Acid
Aporad Daman Ain [1 of 2002]
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 ap- pellant.
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 inconsis-tencies in the evidence of the P.W.2-the victim, the discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the improba-bilities revealed from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses made the very prosec-ution case doubtful and in the circums-tances the accused-appellants could not be held guilty of the charges le- velled against them. The State Vs. Md. Emadul Haque (Criminal) 12 ALR (AD) 58-60
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) and 7-The evidence of witnesses sufficiently proved the pros- ecution
case that the accused person threw acid on the victim Jharna Begum causing
serious burn injuries on differ- ent 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 ac- cused-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 corrobo- rated the
victim Jharna Begum. These wit- nesses 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
occur- rence. Two doctor witnesses also has de- posed 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 prosecu- tion 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 dif- ferent parts of her body including the
right chin and throat. Considering the very alle- gation and the evidence on
record the trial court rightly convicted this accused-peti- tioner 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. How-
ever, 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 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 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.
