness in favor of the prosecution party that they are bearer of police constable and victim dead body Monirul Amin Sujel. So it is proved from there witness is that victim Monirul Islam is dead.
Page No 14
18 no witness Somorendra lal in favor of prosecution party it has been seen as examined the discussion that he is recording officer of the case.
13 no witness in favor of prosecution party Dr. Sirajul Islam it is seen from the examination of his discussion that he has given voice record on that as he was working in Balaganj police station as R.M.O the man named Abdul Latif, Mortuza Bibi and Torab Ali taken to the Balaganj police station treated in emergency department on dated last 17/8/2000 and the certificate is given related to that treatment. He told in his questioning that he examined himself the victim but he has not mentioned. He in his questioning denied that the injury is not serious and as because it fallen it can be same.
17 no witness Dr. M.A Shahid in favor of prosecution party it has been seen from the examination that he is assistant professor in Sylhet Osmani Medical College Hospital. He has given voice record on that he has accomplished the post mortem of Monirul Amin Sujel and at the time of investifation the marked as found in the body of the victim that was explained on that 1. One stab wound on the left side of the chest in between 4th & 5th intercostal space measuring 1”x1/2” body cavity. 2. One abrasion on the left shoulder region measuring 1” square diameter. On desection:- The left pleura the left lungs and the precardien of the heart was injured with profundus cloted blood in the thoracies cavity. The lung was conjusted. Other abdominal viseeras were stated above mention columns of the of the P.M. report. Openion:- Death in my opinion due heamorhage shock as a result of injury No. 1 caused by sharp pointed weapon in injury No. 2 and 3 caused by blunt weapon which waqs antemortem and homicidal in nature. There is his signature in the post mortem report. He told in his questioning as as complaint party was questioned as though the aversion made by fallen the aversion in this on the dead body was not made that way.
There is seen clearly from the 13 and 17 no witness doctor in favor of the prosecution [party that the victims got hit in different weapons and victim is Monirul Amin Sujel got dead by the hit of sharp weapon.
There is seen from the examination of 16 no witness in favor of prosecution party that he has given voice record that the investigation work is done as was working in the position of S.I in Balaganj police station on dated last 17/8/2000. He as examined the dead body sent the dead body for the post mortem to the Monirul Amin Sujel. He has taken the bloody cloths of the dead body. I have inspected the incident place as got the investigation duty of the case. The draft map is created of incident place, content is created, and the witness from the witnesses was written. The post mortem investigation report of the dead body and certificate from doctor of injuries is collected. Last dated 19/3/2001 as because of his replacement
Page No 15
The case doket is transferred. He told in his questioning that first time to the incident on dated 17/8/2000 went there. The bloody soil, bark of the bamboo, boarder of the bamboo is taken from the incident place. He told in questioning that the complaints are not involved in killing of Sujel and the investigation is not made in the correct way.
15 no witness from the prosecution party as examined his discussion it is seen that the voice record is made on that he as the position S.I as working in the police station of Balaganj last dated 3/4/2001 as got the duty of investigation written the statements of this witness. Later the examined the investigation complains is submitted against all of the complaints in the case. He told in his questioning that he has not visited the incident place. He told in questioning also it is not true that the investigation is not done correctly.
The mentioned 15 and 16 no witness as examined there discussion they are the investigation officer of the case. As the time of the incident visiting the incident place created the drafts of the incident and prepared the content and they made under the section 161 in civil crime and based on the witness as the complaints were the criminal proved and the complain is submitted in the court. There is seen that the complaint party based on the questioning they were unable to make out there witness and their witness seemed to us accepted on this case.
There is seen examining the prosecution party that the plaintiff were able to present in this court mutual supported oral witness and visible, neutral and strong prove to prove the case. There is seen from the oral witness of the witnesses in favor of prosecution party no 1 witness Abdul Latif is the neutral witness of this incident. No 3 witnesses Abdus Sattar in favor of prosecution party is the visitor and neutral witness of the incident. The witness no 5 in favor of prosecution party is Mortuza Bibi the wife of plaintiff and the mother of dead Monirul Amin Sujel and the witness of the incident. No 7 witness Saiful Alam and no 9 witness Abdur Razzak in favor of prosecution party in the direct visitor and neutral witness of the incident.
As mentioned from the direct witnesses it is seen mutually supported and trustworthy they all are in one voice and given the accepted witness that the complaint Abdur rahim and Haoarunnesa as ordered the complaint GENDU MIAH as was sharp sulfi in his hand hit Monirul Amin Sujel to kill him with it and made bloody injury and complaint Silik Mia and Abdul Kadir to have the death quick by the hit of weapon made sure the killing. There has been found more clear support on that the complaint GENDU MIAH within the sulfi on his hand as hit Monirul Amin Sujel for that mentioned Monirul Amin Sujel got fallen on the soil and as he was on the soil the complaint Abdul Kadir and Silik Mia in hand
Page No 16
Hit with the rod and stick and victim Monirul Amin got bloody injuried and later as he got admitted in Balaganj hospital as was in the time of death related doctor declared him dead. So it has been proved clearly that the complaint GENDU MIAH with the hit of sulfi Monirul Amin got bloody injured seriously and to make sure his death the complaint Abdul Kadir and Silik Mia with the stick and rod hit and as the victim got dead in the hospital. There is seen complaint Abdur Rahim and complaint Haoarunnesa as ordered the victim Monirul Islam got dead. So in favor of the prosecution from witnesses of the witness it is proved without doubt that complaint Abdur Rahim and complaint Haoarunnesa is the complaint of order and complaint GENDU MIAH, complaint Abdul Kadir and complaint Silik Mia killed Monirul Amin Sujel. In that the complaint GENDU MIAH is fully responsible and complaint Silik and complaint Kadir to kill the victim hit as their in cooperation and the complaint Abdur Rahim and complaint Haoarunnesa for killing the victim the order is given to the order complaints.
I have examined the filed papers, Shown mark-1 as serial the case and signature. There is seen in observation that the case maker in his complain told that the complain maker in his own possessed and bought land last dated 17/8/2000 at around 9.00 Abdur Rahim and his people with stick, stick sulfi rod and other weapons as was armed gave boarder in the land of plaintiff. As he made restriction the complaint GENDU MIAH with the sulfi in his hand the son of plaintiff to kill him hit and he got fallen on the soil. Then the complaint Silik Mia with the stick in his hand on the right hand of the victim and the complaint Abdul Kadir with rod in his hand on the left hand of the victim made injured bloody. Later the injuried plaintiff and his wife and son and nephew were taken to the hospital in Balaganj the duty doctor to his son Monirul Amin Sujel declared dead. As the witness is trustworthy of the case of prosecution case the case is submitted to the court shown ins marked. So it is seen in the case that the complaint GENDU MIAH direct and primary contributor and complaint Abdul Kadir and Silik Mia has helped them to kill the victim and the complaint Abdur Rahim and Haoarunnesa is order provider to kill the victim.
Display mark- 2 serial report and signature. It is seen that related police officer created post mortem report. There is mentioned in the report that dead Monirul Amin Sujel, age- 16 years. There is stain of the injury in the left shoulder of the dead body and there is mark of injury. Under the one and half inch bellow on the left and in the one inch of the chest there is injury of the sharp weapon. Which is hit entered inside to the lungs. Related officer informed in that time that with the sharp hit the victim got dead. So
Page No 17
The post mortem report proved that the victim is killed with the sharp weapon as in entered in lungs of the victim.
The shown mark- 3 as seen in the observation that it is taken and signatiure. It is seen from the taken materials that related police officer the blooded pieces of genji and blooded check lungi piece is rescued. So the taken signs it is proved that the victim is killed. It is seen from the shown- 4 that it is the Chalan of victim to send for the post mortem, Shown- 5 serial, serial, given- 6, given- 7, given- 8, given- 9 and given- 10 it is seen as examined that these are Abdul Latif, Torab Ali, and certificates of Mortuza Bibi and their release papers. These have made proved that Abdul Latif, Mortuza Bibi and Torab Ali was treated. The shown mark- 11 serial and signature. It has been seen from the examination that the sndo genji and check lungi of the dead body is taken. Shown mark- 14 as examined it is seen that the post mortem report of the dead body after completion of the related doctor is given. There is seen from the discussion is that the related doctor at the time to create post mortem the injuries as got that was mentioned clearly with the comments in the report that, The death was due to heamorrage and shock As a result of injury No 1 caused by sharp pointed weapon and injury No. 2 & 3 caused by blunt weapon. Which was ante mortem and homicidal in nature. So it is proved the post mortem that the victim is killed.
The mentioned shown mark proved the paper that the complaint Abdur rahim and Haoarunnesa, GENDU MIAH, Silik Mia and complaint Abdul Kadir is completely related to kill the victim and as the victim was killed this is proved by the post mortem report. So the submitted papers in favor of prosecution that, the complaint GENDU MIAH made injured bloody with the sharp weapon and the complaint and the complaints Silik Mia and Abdul Kadir hit the victim to have speedy death with sharp weapon and the related doctor declared the victim as dead, which is proved in post mortem. So the prosecution party became able to prove with oral and documents the crime of killing against Abdur Rahim, Haoarunnesa, GENDU MIAH, Silik Mia and the complaint Abdul Kadir therefore the case seemed to me acceptable and proved.
Specialist A.P.P in favor of prosecution gave speech that, prosecution party with appropriate and mutual supported oral and documentary supported witness providing the case proved without doubt to this court. The case now can be run in types and ways. The complaints as declaring criminal the punishable action can be taken. On the other hand the specialist in favor of complaint party gave speech that the prosecution party became unable to prove the case without doubt. The case cannot be run in the way and types. As because of the war in between parties he victim Monbirul Amin Sujel got dead. The complaints are involved in any way in case of the killing of him. Therefore the plaintiff party
Page No 18
And his people got injured by their own weapon. So the prosecution party was not able to present any neutral and acceptable witness to the court. The witnesses are mutually relatives and from the same community. There is no any value in terms of law. As the observation of the witness it can be seen that they have given different types from different people witness is given. There is no proved from their witness from the incident place as crime happened. Their witness is proved that both as the conflicts among them got injured. In reality no neutral and oral witness in favor of prosecution party became failed to prove the case. No incident happened in that time and place of the incident and the complaints in any way related to the crime, as because the prosecution party failed to prove the case above doubt therefore the complaints are to have free completely.
In the same way the specialist lawyer presenting to the honorable high court is that “The burden to prove the prosecution the prosecution case is on the prosecution along which never shifts (38 DLR (AD)”. “The onus of proven guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt is always on the prosecution (AIR 1944 Pat 308= AIR 1980 SC 1982= 1980 GL J 965)”. “Prosecution to prove every link in the chain of evidence to connect the accused with the crime (42 DLR 89)”, the specialist lawyer gave more speech that; the prosecution party was unable to prove without any doubt. In that case the honorable high court gave the decision that, The fundamental principle of criminal trial is that the accused shall be presumed innocent and that he is not required to adduce evidence to prove his innocence, but the entire burden of proof of his suit lies on the prosecution along (38 DLR (AD) 311= 1987 BLD (AD)1)”.
The complaint party specialist lawyer gave speech also is that different witness from the prosecution party gave the different speeches. On the other hand the complaint himself gave the speech as witness no witnesses out there gave any speech in support to him. There are many elements of doubt exist in the case. The more speech is given by the lawyer of complaint party is that, “In a criminal case it is the duty of the court to review the entire evidence that has been produced by the prosecution and defense. It after an examination of the whole evidence, The court is of the opinion that there is a reasonable possibility that defence put forward by the accused might be true, it is clear that such a view reacts on the whole prosecution case. In these circumstances the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt not a matter of grace but as of right, because the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt (Safdar Ali Vs the Crown 5 DLR (FC) 107)”.
Page No 19
The specialist lawyer gave more speech that, “A criminal trial is not like fairy tale wherein one is free to give flight to one’s imagination and phantacy. It concerns itself with question as to whether the accused arraigntion at the trial is guilty of the crime with which he is charged. Crime is an event in real life and is product of interplay of the different human emotions. In arriving to conclusion as to guilt of the accused charged with commission of the crime. Court has to judge evidence by yardstick of probabilities, its inherent worth and animus of witness (The State Vs. Md. Ali Kibria 1991 BLD 336).” The specialist lawyer of the complaint party gave more speech is also that as because the prosecution party became unable to prove the case without doubt so the case is will be failed and the complaints are eligible to get free completely.
As hearing the speech of both of the parties I saw that the specialist A.P.P of prosecution party gave more acceptable speech. I am agreed on his speech. As observing all of the witness from the prosecution it has been seen that the prosecution party took all of the legal steps to prove the case. In this it is seen the complaint made the case, in his possessed land the complaint forcedly giving boarder and the plaintiff as got the news made restriction to have boarder the complaints got agitated and beat his people in that situation his son Monirul Amin Sujel made injured seriously with the killing weapon and therefore the victim Monirul Amin Sujel got dead in the hospital. It has been seen that complain is made against the complaints under the law of 149/302/34 sections and the specialist court made charge on that sections. It is seen that the case the complaint party brought their claim on that as with the plaintiff party as the conflict got started with the hit of plaintiff the victim Monirul Amin Sujel got dead. It has been known from the honorable high court is that, “In a criminal trial the charge brought against the accused shall be proved by the prosecution. The accused is not required to prove his innocence (innocence), but he takes any special plea, that the onus he is upon him to proved it (BCR 1986 AD 239)”. But there is seen the complaint party was unable to present any witness to this court as per the claim. From the decision of high court it has been known that, “The onus is on accused to give explanation when the aternative theory of the guilt is a remote possibility (43 I.C 605)”.
There is also seen from the case is that, the complaint party the specialist lawyer gave speech that, there was no any motive at the time of conflict got started, to kill the victim. It has been known from the decision of the honorable high court is that, “The discovery of the true motive for a crime is not imperative in every case (A.I>R 1973 S.C 337 (342-343)”. “The failure to discover the motive of an offence does not signify its non- existence. The failure to prove motive is not fatal as matter of low. Proof of
Page No 20
Motive is never an indispensable for conviction. When facts are clear it is immaterial that no motive has been proved. Therefore absence of proof of motive does not break the link in the chain of circumstances connecting the accused with the crime, nor militates against the prosecution case (AIR 1992 SC 1175)”.
The specialist lawyer from the complaint party told also that, the witnesses from the plaintiff parties are mutually relatives. There is any witness value in their witness. It has been from the decision of honorable high court that, “A witness may be the brother of the deceased and therefore an interested witness by this is not sufficient to demolish his testimony. Its evidence is reliable when there is nothing in his cross- examination to shake his credit (1976 U.P G.C. 109 (110) All)”. Mere relationship is no reason to disbelieve a witness; if he is otherwise found trustworthy (4 SCD 97)”. The case is seen in total of 07 visible witnesses. There is known from the honorable high court that)”. “The evidence of the eye- witness, if accepted, is sufficient to warrant conviction though in appropriate cases the Court may as a measure of caution seek some confirming circumstances from other sources. But ordinary the evidence of truthful eye- witness is sufficient without anything more, to warrant a conviction and cannot, for instance, be made to depend for its acceptance of the truthfulness of other items of evidence such as recovery of weapons, etc. (1985 Cr.L.J. 1173 (1174) (S.C) A.I.R 1985 S.C 866).” Evidence of eye witness cannot be rejected only on the ground this their manes did not figure in the inquest report (Khajji @ Surendra Tiwari V. State of M.P 1991 (3) Crimes 82).” It is seen from this case that some of the complaints are in fled. The decision from the honorable high court is that, “The conduct of a person in abscondinding after the commission of the offence is evidence to show that he was concerned in the offence (PLD 1965 lah 656).
There is seen from the prosecution party as presented the witness to prove his case are enough witnesses. The decision from the honorable high court is that, “Conviction can be based sole testimony of a witness if it appears to be truthful (Biswamber Meher V. State of Orissa 1988 (2) Crimes 293 Call)”. “Conviction can be safely being based on the solititary evidence of an eye- witness (Abdul Hai Sikdar Vs. State 43 (1991) DLR (AD) 95”. Conviction can be based on the basis of the evidence of a single witness of quality believed by court and found wholly reliable (1191 BLD 11; 38 DLR (AD) ; 29 DLR (SC) 211)”.
There is seen from the case that the complaint GENDU MIAH hit the school student with sulfi which was very sharp and mentioned hit was life killing as because of the hit. It is inhuman
Page No 21
Attack and that types Cold blooded and cruel non human types and to make sure the dead of the victim the complaint GENDU MIAH attacked Monirul Amin Sujel. It is the duty of the court to impose a proper punishment depending upon the degree of criminality and desirably to impose punishment. The accused deserve no sympathy. The decision from the honorable high court is that, Death sentence is to be imposed when the murder is admitted in a brutal manner or when the nature of the crime is ghastyly (AIR 1975 SC 1501 (1505)= 1975 Cr. L.J. 334 Gaua).
There is seen from the mentioned file, circumstance and incident is that the complaint GENDU MIAH to kill the victim hit on the left side of the victim and the complaint Silik Mia nad Abdul Kadir with the stick and rod in their hands made speedy the kill of the victim and the complaint Abdur Rahim and complaint Haoarunnesa as because of this reason got the victim dead for this reason as ordered the complaints to kill the victim helped and the prosecution party neutral, strong, reliable, trustworthy orally and in documents as the witness is given the case complaint Abdur Rahim, Haoarunnesa, GENDU MIAH, Silik Mia, Abdul Kadir, as become to prove the case without any doubt therefore the case the case can be run on the way and types of the present. The complaint Abur Rahim, Haoarunnesa, GENDU MIAH, Silik Mia and Abdul Kadir as per the section of punishment law in 149/302/34 can be the complained and as per the sections making them criminal declaring for punishment and prosecution party can get exempt from his view. So the subjects of the judgments in favor on prosecution the decision is taken. Actively: The case is passed.
Therefore,
The order is that,
As the prosecution is above of all of the doubt the complaint of his case 1) Abdur Rahim (Dead), 2) Haoarunnesa (In fled), 3) GENDU MIAH (In fled), Silik Mia, and 5) Abdul Kadir (In detained) became able to prove against them so this complaints as per the sections of punishable law 149/302/34 the complain is made and as per mentioned as considering the importance of the crime and situation they have been declared criminal. 1) GENDU MIAH, father- Kuti Mia, village- Pirpur, Police Station- Balaganj, District- Sylhet is given death penalty and he has been fined 1,00,000/- (One lakhs) taka in finance. The complaint 2) Haoarunnesa, husband- Abdur Rahim, 3) Abdul Kadir, father- Abdur Rahman, 4) Silik Mia, father- Kuthi Mia, all of villege Pirpur, police station- Balaganj, district- Sylhet they have been give lifelong imprisonment and they all have been fined 1,00,000/- (One Lakhs) taka for each. The fined money will get the plaintiff party. If the fined money is not received every complaint will get another 05 (five) years without any labor.
The hang up of the complaint GENDU MIAH will be effective on that, he has to be activate the hang up in strong wire so that as is to make sure he has to be hanged up until the death in dock of hanging.
Page No 22
The punishment received fled complaints if surrender themselves or police arrest them the mentioned order will be effective on them as well. Convictional warrant is issued against the punishment received complaints. The lifetime imprisonment will be imposed as the section 35-A of civil law.
As the complaint 6) Abdur Razzak (Dead), father- Abdul Gani, 7) Sabud Ali, father- Abdul Aziz, 8) Salek Mia, father- Kuthi Mia, 9) Jahur Ali, father- Abdur Nur Ali, 10) Abul Hossen, father- Abdul gani, 11) Ataur Rahman, father- Late Md. Zakir, 14) Abdul Aziz, father- Late Miadhon Ullah, 15) Moksud Ali, father- Late Akser Ali known as Sali, 16) Amir Ali, father- Abdun Nur, (In bail), 17) Folik Mia, father- Chan Mia, 18) Tahur Ali known as Tafur Ali, father- Abdun Nur, 19) Tofazzol Ali, father- Abdul Aziz, 20) Toimus Ali, father- Abdul Aziz, 21) Khurshid Ullah, father- Arabdi known as Arab Ullah, 22) Abdus Salam, father- Abdur Rahim, all of village- Pirpur, police station- Balaganj, District- Sylhet aginst them the case as because the case was not proved as above of doubt in orally and documents in favor of prosecution party. So the exempt is to make against them from all of complains and as because of no complain is proved against them they have been made free totally. And if any warrant is issued against them that has been cancelled.
The core of the file is to send soon as per the civil law of section 374 of the death penalty received GENDU MIAH of the death penalty in the honorable high court division, with the decree to the honorable registrar for the necessary confirmation of supreme court.
The copy of this decree is to send to the specialist chief judiacial magistrate and district magistrate, Sylhet.
The taken signs is to make return as per the regulation of the complain maker plaintiff. There is corrected and written as per the speech of me.
Sd/ Illegible
28/6/2010
(Md. Monjurul Haque Khan)
Additional Daira Judge, 5th no Court in charge)
Sylhet
Prodip/
Examiner:-
Sd/ Illegible
12/7/2010
Auditor:- Sd/ Illegible
12/7/2010
Sh: Aa:
28/6/2010 AD
(Md. Monjurul Haque Khan)
Additional Daira Judge, 5th No Court (In charge)
Sylhet
In the Supreme Court of Bangladesh
High Court Division
(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
Criminal Appeal No 4414 of 2010
In the matter of:
An application for admission of appeal under section 410 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
And
In the matter of:
A. Kadir,
Son of A. Rahman
2. Cilik Miah,
Son of Kuthi Miah
All of Village- Pirpur,
Police Station- Balaganj,
District- Sylhet.
…………………………. Accused- Appellant
(In Jail)
Page No 2
The witness told in questioning for the favor of complaint including all fled that “I am student. This is not true that the complaint is my uncle. Our house is in the south of the defendant. We have 5 members in our family. The east side of my home is Mizanur, and south side is Nurullah other two sides there are no home. My brother as was going to the incident was 25 hands far way from me. The dag no and measurement of incident I do not know. All of 23 people of the defendants were making boarder. I found as was going about 50/60 hands of boarder is completed. There was feared as the hands of defendants there were weapon. We had no any weapon. We were about 11/12 people including the defendant. We all made restriction. The defendants have not made any restriction as Latif possessed before. The land was empty. We have not tried to flee. Latif was in the west side. Sujol was in west side. The east side of the incident place is Latif, west side dhani land, in the north side empty and then mosque, far away Rahman Mia,the home of Samsu Mia. There is remembered who were at the place of incident. They were the people of my village. There wre conflicts of about 20/ 25 minutes. There were no peope came later came, made attacked. As was the time of attack Latif and defendants went to the east side. There were the home of Eskander Ali, Gafur, Siddik Ali, and Jamsed. I have not seent the incident standing on same place I went forward andback. There was blood in the incident. There were blood in 20/25 hands places. Later I cannot say whether people came. Tempu, Kuthi Mia, Chan Mia, Abdul Aziz, Khurshid Ullah, Maksod Mia is old man. The hand of Mokoddos is bending. It has been seen that one hand of Mokoddos was unable. As the notice given from police station made voice record. It is not true that, I have not said to the police that I were with Karim in the home and I have not told Haoarunnessa, Sala, Kadir, Ataur, Khurshid, Tafur, Jafur, Ataur, Koti, Silik Mia, Salek Mia, GENDU MIAH, Khalik, Abdur Razzak, Abul Hossen, Kadir was in decorated with weapons. It is not true that Kadir hit on the shoulder of Sujel. Kadir with the rod hit on the head Latif, Salek with Digar hit on the back of Latif and Toimus hit on the back of Latif as hit on the back of Latif hit by the stick on the head of Mortuza I have not told that Torab Ali hit as Amir Ali hit there were blood as got injured the left hand. It is not true, in the view and mentioned incident have happened there. It is not true that the false voice record is made.”
The state party mentioned in the voice records of 10 no witness Aftab Ali that last dated at 17/8/2000 at around 9 AM as was in my home as heard the scream of the incident place run to the incident place. As was there Abdur Rahim, Haoarunnesa with people creating boarder. Abdul Latif, Manirul Amin Sujel, Mortuza Bibi, Abdus Sattar, Nurul Islam, Abdul Karim, Abdur Razzak, Saiful Amin, Nazrul Islam have not made restriction to create boarder. They started beating disregarding the restriction. I have not seen who beat whom. There were conflicts about 15/20 minutes. “In the time the witness declared as questioned told in the questioning that it is not true that as to protect the defendant who beat whom have not told.
As questioning to defendant party the witness told that, “the defendant is my cousin. The home of defendant is about 500/600 hands away west from my home. I have my father and cousin. They have not gone. With me and
Page No 3
No one went. As I went without the defendant there were about 10/12 people. There was no anyone else around there. Nazrul and Abdus Sattar is not my relatives. Other people names were not remembered. There was dhani land in the place of Latif. Land was not spolied. There were conflicts on the roads. There were bloods. The defendants were the same group. No one made restriction before the incident. I went to the incident place quickly. Two groups made conflicts. One group hit the other group. No one came about 20/25 minutes. It is not true the defendants were no there or no incident is made. It is not true that the false witness is given as because of relative.”
The state party 11 no witness constable Anowar Ali told in his voice record that “ As I am the police constable working in Balaganj police station in the local Pirpur village took the dead body by chalan for post mortem and then the dead body handed over to the relatives. This is the chalan given: 4 and my signature is given 4/1 as marked. The cloths were taken as was with the dead body. My signature is shown.”
The witness told in questioning is that “The dead body man is known to me. The cloths were taken before me.”
The state party 12 no witness constable Hira Lal Datta Tender is declared that and from the defendant party the witness is questioned declared declind.
The state party 13 no witness Dr. Sirajul Islam Khan mentioned in his voice record that “I am as was working in the Balaganj police station as R.M.O the man named Abdul Latif, age- 60 years, father- Md. Misir Ali, village- Chawkpirpur, police station- Balaganj, dated 17/8/2000 treated in the emergency department. There were found the injuries in his body: - 1. One incised injury over of the scalp measuring ½”X1/4” scalp depth. 2. Three peuetrating over left thigh measuring ½”x12” depth. 3. Three bruises over back measuring ½”x1”. I have given certificate based on the injuries mentioned, injury No. 1 caused by sharp cutting weapon. Injury No 2 caused by sharp pointed weapon. Inj. No.3 was caused by sharp weapon. Inj. No.1 was of grievous in nature and rest injuries simple in nature. It is my certificate shown- 5, my signature given 5/1 marked.
On the same date the man named Torab Ali, age- 30 years, father- Late Md. Kalaik as examined his body found the injuries as bellow:- 1. One Lacerated injury over left region of the sculp meg 11/2”X4”Xscalp depth. 2. One swealling over left forearm msg. 2”x11/2”. These two injuries are simple in nature and both caused by blant weapon. It is my given certificate- 6 there are my signature.
On the same date the man Mortuza Bibi, age- 50 years, husband- Abdul Latif as examined and got injury:- 1. Injury no. 1 is located injury over right region meg 3”x1/2” scalp
Page No 4
Depth. 2. Two buries over back meg 2”x1” each injuries were caused by blunt weapon. Inj. No. 1 was grievous nature and no simple and no simple in nature. This is my given shown- 7 certificate, there are my signatures.
All of three people got admitted in the hospital dated 17/8/2000 shown- 8, Abdul latif on dated 9/9/2000 on dated 9/9/2000 shown- 9, Torab Ali on dated 9/9/2000 shown- 10 got admitted in the core of release of the hospital.”
The witness told as per questioning from the complaint party, “There are more doctors in the hospital.” They do the duties in emergency department. I examined myself and this is not mentioned. Injury no. 1 not determined by x- ray, it is not true that, no injuries are serious. It is not true that, the injury is superficial or can be as have been fallen. I am related to that certificate no injury is sure by the x- ray. It is not true that, the certificate is not appropriate as per the injury. It is not true that, for the sake of the case certificate and release have been created. (Specialist SDL took the same questioning as received).”
14 no witness from the state party mentioned in his voice record that, I went to the Fazlul Haque health complex as per the order from the officer in charge as working as constable in Balaganj police station on dated 17/8/2000. From there I took the dead body Monirul Amin son of Abdul Latif by the Chalan to the Osmani Hospital. S.I took the lungi and genji which was blooded with the dead body. I gave signature in the receive paper as witness. This is marked in shown- 11 and my signature is given on 11/1 as marked.”
The witness in questioning in favor of complaint party that, “ The received sign is not in the court.”
15 no S.I Hamidur Rahman from the state party mentioned in his voice record that “As I was S.I working in Balaganj police station on dated 3/4/01 as got the duty for investigation the statement from the no 1 witness wrote. Later the complain paper is submitted as discussed the investigation work in questioning against the complaint in the crime of section 147/148/149/447/323/324/325/326/307/302/114 on dated 10/4/2001.
The witness told in questioning from the complaint party that, “I have not visited the incident place. I wrote the statement from the constable Hira Lal Datta. I have not taken sign by my own self. It is not true that, if investigated correctly I would have given the final report.”
16 no witness A.K.M Fazlul Haque mentioned in his voice record for the favor of state party that, “I am S.I police. I investigated the case as was working in the police station in Balaganj police station on dated 17/8/8/2000. Before making the case G.D no- 549 on dated 17/8/200 the dead body of late Monirul Amin known as Sujel as creating the post mortem report as I have given the order for the post mortem sent to the hospital. I took the cloths which were worn of the dead body as for sign. This is the received given: 3 and
Page No 5
My signature is given 3/2 as marked. As the case was made I visited the incident place and created a draft map given: 12 and prepared content given: 13. My signature has been shown. The statements from the witness are written. The certificate from the injury people and the post mortem from the dead body are collected. Other activities are completed. I submitted the memorandum of the dead body. The case docket has been transferred as for replacement on dated 19/3/2001. The blooded lungi, genji given in 1 and 2 as marked.”
The witness told as per questioning of complaint party that, for the first time I went to the incident place on dated 17/8/2000. I have taken the blooded soil and branches of bamboo, and boarder of bamboo is not collected. I have not taken later of the incident stick and weapon. There is no any crime report of the complaint there. The witness Nazrul Islam, has not told to me the name of complaint Salam, Aziz, Abul Hossen, Amir Ali, and the name of Moksed. He has not told Rahim and Haoarunnesa have not given boarder in the place of the incident. He has not told that Karim, Razzak, Sujel, Habibunnesa have not made any restriction. I have not told Rahim ordered for the kill. He has not told also that Rahim Gong as made barricade created conflicts on the street. I have not told that Salik hit on the shoulder of Sujel. I have not told that Falik hit on the thigh 3 times but have not told the hit on leg. The complaint Salek with Digar hit on the back of Latif is not specified. I have not told to randomly beat. I have not told Jahur Ali hit on the back of Abdul Altif. The complaint Kuthi Mia hit with the weapon to Mortuza that has not told the witness. I have not told Ataur Rahman hit with the stick on the back of Mortuza told the beat of randomly. The witness examined Abdus Sattar on dated 12/12/2000. He told the name of complaint Toimus, Tofazzel, Jafur, Tafur, Moksed, Amir Ali, and Abul Hossen. I have not told Karim, Monirul, Torab Ali, Nurullah went to the incident place as heard the screaming. I have not told Kadir beat the Monirul specificly. The witness has not told to hit on the head of Torab Ali by Amir Ali. Karim is examined on the dated 12/12/2000. The witness has not told to me the names of Ataur, Kadir, Rashid Ullah, Amir Ali, Abdur Razzak, Moksed. I have not told Kadir hit with the road on the head of Latif.Th witness have not told Salek with Dogar hit on the back of Latif. Tafur and Tofazzol hit on the head of Latif have not told. I have not told on that Torab Ali hit with the road on Amir Ali. I have not told the names of Soiful, Toimus, Tofazzol, Tafur, Jafur, Amir Abul Hossen and Moksed of the dated last 12/12/2000. I have not told Kadir hit with the rod on the head of Latif. Salek with degar
Page No 6
Tafur and Toffazal with rod hit on the back of Latif. I have not told Kadir with rod, Salek with stick hit on Sujel. I have not told that Kadir hit with rod on the head of Latif and Toimus Ali with the rod. There are total 22 witnesses in complain paper. It is not true that the complaints are not related with the killing of Sujel have not investigated correctly.”
Re: examination:- the blooded color lungi and genji as was on the body of Sujel as presented after the investigation that has been taken which is given:- in 3 and 4 as marked. In questioning: - It is not true that I have taken as controlled by the complaint. I have not examined of chemistry the blood in the sign that is of people.” (M.D.L has taken the same questioning).
17 no witness from the state party Dr M A Shahid mentioned in his voice record that “I am M a Shahid, assistant professor of forsenic medicine department, Sylhet M.A.G Osmani Mediacal Hospital. I accomplished the post mortem report of dead Monirul Amin as identified pf Kong- 472 Anowar Ali and Kong- 562 Nurunnabi on the dated 17/8/2000 and the seen injury was written. Which is given bellow:- 1. One stab wound on the left side of the chest in between 4th & 5th intercostal space measuring 1”x1/2” body cavity. 2. One abrasion on the left shoulder region measuring 1” square diameter. On dissection:- The left pleura the left lungs and the precardien of the heart was injured with blood in the thoraces cavity. The lung was congested. Other abdominal viseeras were stated above mention columns of the of the P.M. report. Opinion:- Death in my opinion due hemorrhages shock as a result of injury No. 1 caused by sharp pointed weapon in injury No. 2 and 3 caused by blunt weapon which waqs antemortem and homicidal in nature. My signature and seal in post mortem report. The post mortem report is shown and the signature of this witness is shown and identified.”
The witness told in the questioning of the present complaint that, “ As the aversion created by fallen the avarsion on the dead body of this case have not made in that way. This is not true that, the aversion on the dead body created as have been fallen. No special sign has been found on the belly of the dead body. No age of the hit is mentioned in the P. M report.” The questioning is adapted on the sate defense.
18 no witness mentioned in his voice record of the state party that last dated 17/8/2000 as I was working as the officer in charge in Balaganj police station based on the news as received went to the hospital. There in the 4 no bed of ward found Monirul Amin Sujel as dead
Page No 7
Got and his father as per his voice record the case is taken. The name of complaint is Abdul Latif. Hira Lal Datta is sent to police station as taken in kong no- 430 as taken the case. My companion SI, AKM Fazlul Haque made the investigation of dead body and other steps are taken. The investigation is directed the case of SI AKM Fazlul Haque. My signature is given in the oral case of the complaint. In that case given: 1 and my signature is given ½ on its. This is my voice records.”
The witness told in the questioning of the complaint party that, I have not participated in any way of the investigation of the case. I was presented at the time of post mortem of the dead body. Based on a G.D. The post mortem is prepared at the time on 12.15 in the health complex. The case is written in the health complex. The case is written not on my own hand. There is no signature as S.I Fazlul Haque is written that. On the 2nd page of the case it has been seen that in short the complaints hit by stick. It is true I reached to the health complex at around 12.15. I was in the health complex till writing the case at around 12.15. The case started to write at around 17.15. There has taken about 40 minutes to write the case. The case was sent to police station after the writing of case. I was in the health complex. I was at around 18.00 in the health complex. That means I was there about 6 hours in the health complex. This is not true that, as per the words of the complaint party I have not written the case I wrote the case as consulting with 6/7 hours talking with the complaint party. This is not true that The case is made by me is not G.D or case, its entry types case.”
There is seen that as per observing the witnesses of the mentioned witnesses that no 1 witness of the prosecution party Abdul Latif gave his voice record that he is the plaintiff of this case. He was in the home at around 9.00 AM on dated 17/8/2000. Then he got the news that, Abdur Rahim and Haoarunnesa and his people was giving boarder in the possesed land of the complaint. He then his son Monirul Amin Sujel, nephew Torab Ali, cousin Sattar, Nurul Islam and his wife Mortuza including as went to the incident place screamed and the complaints were making restrictions. As hearing the screaming Nurul Islam Gang came there and they were also made restriction for the complaints. Then the complaint among the complaints GENDU MIAH hit the left side of the chest of Monirul Amin Sujel of son the complaint with Silik in his hand. He has been fallen on the soil. The complaint Silik Mia with the stick in his hand to kill the son of the palintiff hit on the right side. The complaint for saving the son as came forward the complaint Karim Mia, Falik as there were Sulfi in their hand for killing the plaintiff hit three times on the thigh. The complaint Jahur road by the rod hit on the back of the plaintiff. The complaint Tofazzol made injuried hitting agin the defendant with rod. The complaint Khurshid by the stick to his nephew Torab Ali hit on the head. The complaint Amir Ali by the stick
Page No 8
Hit on the left hand of Torab Ali. The wife of the plaintiff as to save the plaintiff as came forward the complaint Abdur Razzak by the stick hit on the head and fallen on the soil. The complaint Kuthi Mia by the stick with his hand hit on the head of the plaintiff got injured seriously. The complaint Ataur hit with the stick in his hand to the wife of the plaintiff. Then the plaintiff and his people as screamed as the people was coming the complaints fled. The people there took them to the hospital in Balaganj. Then doctor made admitted in the hospital as they were seriously injuried examinig the victims. The victims got discharge certificate from the hospital. The plaintiff as got admitted in the hospital 5 minutes later received the news that the doctor in Balaganj health complex Monirul Amin Sujel declared dead to his son. He then got senseless. As he got back his sense the police questioned him. Then he told to the police about the incident and told the names of the complaints. The police recorded his speech. That has been seen from the mentioned witness that he told in his questioning that many witnesses among the witnesses are his relatives. All of the complaints are his community people. His on Nurul Amin Gang as becoming the plaintiff the civil case no 25/95 made against the complaint Vhan Mia, he does not know. He does not know about his nephew Saidul Amin Helal whther made any case or not. The incident place is about 500/600 hands away from his home. The incident place is corps land. He has feared as there was weapon in the hand of the complaints. The complaints made binded in the place therefore no they were not able to flee. There was blood in the incident place. The conflicts were about 15 minutes long. There were no people at the time of incident. They hit first to the son and then they were hit the plaintiff. He told in his questioning that it is not true, as there was conflicts between parties for the reason of land cases therefore the false report has been made. He told in his questioning also that it is not true that his son Monirul Islam Sujel has not got injuried in the incident place and there have not made any incident there in the time and place and the defendants were made involved in the false way to this case. It has been seen on the observation from the voice record and questioning that the witness is given on that the complaint Abdur Rahim and Haoarunnesa ordered the complaint GENDU MIAH then he hits in the left side of Monirul Amin Sujel. Then he has fallen on the soil the complaint Silik Mia to kill hits the right shoulders to the son of plaintiff with stick. Then complaint Abdul Kadir with the rod in his hand hit to the left side of the defendant made blooded. Then doctor declared him as dead as he has been taken the hospital as got admitted.
Page No 9
2nd no witness in prosecution party Nazrul Islam as examined his discusion that found in his voice record that, the incident date is 17/8/2000 at around 9.00 AM. Abdur Rahim and Haoarunnesa with his people as started to create boarder in th eland of Abdul Latif as made restriction and question they disregarded and creating boarder still. Then he (that witness) Karim, Alisha, Abdur Razzak, Saiful, Anis, Habibunnesa, Aftab as came stopped them. Then the defendants with sticks, sulfi, rod, weapon as was decorated made boarder around the victims by the order from Abdur Rahim and Haoarunnesa. The complaint GENDU MIAH with the sulfi in his hand hit in the left side of Monirul Amin Sujel and made blooded. Then as Monirul Amin Sujel fallen on the soil the complaint Silik with the stick in his hand hit the left side on Sujel and made him blooded. The complaint Abdul Kadir with the rod in his hand to kill Monirul Amin Sujel made injured seriously hitting the left side of the chest. Then the complaints blooded the plaintiff, his wife and nephew Torab. As questioned the mentioned witness told that went to the incident place at around 9.00 AM as heard the scream of Abdul Latif. He found the complaint with weapon in the incident place. The conflicts were in the north side of the home of Abdul Latifand he saw the attacks standing there. Monirul Amin Sujel was studying in the School of Boalzur High School. He was not gone to the school that day. As Sujel hit he has fallen on the soil. There was his father, mother beside Sujel. He told in his questioning also that, it is true that the complaints made restriction on the road andf Abdur Rahim and Haoarunnesa with the complaints attacked this has not said by the police. He told in his questioning also that it is not true that the complaints are not involved any way with the killing. He is neutral witness. It has been seen from his witness that the complaint Abdur Rahim, Haoarunnesa, GENDU MIAH, Silik Mia, and Abdul Kadir with united killed Monirul Amin Sujel.
3 no witness of the prosecution party as examined the discussion it has been seen that the witness is given on that last dated 17/8/2000 at around 8.30/8.45 minute Abdur and Haoarunnesa with people in the home of Abdul latif saw to have boarder. He gave that news to Abdul Latif. Then Abdul latif, Mortuza Bibi, Monirul Amin Sujel, Torab Ali, Nurul Islam and he went to the incident place. Then Abdur Rahim and Haoarunnesa ordered that kill the plaintiff and with this order the complaints and his people made boarder. The complaint GENDU MIAH hit the left side of Monirul Amin Sujel with stick. As Sujel got fallen on the soil the complaint with the stick in his hand hit the right shoulder of Nurul Amin Sujel and made blooded. Then the plaintiff Abdul Latif to protect his son as come forward the complaints his wife and nephew Torab made injured seriously and blooded with attack. Then as the injuries got admitted in the hospital sometimes later Monirul Amin Sujel the doctor
Page No 10
Declared dead as examined, as he questioned from the complaint party he told in his questioning that he is a farmer. He told also in his questioning that it is not true that he works in the home of plaintiff. He told in his questioning also that there were no people beside the land of him without him. He gave news that the complaints made boarder illegally. Sujel was the student of Boalzur School. The complaints made boarder and attacked. He gave voice record in Balaganj police station after about two/ two and half months later to the police at the time of investigation. He told also in his voice record that it is not true that he is a neutral witness and it has been proved from his witness that the complaint Abdur Rahim, Haoarunnesa, GENDU MIAH, Silik Mia and Abdul Kadir killed the victim Monirul Amin.
There has been seen as examined the witness no 4 of the prosecution party that the voice record is given on that he was in his home at the date of incident at 9.00 AM on 17/8/2003. He heard the scream went to the incident place. Then he saw in the possessed land of Abdul Latif the comp-laint Abdur Rahim and Haoarunnesa forcely made boarder. Then the complaint as screaming told kills the plaintiff party. And as order got from the complaint GENDU MIAH with stick in hand for killing the Monirul Amin Sujel hit on left side and he got fallen on the soil. Then the complaint Silik with stick in his hand to kill hit Monirul Amin Sujel on the right shoulder with stick. Therefore Sujel got injured seriously for that reason. Then the complaint Abdul Kadir with the rod in his hand to kill Monirul Amin Sujel made injured seriously hitting the left side of the chest. Then the complaints blooded the the plaintiff, his wife and nephew Torab. As questioned the mentioned witness told that went to the incident place at around 9.00 AM as heard the scream of Abdul Latif. He found the complaint with weapon in the incident place. The conflicts were in the north side of the home of Abdul Latifand he saw the attacks standing there. Monirul Amin Sujel was studying in the School of Boalzur High School. He was not gone to the school that day. As Sujel hit he has fallen on the soil. There was his father, mother beside Sujel. He told in his questioning also that, it is true that the complaints made restriction on the road andf Abdur Rahim and Haoarunnesa with the complaints attacked this has not said by the police. He told in his questioning also that it is not true that the complaints are not involved any way with the killing. He is neutral witness. It has been seen from his witness that the complaint Abdur Rahim, Haoarunnesa, GENDU MIAH, Silik Mia, and Abdul Kadir with united killed Monirul Amin Sujel.
There has been seen from the witness no 5 Mortuza Bibi of the prosecution party as examined the discussion that in his voice record that she was in his home at the date of incident at 9.00 AM on 17/8/2003. She heard the scream went to the incident place.
Page No 11
She was at her home got the news. Then she saw in the possessed land of Abdul Latif the complaint Abdur Rahim and Haoarunnesa forcely made boarder. Then the complaint as screaming told kills the plaintiff party. And as order got from the complaint GENDU MIAH with stick in hand for killing the Monirul Amin Sujel hit on left side and he got fallen on the soil. Then the complaint Silik with stick in his hand to kill hit Monirul Amin Sujel on the right shoulder with stick. Therefore Sujel got injured seriously for that reason. Then the complaint Abdul Kadir with the rod in his hand to kill Monirul Amin Sujel made injured seriously hitting the left side of the chest. Then the complaints blooded the the plaintiff, his wife and nephew Torab. As questioned the mentioned witness told that went to the incident place at around 9.00 AM as heard the scream of Abdul Latif. He found the complaint with weapon in the incident place. The conflicts were in the north side of the home of Abdul Latifand he saw the attacks standing there. Monirul Amin Sujel was studying in the School of Boalzur High School. He was not gone to the school that day. As Sujel hit he has fallen on the soil. There was his father, mother beside Sujel. He told in his questioning also that, it is true that the complaints made restriction on the road andf Abdur Rahim and Haoarunnesa with the complaints attacked this has not said by the police. He told in his questioning also that it is not true that the complaints are not involved any way with the killing. He is neutral witness. It has been seen from his witness that the complaint Abdur Rahim, Haoarunnesa, GENDU MIAH, Silik Mia, and Abdul Kadir with united killed Monirul Amin Sujel. People came to the incident within 25 minutes at the incident. His son Monirul Amin Sujel studied. She told in her questioning that it is not true that there was love relation with his son with the daughter of Pasondo Ullah named Jesmin and therefore there was conflict in family between. She told in her questioning also that no incident happened of the said incident palce and time and the complaint is no any way related to the Sujel killing and as because there was conflict with family of the complaint for long time therefore they have been made involved with this case. And there is no neutral witness out there and the injury report is false. There is seen from the mentioned witness that, she is the wife of plaintiff and mother of dead body victim. His witness is trustworthy that the complaint party no anything made happened in questioning of his witness that and the witness is clearly mentioned that with the real killer of the victim.
The witness no 6 Nesar Ali from the prosecution party is seen as examined the discussion that the voice record is given on that the date of incident is 17/8/2000 AD. He saw the dead body of Monirul Amin Sujel the son of Abdul Latif in the veranda of the hospital. He told in his questioning that he was the driver of the plaintiff. He told in his questioning that it is not true that the false witness is given.
The witness no 7 Saiful Amin from the prosecution party as examined his discussion it has been seen that the voice record is given on that the incident date is 17/8/2000 AD at about 9.00 AM as he was going to the store heard the screaming went to the incident place and saw that the complaints Abdur Rahim, Haoarunnesa and his people were creating boarder in the possessed land of the plaintiff. Then the complaint ordered the the complaint on that kill the people of defendants. Then other complaints made locked Abdul Latif and his companion.
Page No 12
The complaint GENDU MIAH with stick in hand for killing the Monirul Amin Sujel hit on left side and he got fallen on the soil. Then the complaint Silik with stick in his hand to kill hit Monirul Amin Sujel on the right shoulder with stick. Therefore Sujel got injured seriously for that reason. Then the complaint Abdul Kadir with the rod in his hand to kill Monirul Amin Sujel made injured seriously hitting the left side of the chest. Then the complaints blooded the the plaintiff, his wife and nephew Torab. As questioned the mentioned witness told that went to the incident place at around 9.00 AM as heard the scream of Abdul Latif. He found the complaint with weapon in the incident place. The conflicts were in the north side of the of the home of Abdul Latifand he saw the attacks standing there. Monirul Amin Sujel was studying in the school of Boalzur High school. He was not gone to the school that day. As Sujel hit he has fallen on the soil. There was his father, mother beside Sujel. He told in his questioning also that, it is true that the complaints made restriction on the road andf Abdur Rahim and Haoarunnesa with the complaints attacked this has not said by the polcie. He told in his qustioning also that it is not true that the complaints are notr involved any way with the killing. It is proved from his witness is that the killing the son of the plaintiff the complaint Abdur Rahim, Haoarunnesa, GENDU MIAH, Silik Mia and Abul Kadir is directly related.
There is seen as examined the witness from the discussion of 8 no witness in favor of prosecution party that the voice record is given on that he got informed that Monirul Islam got injured seriously. He found dead as he went to the hospital. As police made post mortem he gave signature there. He told in his questioning that there were doctors and police of about 20/25 people in the preparation of dead body. He told in his questioning that it is not true that the false witness is given.
There is seen from the examination of discussion of witness no 9 Abdur Razzak in favor of prosecution party that the voice record is given on that the incident date is 17/8/2000 at around 9.00 AM. He was with his brother Karim his nephew was on the yard of the home. . He heard the scream went to the incident place. Then he saw in the possessed land of Abdul Latif the comp-laint Abdur Rahim and Haoarunnesa forcely made boarder. Then the complaint as screaming told kills the plaintiff party. And as order got from the complaint GENDU MIAH with stick in hand for killing the Monirul Amin Sujel hit on left side and he got fallen on the soil. Then the complaint Silik with stick in his hand to kill hit Monirul Amin Sujel on the right shoulder with stick. Therefore Sujel got injured seriously for that reason. Then the complaint Abdul Kadir with the rod in his hand to kill Monirul Amin Sujel made injured seriously hitting the left side of the chest. Then the complaints blooded the the plaintiff, his wife and nephew Torab. As questioned the mentioned witness told that went to the incident place at around 9.00 AM as heard the scream of Abdul Latif. He found the complaint with weapon in the incident place. The conflicts were in the north side of the home of Abdul Latifand he saw the attacks standing there. Monirul Amin Sujel was studying in the School of Boalzur High School. He was not gone to the school that day. As Sujel hit he has fallen on the soil. There was his father, mother beside Sujel. He told in his questioning also that, it is true that the complaints made restriction on the road andf Abdur Rahim and Haoarunnesa with the complaints attacked this has not said by the police. He told in his questioning also that it is not true that the complaints are not involved any way with the killing. He is neutral witness. It has been seen from his witness that
Page No 13
The complaint Abdur Rahim, Haoarunnesa, GENDU MIAH, Silik Mia, and Abdul Kadir attacked to kill Monirul Amin Sujel.
There is seen as examined the discussion of 10 no witness Aftab Ali in favor of prosecution party he has given voice record on that last dated 17/8/2000 at around 9.00 AM the incident happened. As he heard the screaming in the south side of his home he runs there. He saw as went there Abdur Rahim and Haoarunnesa was creating boarder with people. Abdul Latif, and Monirul Amin Sujel, Mortuza Bibi and others made restriction to give boarder. Disregarding the restriction they were creating the boarder He has not seen who beats whom. He told in questing from the favor of government that it is not true that to protect the complaints that beat whom have not told. He told in his questioning as examined from the complaint party that the plaintiff is his cousin. There were conflicts on the road and there were blood on the street. The complaints are from the same community. He told in his questioning that it is not true that no incident that types happened. It has been seen the witness has not given statements of true incident and in support of his witness there is no neutral and direct witness. The witness of this witness is non acceptable.
There is seen as examined the witness from the witnesses above they have given witness which is mutually supported, reliable, and trustworthy that the complaints as was creating boarder in the land of the plaintiff the complaint Abdur Rahim, and Haoarunnesa as order given to GENDU MIAH, the complaint Abdul Kadir, the complaint Silik Mia made injured bloodly to kill the the victim Monirul Amin Sujel with different killing weapons and later the mentioned victim Monirul Amin Sujel as taken to the Balaganj hospital for the treatment the doctor declared him (Monirul Amin Sujel) dead.
The witness no 12 Hira Lal Datta as questioned from the prosecution party declared tender the complaint party has not made questioned.
11 no witness Amir Ali in favor of prosecution party as seen from the examination as discussed that in his voice record that, as was working as constable in Balaganj police station in local village in Pirpur the dead body of Suhel (Sujel) took to the post mortem of the dead body by the Chalan and then dead body later given to his relatives. He told in his questioning that his cloths were not taken.
14 no witness Nurunnabi as examined his discussion it is seen in favor of prosecution party that He took the dead body of Monirul Amin Sujel to the Osmani medical hospital by Chalan. In that he took the bloded lungi and genji. He told in his questioning that there is sign in the court.
There is seen as examined the mentioned 11 and 14 no witness in favor of the prosecution party that they are bearer of police constable and victim dead body Monirul Amin Sujel. So it is proved from there witness is that victim Monirul Islam is dead.
Page No 14
18 no witness Somorendra lal in favor of prosecution party it has been seen as examined the discussion that he is recording officer of the case.
13 no witness in favor of prosecution party Dr. Sirajul Islam it is seen from the examination of his discussion that he has given voice record on that as he was working in Balaganj police station as R.M.O the man named Abdul Latif, Mortuza Bibi and Torab Ali taken to the Balaganj police station treated in emergency department on dated last 17/8/2000 and the certificate is given related to that treatment. He told in his questioning that he examined himself the victim but he has not mentioned. He in his questioning denied that the injury is not serious and as because it fallen it can be same.
17 no witness Dr. M.A Shahid in favor of prosecution party it has been seen from the examination that he is assistant professor in Sylhet Osmani Medical College Hospital. He has given voice record on that he has accomplished the post mortem of Monirul Amin Sujel and at the time of investifation the marked as found in the body of the victim that was explained on that 1. One stab wound on the left side of the chest in between 4th & 5th intercostal space measuring 1”x1/2” body cavity. 2. One abrasion on the left shoulder region measuring 1” square diameter. On desection:- The left pleura the left lungs and the precardien of the heart was injured with profundus cloted blood in the thoracies cavity. The lung was conjusted. Other abdominal viseeras were stated above mention columns of the of the P.M. report. Openion:- Death in my opinion due heamorhage shock as a result of injury No. 1 caused by sharp pointed weapon in injury No. 2 and 3 caused by blunt weapon which waqs antemortem and homicidal in nature. There is his signature in the post mortem report. He told in his questioning as as complaint party was questioned as though the aversion made by fallen the aversion in this on the dead body was not made that way.
There is seen clearly from the 13 and 17 no witness doctor in favor of the prosecution [party that the victims got hit in different weapons and victim is Monirul Amin Sujel got dead by the hit of sharp weapon.
There is seen from the examination of 16 no witness in favor of prosecution party that he has given voice record that the investigation work is done as was working in the position of S.I in Balaganj police station on dated last 17/8/2000. He as examined the dead body sent the dead body for the post mortem to the Monirul Amin Sujel. He has taken the bloody cloths of the dead body. I have inspected the incident place as got the investigation duty of the case. The draft map is created of incident place, content is created, and the witness from the witnesses was written. The post mortem investigation report of the dead body and certificate from doctor of injuries is collected. Last dated 19/3/2001 as because of his replacement
Page No 15
The case doket is transferred. He told in his questioning that first time to the incident on dated 17/8/2000 went there. The bloody soil, bark of the bamboo, boarder of the bamboo is taken from the incident place. He told in questioning that the complaints are not involved in killing of Sujel and the investigation is not made in the correct way.
15 no witness from the prosecution party as examined his discussion it is seen that the voice record is made on that he as the position S.I as working in the police station of Balaganj last dated 3/4/2001 as got the duty of investigation written the statements of this witness. Later the examined the investigation complains is submitted against all of the complaints in the case. He told in his questioning that he has not visited the incident place. He told in questioning also it is not true that the investigation is not done correctly.
The mentioned 15 and 16 no witness as examined there discussion they are the investigation officer of the case. As the time of the incident visiting the incident place created the drafts of the incident and prepared the content and they made under the section 161 in civil crime and based on the witness as the complaints were the criminal proved and the complain is submitted in the court. There is seen that the complaint party based on the questioning they were unable to make out there witness and their witness seemed to us accepted on this case.
There is seen examining the prosecution party that the plaintiff were able to present in this court mutual supported oral witness and visible, neutral and strong prove to prove the case. There is seen from the oral witness of the witnesses in favor of prosecution party no 1 witness Abdul Latif is the neutral witness of this incident. No 3 witnesses Abdus Sattar in favor of prosecution party is the visitor and neutral witness of the incident. The witness no 5 in favor of prosecution party is Mortuza Bibi the wife of plaintiff and the mother of dead Monirul Amin Sujel and the witness of the incident. No 7 witness Saiful Alam and no 9 witness Abdur Razzak in favor of prosecution party in the direct visitor and neutral witness of the incident.
As mentioned from the direct witnesses it is seen mutually supported and trustworthy they all are in one voice and given the accepted witness that the complaint Abdur rahim and Haoarunnesa as ordered the complaint GENDU MIAH as was sharp sulfi in his hand hit Monirul Amin Sujel to kill him with it and made bloody injury and complaint Silik Mia and Abdul Kadir to have the death quick by the hit of weapon made sure the killing. There has been found more clear support on that the complaint GENDU MIAH within the sulfi on his hand as hit Monirul Amin Sujel for that mentioned Monirul Amin Sujel got fallen on the soil and as he was on the soil the complaint Abdul Kadir and Silik Mia in hand
Page No 16
Hit with the rod and stick and victim Monirul Amin got bloody injuried and later as he got admitted in Balaganj hospital as was in the time of death related doctor declared him dead. So it has been proved clearly that the complaint GENDU MIAH with the hit of sulfi Monirul Amin got bloody injured seriously and to make sure his death the complaint Abdul Kadir and Silik Mia with the stick and rod hit and as the victim got dead in the hospital. There is seen complaint Abdur Rahim and complaint Haoarunnesa as ordered the victim Monirul Islam got dead. So in favor of the prosecution from witnesses of the witness it is proved without doubt that complaint Abdur Rahim and complaint Haoarunnesa is the complaint of order and complaint GENDU MIAH, complaint Abdul Kadir and complaint Silik Mia killed Monirul Amin Sujel. In that the complaint GENDU MIAH is fully responsible and complaint Silik and complaint Kadir to kill the victim hit as their in cooperation and the complaint Abdur Rahim and complaint Haoarunnesa for killing the victim the order is given to the order complaints.
I have examined the filed papers, Shown mark-1 as serial the case and signature. There is seen in observation that the case maker in his complain told that the complain maker in his own possessed and bought land last dated 17/8/2000 at around 9.00 Abdur Rahim and his people with stick, stick sulfi rod and other weapons as was armed gave boarder in the land of plaintiff. As he made restriction the complaint GENDU MIAH with the sulfi in his hand the son of plaintiff to kill him hit and he got fallen on the soil. Then the complaint Silik Mia with the stick in his hand on the right hand of the victim and the complaint Abdul Kadir with rod in his hand on the left hand of the victim made injured bloody. Later the injuried plaintiff and his wife and son and nephew were taken to the hospital in Balaganj the duty doctor to his son Monirul Amin Sujel declared dead. As the witness is trustworthy of the case of prosecution case the case is submitted to the court shown ins marked. So it is seen in the case that the complaint GENDU MIAH direct and primary contributor and complaint Abdul Kadir and Silik Mia has helped them to kill the victim and the complaint Abdur Rahim and Haoarunnesa is order provider to kill the victim.
Display mark- 2 serial report and signature. It is seen that related police officer created post mortem report. There is mentioned in the report that dead Monirul Amin Sujel, age- 16 years. There is stain of the injury in the left shoulder of the dead body and there is mark of injury. Under the one and half inch bellow on the left and in the one inch of the chest there is injury of the sharp weapon. Which is hit entered inside to the lungs. Related officer informed in that time that with the sharp hit the victim got dead. So
Page No 17
The post mortem report proved that the victim is killed with the sharp weapon as in entered in lungs of the victim.
The shown mark- 3 as seen in the observation that it is taken and signatiure. It is seen from the taken materials that related police officer the blooded pieces of genji and blooded check lungi piece is rescued. So the taken signs it is proved that the victim is killed. It is seen from the shown- 4 that it is the Chalan of victim to send for the post mortem, Shown- 5 serial, serial, given- 6, given- 7, given- 8, given- 9 and given- 10 it is seen as examined that these are Abdul Latif, Torab Ali, and certificates of Mortuza Bibi and their release papers. These have made proved that Abdul Latif, Mortuza Bibi and Torab Ali was treated. The shown mark- 11 serial and signature. It has been seen from the examination that the sndo genji and check lungi of the dead body is taken. Shown mark- 14 as examined it is seen that the post mortem report of the dead body after completion of the related doctor is given. There is seen from the discussion is that the related doctor at the time to create post mortem the injuries as got that was mentioned clearly with the comments in the report that, The death was due to heamorrage and shock As a result of injury No 1 caused by sharp pointed weapon and injury No. 2 & 3 caused by blunt weapon. Which was ante mortem and homicidal in nature. So it is proved the post mortem that the victim is killed.
The mentioned shown mark proved the paper that the complaint Abdur rahim and Haoarunnesa, GENDU MIAH, Silik Mia and complaint Abdul Kadir is completely related to kill the victim and as the victim was killed this is proved by the post mortem report. So the submitted papers in favor of prosecution that, the complaint GENDU MIAH made injured bloody with the sharp weapon and the complaint and the complaints Silik Mia and Abdul Kadir hit the victim to have speedy death with sharp weapon and the related doctor declared the victim as dead, which is proved in post mortem. So the prosecution party became able to prove with oral and documents the crime of killing against Abdur Rahim, Haoarunnesa, GENDU MIAH, Silik Mia and the complaint Abdul Kadir therefore the case seemed to me acceptable and proved.
Specialist A.P.P in favor of prosecution gave speech that, prosecution party with appropriate and mutual supported oral and documentary supported witness providing the case proved without doubt to this court. The case now can be run in types and ways. The complaints as declaring criminal the punishable action can be taken. On the other hand the specialist in favor of complaint party gave speech that the prosecution party became unable to prove the case without doubt. The case cannot be run in the way and types. As because of the war in between parties he victim Monbirul Amin Sujel got dead. The complaints are involved in any way in case of the killing of him. Therefore the plaintiff party
Page No 18
And his people got injured by their own weapon. So the prosecution party was not able to present any neutral and acceptable witness to the court. The witnesses are mutually relatives and from the same community. There is no any value in terms of law. As the observation of the witness it can be seen that they have given different types from different people witness is given. There is no proved from their witness from the incident place as crime happened. Their witness is proved that both as the conflicts among them got injured. In reality no neutral and oral witness in favor of prosecution party became failed to prove the case. No incident happened in that time and place of the incident and the complaints in any way related to the crime, as because the prosecution party failed to prove the case above doubt therefore the complaints are to have free completely.
In the same way the specialist lawyer presenting to the honorable high court is that “The burden to prove the prosecution the prosecution case is on the prosecution along which never shifts (38 DLR (AD)”. “The onus of proven guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt is always on the prosecution (AIR 1944 Pat 308= AIR 1980 SC 1982= 1980 GL J 965)”. “Prosecution to prove every link in the chain of evidence to connect the accused with the crime (42 DLR 89)”, the specialist lawyer gave more speech that; the prosecution party was unable to prove without any doubt. In that case the honorable high court gave the decision that, The fundamental principle of criminal trial is that the accused shall be presumed innocent and that he is not required to adduce evidence to prove his innocence, but the entire burden of proof of his suit lies on the prosecution along (38 DLR (AD) 311= 1987 BLD (AD)1)”.
The complaint party specialist lawyer gave speech also is that different witness from the prosecution party gave the different speeches. On the other hand the complaint himself gave the speech as witness no witnesses out there gave any speech in support to him. There are many elements of doubt exist in the case. The more speech is given by the lawyer of complaint party is that, “In a criminal case it is the duty of the court to review the entire evidence that has been produced by the prosecution and defense. It after an examination of the whole evidence, The court is of the opinion that there is a reasonable possibility that defence put forward by the accused might be true, it is clear that such a view reacts on the whole prosecution case. In these circumstances the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt not a matter of grace but as of right, because the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt (Safdar Ali Vs the Crown 5 DLR (FC) 107)”.
Page No 19
The specialist lawyer gave more speech that, “A criminal trial is not like fairy tale wherein one is free to give flight to one’s imagination and phantacy. It concerns itself with question as to whether the accused arraigntion at the trial is guilty of the crime with which he is charged. Crime is an event in real life and is product of interplay of the different human emotions. In arriving to conclusion as to guilt of the accused charged with commission of the crime. Court has to judge evidence by yardstick of probabilities, its inherent worth and animus of witness (The State Vs. Md. Ali Kibria 1991 BLD 336).” The specialist lawyer of the complaint party gave more speech is also that as because the prosecution party became unable to prove the case without doubt so the case is will be failed and the complaints are eligible to get free completely.
As hearing the speech of both of the parties I saw that the specialist A.P.P of prosecution party gave more acceptable speech. I am agreed on his speech. As observing all of the witness from the prosecution it has been seen that the prosecution party took all of the legal steps to prove the case. In this it is seen the complaint made the case, in his possessed land the complaint forcedly giving boarder and the plaintiff as got the news made restriction to have boarder the complaints got agitated and beat his people in that situation his son Monirul Amin Sujel made injured seriously with the killing weapon and therefore the victim Monirul Amin Sujel got dead in the hospital. It has been seen that complain is made against the complaints under the law of 149/302/34 sections and the specialist court made charge on that sections. It is seen that the case the complaint party brought their claim on that as with the plaintiff party as the conflict got started with the hit of plaintiff the victim Monirul Amin Sujel got dead. It has been known from the honorable high court is that, “In a criminal trial the charge brought against the accused shall be proved by the prosecution. The accused is not required to prove his innocence (innocence), but he takes any special plea, that the onus he is upon him to proved it (BCR 1986 AD 239)”. But there is seen the complaint party was unable to present any witness to this court as per the claim. From the decision of high court it has been known that, “The onus is on accused to give explanation when the aternative theory of the guilt is a remote possibility (43 I.C 605)”.
There is also seen from the case is that, the complaint party the specialist lawyer gave speech that, there was no any motive at the time of conflict got started, to kill the victim. It has been known from the decision of the honorable high court is that, “The discovery of the true motive for a crime is not imperative in every case (A.I>R 1973 S.C 337 (342-343)”. “The failure to discover the motive of an offence does not signify its non- existence. The failure to prove motive is not fatal as matter of low. Proof of
Page No 20
Motive is never an indispensable for conviction. When facts are clear it is immaterial that no motive has been proved. Therefore absence of proof of motive does not break the link in the chain of circumstances connecting the accused with the crime, nor militates against the prosecution case (AIR 1992 SC 1175)”.
The specialist lawyer from the complaint party told also that, the witnesses from the plaintiff parties are mutually relatives. There is any witness value in their witness. It has been from the decision of honorable high court that, “A witness may be the brother of the deceased and therefore an interested witness by this is not sufficient to demolish his testimony. Its evidence is reliable when there is nothing in his cross- examination to shake his credit (1976 U.P G.C. 109 (110) All)”. Mere relationship is no reason to disbelieve a witness; if he is otherwise found trustworthy (4 SCD 97)”. The case is seen in total of 07 visible witnesses. There is known from the honorable high court that)”. “The evidence of the eye- witness, if accepted, is sufficient to warrant conviction though in appropriate cases the Court may as a measure of caution seek some confirming circumstances from other sources. But ordinary the evidence of truthful eye- witness is sufficient without anything more, to warrant a conviction and cannot, for instance, be made to depend for its acceptance of the truthfulness of other items of evidence such as recovery of weapons, etc. (1985 Cr.L.J. 1173 (1174) (S.C) A.I.R 1985 S.C 866).” Evidence of eye witness cannot be rejected only on the ground this their manes did not figure in the inquest report (Khajji @ Surendra Tiwari V. State of M.P 1991 (3) Crimes 82).” It is seen from this case that some of the complaints are in fled. The decision from the honorable high court is that, “The conduct of a person in abscondinding after the commission of the offence is evidence to show that he was concerned in the offence (PLD 1965 lah 656).
There is seen from the prosecution party as presented the witness to prove his case are enough witnesses. The decision from the honorable high court is that, “Conviction can be based sole testimony of a witness if it appears to be truthful (Biswamber Meher V. State of Orissa 1988 (2) Crimes 293 Call)”. “Conviction can be safely being based on the solititary evidence of an eye- witness (Abdul Hai Sikdar Vs. State 43 (1991) DLR (AD) 95”. Conviction can be based on the basis of the evidence of a single witness of quality believed by court and found wholly reliable (1191 BLD 11; 38 DLR (AD) ; 29 DLR (SC) 211)”.
There is seen from the case that the complaint GENDU MIAH hit the school student with sulfi which was very sharp and mentioned hit was life killing as because of the hit. It is inhuman
Page No 21
Attack and that types Cold blooded and cruel non human types and to make sure the dead of the victim the complaint GENDU MIAH attacked Monirul Amin Sujel. It is the duty of the court to impose a proper punishment depending upon the degree of criminality and desirably to impose punishment. The accused deserve no sympathy. The decision from the honorable high court is that, Death sentence is to be imposed when the murder is admitted in a brutal manner or when the nature of the crime is ghastyly (AIR 1975 SC 1501 (1505)= 1975 Cr. L.J. 334 Gaua).
There is seen from the mentioned file, circumstance and incident is that the complaint GENDU MIAH to kill the victim hit on the left side of the victim and the complaint Silik Mia nad Abdul Kadir with the stick and rod in their hands made speedy the kill of the victim and the complaint Abdur Rahim and complaint Haoarunnesa as because of this reason got the victim dead for this reason as ordered the complaints to kill the victim helped and the prosecution party neutral, strong, reliable, trustworthy orally and in documents as the witness is given the case complaint Abdur Rahim, Haoarunnesa, GENDU MIAH, Silik Mia, Abdul Kadir, as become to prove the case without any doubt therefore the case the case can be run on the way and types of the present. The complaint Abur Rahim, Haoarunnesa, GENDU MIAH, Silik Mia and Abdul Kadir as per the section of punishment law in 149/302/34 can be the complained and as per the sections making them criminal declaring for punishment and prosecution party can get exempt from his view. So the subjects of the judgments in favor on prosecution the decision is taken. Actively: The case is passed.
Therefore,
The order is that,
As the prosecution is above of all of the doubt the complaint of his case 1) Abdur Rahim (Dead), 2) Haoarunnesa (In fled), 3) GENDU MIAH (In fled), Silik Mia, and 5) Abdul Kadir (In detained) became able to prove against them so this complaints as per the sections of punishable law 149/302/34 the complain is made and as per mentioned as considering the importance of the crime and situation they have been declared criminal. 1) GENDU MIAH, father- Kuti Mia, village- Pirpur, Police Station- Balaganj, District- Sylhet is given death penalty and he has been fined 1,00,000/- (One lakhs) taka in finance. The complaint 2) Haoarunnesa, husband- Abdur Rahim, 3) Abdul Kadir, father- Abdur Rahman, 4) Silik Mia, father- Kuthi Mia, all of villege Pirpur, police station- Balaganj, district- Sylhet they have been give lifelong imprisonment and they all have been fined 1,00,000/- (One Lakhs) taka for each. The fined money will get the plaintiff party. If the fined money is not received every complaint will get another 05 (five) years without any labor.
The hang up of the complaint GENDU MIAH will be effective on that, he has to be activate the hang up in strong wire so that as is to make sure he has to be hanged up until the death in dock of hanging.
Page No 22
The punishment received fled complaints if surrender themselves or police arrest them the mentioned order will be effective on them as well. Convictional warrant is issued against the punishment received complaints. The lifetime imprisonment will be imposed as the section 35-A of civil law.
As the complaint 6) Abdur Razzak (Dead), father- Abdul Gani, 7) Sabud Ali, father- Abdul Aziz, 8) Salek Mia, father- Kuthi Mia, 9) Jahur Ali, father- Abdur Nur Ali, 10) Abul Hossen, father- Abdul gani, 11) Ataur Rahman, father- Late Md. Zakir, 14) Abdul Aziz, father- Late Miadhon Ullah, 15) Moksud Ali, father- Late Akser Ali known as Sali, 16) Amir Ali, father- Abdun Nur, (In bail), 17) Folik Mia, father- Chan Mia, 18) Tahur Ali known as Tafur Ali, father- Abdun Nur, 19) Tofazzol Ali, father- Abdul Aziz, 20) Toimus Ali, father- Abdul Aziz, 21) Khurshid Ullah, father- Arabdi known as Arab Ullah, 22) Abdus Salam, father- Abdur Rahim, all of village- Pirpur, police station- Balaganj, District- Sylhet aginst them the case as because the case was not proved as above of doubt in orally and documents in favor of prosecution party. So the exempt is to make against them from all of complains and as because of no complain is proved against them they have been made free totally. And if any warrant is issued against them that has been cancelled.
The core of the file is to send soon as per the civil law of section 374 of the death penalty received GENDU MIAH of the death penalty in the honorable high court division, with the decree to the honorable registrar for the necessary confirmation of supreme court.
The copy of this decree is to send to the specialist chief judiacial magistrate and district magistrate, Sylhet.
The taken signs is to make return as per the regulation of the complain maker plaintiff. There is corrected and written as per the speech of me.
Sd/ Illegible
28/6/2010
(Md. Monjurul Haque Khan)
Additional Daira Judge, 5th no Court in charge)
Sylhet
Prodip/
Examiner:-
Sd/ Illegible
12/7/2010
Auditor:- Sd/ Illegible
12/7/2010
Sh: Aa:
28/6/2010 AD
(Md. Monjurul Haque Khan)
Additional Daira Judge, 5th No Court (In charge)
Sylhet
No comments:
Post a Comment