সতর্কীকরণ! কেস রেফারেন্স ওয়েবসাইটে প্রকাশিত অধিকাংশ নজীর বিভিন্ন বই ও ওয়েবসাইট থেকে সংগ্রহ করা হয়েছে। এই সকল নজীর এর সঠিকতার বিষয়ে কেস রেফারেন্স ওয়েবসাইট কোন নিশ্চয়তা প্রদান করে না। কেস রেফারেন্স ওয়েবসাইটে প্রকাশিত নজীর এর উপর নির্ভর এর আগে সংশ্লিষ্ট নজীরটির রেফারেন্স মিলিয়ে নেওয়ার অনুরোধ করা হচ্ছে।
Oral Evidence in Criminal Case
The statements under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure recorded before an authority other than the Judge who tried the case was not the statement of the witnesses produced before him, and, as such, this could not be treated as oral evidence. Such statements could not be used as substantive evidence for arriving at any finding as to the guilt or innocence of the accused. Babloo and another vs State 47 DLR 337.
Police witnesses are partisan or interested witnesses in the sense that they are concerned in the success of the raid. Their evidence must be tested in the same way as the evidence of the other interested witnesses by the application of diverse considerations which must vary from case to case. In view of the attitude as aforesaid of the learned Tribunal Judge regarding the police witnesses, we are at the outset required to settle the point. There cannot be any rigid consideration in this respect. In assessing oral evidence Judges may call in aid their experience in life and test the evidence on the basis of probabilities. Thus in a proper case, the Court may look for independent corroboration when it is found not safe to dispense with. Sirajul Islam (Md) vs State 48 DLR 301.
Sufficiency of for Conviction- It appears that in this case excepting P.W. 2 there is no other eye witness of the occurrence, The prosecution has succeeded in proving that deceased Niru was found dead in the house of this condemned-prisoner while she was in his custody. In this case besides the oral evidence the prosecution also relied upon the circumstantial evidence. Admittedly Niru died at the house of this condemned-prisoner, her husband and naturally there cannot be any eye witness of the occurrence from the side of her father nor the someone from the house of the condemned-prisoner would depose in support of the murder or on the factum of assault by this prisoner upon the deceased. In such a situation the prosecution had no other alternative but to rely on the circumstantial evidence. In such circumstances when the wife met with her death while she was in the custody of her husband it is he who is to explain how she met with her death. The defence tried to impress that she was assaulted at her father's house by her relations who thereafter kept her forcibly at the house of this condemned-prisoner but none of the prosecution witnesses or even D. W. 1 has admitted this. No other defence witness was examined to prove this defence version of the case. According to the defence she was kept in the house of the condemned-prisoner at the date of occurrence which he stated in his statement recorded under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He also stated that he saw his wife in injured condition. But he took no step for her treatment or inform any of the co-villager of the incident. It appears that he allowed his wife to die and even after her death he has not informed any of the co-villager or reported the matter to the police which is admittedly at a distance of 3 kilometers from his house. None of the inmates of the house also informed the police or took any medical help for saving the life of the deceased suggested that she was assaulted by the prosecution witnesses but no evidence was led in support of this suggestion. The witness produced by the condemned-prisoner also is silent as to the circumstances leading to the death of the deceased. Abdul Motleb Howalder Vs. The State 8 BLT (AD)-288
Info!
"Please note that while every effort has been made to provide accurate case references, there may be some unintentional errors. We encourage users to verify the information from official sources for complete accuracy."
