Criminal Trial
An irregular order of a court of unlimited jurisdiction can be set aside by it on the application either under the rules of court dealing expressly with setting aside orders for irregularity or ex debitio justitiae if the circumstances warrant. (SK SINHA, J, AGREEING WITH NAZMUN ARA SULTANA, J) State vs Dafader Marfoth Ali Shah, 68 DLR (AD) 13
One part of evidence of a witness even if is rejected the other part of the evidence of the same witness may be accepted. (NAZMUN ARA SULTANA, J) State vs Dafader Marfoth Ali Shah, 68 DLR (AD) 13
International Crimes Tribunal-The trial has taken place after 42 years. Most of the material evidence are lost due to death of the witnesses and some of them left the country to avoid similar brutal eventuality. Many surviving witnes- ses are not tended to disclose the actual incident because of the harrowing incidents of brutalities perpetrated against unarmed innocent people of the locality. More so, the accused is a powerful political leader of the locality and therefore, the living witnesses are not dared to depose against him. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury vs Chief Prosecutor, International Crimes Tribunal, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 67 DLR (AD) 295
Non-seizure of "Kupee Bati" obviously used in the hut of the deceased at the time of occurrence is merely an omission of the investigating officer which can be the fatal for prosecution as other cogent and reliable evidence is available. Maku Rabi Das vs State, 65 DLR (AD) 240
-Omission of the investigating officer cannot be made fatal when the charge is otherwise found to be proved beyond any shadow of doubt. Maku Rabi Das vs State, 65 DLR (AD) 240
-An irregular order of a court of unlimited jurisdiction can be set aside by it on the application either under the rules of court dealing expressly with setting aside orders for irregularity or ex debitio justitiae if the circumstances warrant. (SK SINHA, J, AGREEING WITH NAZMUN ARA SULTANA, J) State vs Dafader Marfoth Ali Shah, 68 DLR (AD) 13
-One part of evidence of a witness even if is rejected the other part of the evidence of the same witness may be accepted. (NAZMUN ARA SULTANA, J) State vs Dafader Marfoth Ali Shah, 68 DLR (AD) 13
-International Crimes Tribunal-The trial has taken place after 42 years. Most of the material evidence are lost due to death of the witnesses and some of them left the country to avoid similar brutal eventuality. Many surviving witnesses are not tended to disclose the actual incident because of the harrowing incidents of brutalities perpetrated against unarmed innocent people of the locality. More so, the accused is a powerful political leader of the locality and therefore, the living witnesses are not dared to depose against him. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury vs Chief Prosecutor, International Crimes Tribunal, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 67 DLR (AD) 295.
-No objection as to sanction was raised during the trial nor any such objection was raised even during the appeal, and it is for the first time in the Appellate Division that the question of sanction has been raised. Held-objection, if any, as to sanction, must be taken at the time of the trial. Liakat Ali vs State 42 DLR (AD) 30.
- Where there is direct evidence for implicating an accused in an offence the absence of proof of motive not material. Shah Alam vs State 42 DLR (AD) 31.
-Criminal Court in a proceeding under section 145 not to say anything regarding the title of the case land. -Mere pendency of a new partition suit will not operate as a bar to the initiation of proceeding under section 145 CrPC.
The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court of Pakistan 23 DLR (SC) 14 has been followed by our Appellate Division in the case of Md Shahabul Huda vs Md Shafi 36 DLR (AD) 44.
-Two versions of the same occurrence- Simultaneous hearing and disposal of both the cases desirable. Alauddin Mollah vs State. 40 DLR (AD) 282.
-Appellant's gross laches in approaching the High Court Division for simultaneous trial of both the cases. Alauddin Mollah vs State. 40 DLR (AD) 282.
-Purpose of holding a simultaneous trial is lost if there is a long gap between the two trials. Alauddin Mollah vs State. 40 DLR (AD) 282.
-Two versions of the incident, one in evidence in Court and another in the ejahar- glaring discrepancies-No reliance to be placed on such evidence. Shajahan Biswas vs State 40 DLR (AD) 291.
-Special rules of proof in criminal trial-In a criminal trial the prosecution is obliged to establish by evidence that the crime charged has been committed before seeking to prove that the accused on trial committed the crime. Babul vs State 42 DLR (AD) 186.
Trial of cross-cases-The usual practice of trial of cross-cases is that both should be tried by the same judge simultaneously or one after another and judgments therein should be delivered after concluding the hearing of both. Siddique Munshi vs State 44 DLR (AD) 169.
The process of trial of cross cases is that both should be tried by the same judge simultaneously or one after another and judgment therein should be delivered after concluding the hearing of both the cases and in such trial, record of cases should be kept distinct and separate and evidence of one case cannot be used in another case and each case must be decided on its own evidence and record. State vs Matiur Rahman 60 DLR (AD) 4.
-The prosecution is not bound to prove motive of the accused for committing the crime, for motive is not an ingredient of the offence- The accused may be held guilty even without proof of his motive if the evidence connecting the accused with the crime is unimpeachable in character. Shah Alam vs State 42 DLR (AD) 31.
-Defence plea, when not acceptable-Plea of inadvertence, liable to be rejected if not taken during the trial but argued subsequently.
Accused Fishery Officer did not take the plea of inadvertence during his trial on the charge of manipulation of lease deed which was argued on his behalf subsequently-no suggestion was made to any of the witnesses that on the date of executing the lease deed on government's behalf, he was very busy as many other lease deeds were executed by him and by inadvertence, he executed the lease deed in question by putting his signature thereon-During examination under the section 342 CrPC all the incriminating facts in evidence were put to him in details by the Court, but he did not take the plea and just pleaded not guilty-plea of inadvertence due to pressure of work rightly rejected. Atiqur Rahman vs State 42 DLR (AD) 176.
Criminal Trial-Non-seizure of "Kupee Bati" obviously used in the hut of the deceased at the time of occurrence is merely an omission of the investigating officer which can be the fatal for prose- cution as other cogent and reliable evidence is available. Maku Rabi Das vs State, 65 DLR (AD) 240
Criminal Trial-Omission of the investigating officer cannot be made fatal when the charge is otherwise found to be proved beyond any shadow of doubt. Maku Rabi Das vs State, 65 DLR (AD) 240
Criminal Trial-An irregular order of a court of unlimited jurisdiction can be set aside by it on the application either under the rules of court dealing expressly with setting aside orders for irregularity or ex debitio justitiae if the circumstances warrant. (SK SINHA, J, AGREEING WITH NAZMUN ARA SULTANA, J) State vs Dafader Marfoth Ali Shah, 68 DLR (AD) 13
Criminal Trial-One part of evidence of a witness even if is rejected the other part of the evidence of the same witness may be accepted. (NAZMUN ARA SULTANA, J) State vs Dafader Marfoth Ali Shah, 68 DLR (AD) 13
Criminal Trial-International Crimes Tribunal-The trial has taken place after 42 years. Most of the material evidence are lost due to death of the witnesses and some of them left the country to avoid similar brutal eventuality. Many surviving witnes- ses are not tended to disclose the actual incident because of the harrowing incidents of brutalities perpetrated against unarmed innocent people of the locality. More so, the accused is a powerful political leader of the locality and therefore, the living witnesses are not dared to depose against him. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury vs Chief Prosecutor, International Crimes Tribunal, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 67 DLR (AD) 295
