None of the brothers and sons of the deceased was examined. Not a single neutral neighbouring people was examined. Due to their non-examination presumption would be had they been examined they would not have supported the prosecution story. Non-production of the wife of the deceased, an alleged injured witness, raises serious doubt as to the truth of the prosecution case. Abul Kalam & Ors. Vs. The State 14 BLT (HCD)214
Section -114(g) ?????? ?????????? ?? ???????? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ?????? ??? ??? ?? ??????? ?????? ?? ?????? ??? ????? ??????? ?????? ??????? ??? ???? ?? ???????? ??????? ??? ???(??) ????? ????? ? ???? ???????? ?????? Md. Motiar Rahman Vs. Mst Asia Khatun & Ors 15 BLT (HCD)313
Adverse presumption
Unless it is shown that the witnesses named in the charge sheet were material witnesses in the case, no adverse inference against the prosecution should be drawn under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act for non-examination of all those witnesses. Md. Reazuddin Sardar alias Md. Reazuddin and others Vs. The State, 14BLD (AD)178
Non-examination of important witnesses, particularly some of the neighbours, without reasonable explanation raises a presumption against the prosecution to the effect that had they been examined, they would not support the prosecution case. Benefit of doubt—Even if there may be elements of truth in the prosecution case against the accused, that by itself is not sufficient for conviction. Between “may be true” and “must be true” there is inevitably a long distance to travel and whole of the distance must be covered by the prosecution by legal and reliable evidence. Dula Mm alias Nurul Islam and others The State, 14BLD(HCD)477
Non-examination of material witness and the adverse presumption against the genuineness of the prosecution case Convict-petitioner was convicted for the offence under section 19(3) of the Narcotics Control Act, 1990 and conviction and sentence were also affirmed by the Sessions judge in Appeal. The learned judge of the High Court Division set aside the order of conviction and sentence in view of absence of any evidence on record showing that the land wherefrom the ganja plants were recovered actually belongs to the convict-petitioner. Shasher Ali Vs. The State 12 MLR (2007) (HC) 38.
Adverse presumption for non-examination of material witness Onus of proving the charge against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt entirely lies upon the prosecution. Non-examination of material witness without satisfactory explanation raises adverse presumption against the prosecution case resulting in the acquittal of the convict-appellant on benefit of doubt. Linckon Dewan @ Dewan Nurul Huda Vs. The State 11 MLR (2006) (HC) 432.
Before the trial court from the side of the plaintiff 2 witnesses have been examined. P.W. I is the Plaintiff himself and P.W. 2 is one Chand Mia who is an attesting witness of the questioned document. The scribe has not been examined and no explanation has been given from the side of the plaintiff for his non- examined to prove that when the document was written and executed the last portion indicating the mortgage was there in the kabala and that has not been subsequently inserted as alleged by the defence. This non- examination of the scribe led to an adverse presumption against the plaintiff to the fact that had he been examination. The scribe ought to have been examined to prove that when the document was written and executed the last portion indicating the mortgage was there in the kabala and that has not been subsequently inserted as alleged by the defence. This non-examination against the plaintiff to the fact that had he been examined he would not have supported the plaintiff version of the case of mortgage. Asmat Ali Vs. Abdur Rafique Mridha & Ors. 9BLT (AD)-77
We upon considering the materials on record and considering that none of tile witness including the husband Tuli and Moina was examined and due to their non-examination presumption would be that had they been examine they would not have supported the prosecution stow raises a serious doubt as to the truth of the prosecution case. Khan Yeakub Ali Vs. The State & Ors 16 BLT (AD)255
Non-examination of witnesses
For non-examination of witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet, the Court can be called upon to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution only when it can be shown that they were material witnesses in the case. Evidence Act, 1872, Ss. 114(g)
Md. ReazuddinSardar alias Md Rea- zuddin and others Vs. The State, 14BLD (AD)176
If there is possibility of presence of other witnesses, it is the prosecution to explain why other witnesses have been withheld. If no explanation is given and if the witness is not wholly believable and if it is found that there is long standing animosity between the parties, the court will be left with no option other than to discard the evidence of the said witness.
The Appellate Division held that conviction in a murder case can be based even on testimony of a single witness if the same is found acceptable after subjecting his testimony to a critical and objective test in the light of the principles laid down by the superior courts. A corroboration of other witnesses depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. If there is possibility of presence of other witnesses, it is the prosecution to explain why other witnesses have been withheld. If no explanation is given and if the witness is not wholly believable and if it is found that there is long standing animosity between the parties, the court will be left with no option other than to discard the evidence of the said witness. These are the established jurisprudence and we are not inclined to depart from the views taken by the superior courts in this regard. Kazem Uddin alias Kazi Vs. The State (Criminal) 15 ALR (AD) 54-59
যদি অন্যান্য সাক্ষ্য উপস্থিত থাকার সম্ভাবনা থাকে, তাহলে অভিযোগকারীপক্ষকে ব্যাখ্যা করতে হবে কেন অন্যান্য সাক্ষ্যকে প্রত্যাহার করা হয়েছে। যদি কোন ব্যাখ্যা না দেওয়া হয় এবং যদি সাক্ষ্য সম্পূর্ণভাবে বিশ্বাসযোগ্য না হয় এবং যদি দেখা যায় যে পক্ষগুলির মধ্যে দীর্ঘস্থায়ী শত্রুতা রয়েছে, তাহলে আদালতের কাছে উক্ত সাক্ষ্যের প্রমাণ বাতিল করা ছাড়া কোন বিকল্প থাকবে না।
আপিল বিভাগ রায় দিয়েছেন যে একটি হত্যা মামলায় দোষী সাব্যস্তকরণ এমনকি একটি মাত্র সাক্ষীর সাক্ষ্যের উপরও ভিত্তি করে হতে পারে যদি তার সাক্ষ্যকে উচ্চ আদালত দ্বারা নির্ধারিত নীতিমালার আলোকে একটি সমালোচনামূলক এবং উদ্দেশ্যমূলক পরীক্ষার পরে গ্রহণযোগ্য পাওয়া যায়। অন্যান্য সাক্ষীর সমর্থন প্রতিটি মামলার ঘটনা এবং পরিস্থিতির উপর নির্ভর করে। যদি অন্যান্য সাক্ষ্য উপস্থিত থাকার সম্ভাবনা থাকে, তাহলে অভিযোগপক্ষকে ব্যাখ্যা করতে হবে কেন অন্যান্য সাক্ষ্যকে প্রত্যাহার করা হয়েছে। যদি কোন ব্যাখ্যা না দেওয়া হয় এবং যদি সাক্ষ্য সম্পূর্ণভাবে বিশ্বাসযোগ্য না হয় এবং যদি দেখা যায় যে পক্ষগুলির মধ্যে দীর্ঘস্থায়ী শত্রুতা রয়েছে, তাহলে আদালতের কাছে উক্ত সাক্ষ্যের প্রমাণ বাতিল করা ছাড়া কোন বিকল্প থাকবে না। এগুলি প্রতিষ্ঠিত আইনবিজ্ঞান এবং আমরা এই বিষয়ে উচ্চ আদালতের গৃহীত মতামত থেকে সরে আসতে ইচ্ছুক নই। কাজেম উদ্দিন উপাধ্যায় কাজি বনাম দ্য স্টেট (ক্রিমিনাল) 15 ALR (AD) 54-59।
With holding the vital witnesses without any satisfactory explanation an adverse presumption under Section 114(g) of the Act must be drawn against the prosecution.
Abul Hashem Vs. State (Criminal), 18 BLC (2013)-HCD-16.
Non examination of witnesses-Withholding of prosecution witnesses deems that if they would have been examined they would not have supported the prosecution case.
Ishaque Ali (Md) Vs. State (Criminal), 18 BLC (2013)-HCD-453.
Consequences of withholding of prosecution witnesses:
The withholding of the Chairman Towhidul Islam and the other alleged eye witnesses to the occurrence, namely, Moslem, Lutfor, Alamgir, Jalal and Azizar have affected the prosecution case on merit. In this connection, the defence has rightly invoked Section 114-Illustration (g) of the Evidence Act, 1872.
Abdul Mazid and ors Vs. State, 1 Counsel (2013)-HCD-149.
Non-examination of important witnesses creates presumption under section 114(g) of the Act and raises doubt about the prosecution case and benefit of doubt would always go in favour of the accused. Hasanul Islam Hanif Vs. State (Criminal), 18 BLC (2013)-HCD-237. S. 114(g)-Though prosecution did not examine the of in this case but for not drawing the attention of PW I and the other witnesses in respect of any particular statement given to the of the defence has not been prejudiced in any way.
State Vs. Matiur Rahman (Criminal), 18 BLC (2013)-HCD-89.
