Acid Aparadh Daman Ain (II of 2002) (এসিড অপরাধ দমন আইন)
Section 5(Ka), (Kha)
After getting release from the previous occurrence the accused has done this occurrence of acid throwing. The State vs. Md. Sadek Hossain (Mohammad Fazlul Karim J) (Criminal) 6 ADC 345
Section 5(Ka)
The Evidence Act, 1872
Section 134
Sentence to death–– A man may tell a lie but the circumstances do not.” There are very strong reliable and clinching circumstantial evidence which clearly indicates that it is the appellant and none else who was guilty of throwing acid to his wife, the victim. Though the testimony of injured witness herself is sufficient to sustain conviction and no further corroboration is required, the prosecution has in addition, led evidence to connect the appellant with crime. The learned Courts below did not commit any error of law in believing the testimonies of P.Ws.2, 6, 7 and 11–– The damage caused by the accused throwing acid on the victim is immense. The Court must not only keep a keen view of the rights of the criminal, but also of the right of the victim of the crime and the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate sentence. As throwing acid on a young girl is not less dangerous than murder and the same can not be tolerated by any father, mother, brother and sisters of the girl and the society at large. It would be a mockery of justice to permit the appellant to escape the extreme penalty of law. In order to curb and control the increasing rate of acid attacks, an exemplary punishment was required to be awarded and the Courts below rightly did the same–– The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court, which has been affirmed by the High Court Division is hereby maintained. Jail Petition No.08 of 2015 is disposed of. .....Akbar Ali(Md.) @Jelhaque Mondal =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2022(2) [13 LM (AD) 288]
Sections 5(Ka), 5(Kha)
The inconsistencies, discrepancies and the improbabilities revealed from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses casts a serious doubt upon the whole prosecution story and thus High Court Division held that the prosecution had not been able to bring home the charge against the appellant.
The Appellate Division observed that it appears that the High Court Division has examined and considered all the evidence on record thoroughly and properly and rightly pointed out the inconsistencies, discrepancies and improbabilities came out from these evidence of the own witnesses of the prosecution. The High Court Division, considering these inconsistencies, discrepancies and improbabilities pointed out in the judgment, rightly held that these inconsistencies in the evidence of the P.W.2-the victim, the discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the improbabilities revealed from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses made the very prosecution case doubtful and in the circumstances the accused-appellants could not be held guilty of the charges levelled against them. The State -Vs.- Md. Emadul Haque (Criminal) 12 ALR (AD) 58-60
Sections 5(Ka) and 7
The evidence of witnesses sufficiently proved the prosecution case that the accused person threw acid on the victim Jharna Begum causing serious burn injuries on different parts of her body including the right chin and throat. Considering the very allegation and the evidence on record the trial court rightly convicted this accused-person.
The Appellate Division observed that it appears that in this case the prosecution adduced sufficient evidence to prove the charge against the accused persons. The victim Jharna Begum herself has deposed before the Tribunal stating that this accused-petitioner Milon and accused Hamid Molla threw acid on her from a steel glass causing burn injuries on different parts of her body and at that time she recognized the accused Milon and Hamid Molla. The other P.Ws. including Halima Begum-the mother of the victim has strongly corroborated the victim Jharna Begum. These witnesses deposed that they saw the accused persons with the light of torch when they were fleeing away and that they also heard about the occurrence from the victim Jharna Begum immediate after the occurrence. Two doctor witnesses also has deposed in this case stating that there were several burn injuries on the person of the victim Jharna Begum which was caused by corrosive substance. The evidence of these witnesses sufficiently proved the prosecution case that this accused-petitioner Milon along with co-accused Hamid Molla and others threw acid on the victim Jharna Be-gum causing serious burn injuries on different parts of her body including the right chin and throat. Considering the very allegation and the evidence on record the trial court rightly convicted this accused-petitioner and others to rigorous imprisonment of 14 years. The High Court Division how-ever, reduced the sentence of this accused-petitioner to 7 years imprisonment. However, Appellate Division finds no reason to allow this Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal and hence it is dismissed. Milon-Vs.-The State (Criminal) 12 ALR (AD) 85-86
Section 11(3)
Period of investigation or further investigation
The Tribunal by such provision is not empowered to increase or enlarge statutory schedule of time fixed, by the legislature beyond extended time, for the purpose of investigation or further investigation. Mokbul Hosen & Ors. Vs The State 13 BLT (HCD) 564
Section 13
The learned Judge of the Tribunal acted in accordance with the law in bringing the matter to the notice of the authority concerned in accordance with section 13 of the Acid Aparadh Daman Ain, 2002. We also note that the learned Judge of the Tribunal observed that all three Investigating Officers were negligent in their duties and a direction to the authority concerned was regarding all three of the Investigating Officers of that case. We find from the order of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal that it was observed that although no action was taken against the first Investigating Officer, namely Md. Akram Hossain and third Investigating Officer, Md. Mahfuzur Rahman for neglecting their duties, a departmental proceeding was started against the respondent Ranjit Krishna Mazumder, who was the second Investigating Officer. The Administrative Appellate Tribunal held that this was a discriminatory act and the respondent’s application before the Administrative Tribunal was rightly allowed. …Bangladesh & ors Vs. Ranjit Krishna Mazumdar, (Civil), 8 SCOB [2016] AD 141
Section 13
Discrimination –
We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the decision arrived at by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal. Evidently there was discrimination practiced by the petitioners in taking departmental action against the respondent alone when the Acid Aparadh Daman Tribunal highlighted neglect of duties of all three Investigating Officers, who were all on the same footing. the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Division. .....Govt. of Bangladesh & others =VS= Ranjit Krishna Mazumder (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 370]
Section 20
The Tribunal has no locus standi to withdraw earlier Order for further investigation by C.I.D. and decided to hold Judicial enquiry by itself.
Section 22 provides that provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure is. applicable in the matter of institution, investigation and trial of any case and the Tribunal constituted under the Acid Domon Ain is a Sessions Judge and will exercise all the power of Sessions Judge in trial of the offence under the Ain and accordingly Tribunal decided to hold a judicial inquiry as prayed for Sessions Judge into acid offence alleged in the F.I.R. and in doing so Tribunal is not required to withdraw or recall its earlier order dated 17.8.2004 for further investigation inasmuch as additional tenure of time not exceeding fifteen days to complete further investigation as mandated under Sub-section (3) expired on 1.9.2004 and, therefore, lost its force automatically. Mokbul Hosen & Ors. Vs The State 13 BLT (HCD) 564
Section 23(2)- Government by notification in the Official gazette shall establish Tribunal or Tribunals to try the cases arising out of the Ain, 2002. In fact, the Government in exercise of powers conferred under section 23(1) of the Ain, 2002 established one Tribunal in each District for trial of the cases arising out of the Ain, 2002. From the gazette notification published in Bangla- desh Extraordinary Gazette dated 3rd April 2002, we find that in exercise of powers conferred under section 23(1) of the Ain, 2002, the Government established one Tribunal for each District to try the cases arising out of the Ain, 2002. State vs Nitish Mondal 60 DLR 334.
Section 23(4)-The question of jurisdiction of the Court is not a mere technicality, but it is fundamental in nature. Our this view gets support from a decision of the case of Managing Director, Rupali Bank Limited vs Tafazal Hossain, 44 DLR (AD) 260. State vs Nitish Mondal 60 DLR 334.
Section 23(4)
The question of jurisdiction the Court is not a mere technicality, but it is fundamental in nature. Our this view gets support from a decision of the case of Managing Director, Rupali Bank Limited vs Tafazal Hossain, 44 DLR (AD) 260.