Criminal-Question No-05 (Criminal Part):

Insaf Ali was suffering from enlarged spleen. Abdul Latif hired the rickshaw pulled by Insaf Ali for going to Azimpur Colony from Kamlapur Railway station. Abdul Latif offered Tk. 157 as fare while Insaf Ali demanded Tk. 20/-. Consequently, there was an altercation between the two. At one stage, Insaf Ali uttered a foul word and Abdul Latif in fury kicked Insaf Ali in the abdomen. Insaf Ali fell down on the ground and some people took him to Dhaka Medical College Hospital where he died on the following day. The autopsy report showed that Insaf Ali died because of rupture of the spleen resulting from the blow he received. Abdul Latif was found guilty on a charge of under punishable under section 302 of the Penal Code and accordingly he was convicted and sentenced thereunder to suffer imprisonment for life by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Dhaka. However, a relation of Abdul Latif approaches you for filing an appeal. Prepare petition of appeal for presentation in the appropriate Court. (15th September 2003, 20th May 2005, 13th June 2008, 25th July 2010).

(প্রশ্নটি বাংলায় (ফৌজদারী)ঃ ইনছাফ আলী প্লীহা বৃদ্ধি রোগে ভুগিতেছে। আব্দুল লতিফ কর্মলাপুর রেইলওয়ে ষ্টেশন হইতে আজিমপুর কলোনীতে যাওয়ার জন্য ইনছাফ আলী চালিত রিক্সাটি ভাড়া করিল। আব্দুল লতিফ রিকসাভাড়া ১৫/- (পনের) টাকা দিতে চাইল, যেখানে ইনছাফ আলী ২০/- (বিশ) টাকা দাবী করিল। ফলে দুইজনের মধ্যে কথা কাটাকাটি ও ঝগড়া সুচনা হয়। এক পর্যায়ে ইনছাফ আলী একটি খারাপ কথা বলিয়া ফেলে এবং আব্দুল লতিফ রাগান্বিত হইয়া ইনছাফ আলীর তলপেটে সজোরে লাথি মারে। ইনছাফ আলী মাটিতেলুটাইয়া পরে এবং লোকজন তাহাকে ঢাকা মেডিক্যাল কলেজ হাসপাতালে নিয়া যায় যেখানে সে পরদিন মারা যায়। ময়না তদন্ত প্রতিবেদনে দেখা যায় ইনছাফ আলী যে আঘাত পাইয়াছিল তাহার ফলে তাহার প্লীহা ছিন্ন হয় ফলে সে মারা যায়। আব্দুল লতিফ খুনের দায়ে দোষী সাব্যস্ত হয় যাহা দণ্ডবিধি আইনের ৩০২ ধারায় শাস্তিযোগ্য অপরাধ এবং সেইহেতু ঢাকার মহানগর দায়রা জজ কর্তৃক দোষী সাব্যস্ত হয় এবং যাবজ্জীবন কারাদণ্ডের দেওয়া হয়।

যাহা হউক আব্দুল লফিতের একজন আত্মীয় আপনার স্মরণাপন্ন হইল একটি আপীল দায়ের করার জন্য। যথাযথ আদালতে পেশ করার জন্য আপীলের দরখাস্তের একটি খসড়া তৈরী করুন। (৫ই সেপ্টেম্বর ২০০৩, ২০শে মে ২০০৫, ১৩ই জুন ২০০৮, ২৫শে জুলাই ২০১০)

Answer to the question No. 05 (Criminal)

DISTRICT: DHAKA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH

HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2022

TO-

Mr. Justice Hasan Foez Siddique, the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Bangladesh and his companion Hon’ble Justices of the said Hon’ble Court.

The humble petition of the petitioner above named most respectfully-The humble petition on behalf of the petitioner most respectfully-

SHEWETH:

1. That on 05.11.2020 one Mr. Joynal Abedin, son of Late Insaf Ali being an informant lodged an F.I.R with concern (Ramna, Lalbagh, New Market) Police station Vide P.S Case No. 66 dated 15.11.2020 against the accused-appellant under sections 302 of the Penal Code.

2. That the prosecution case in short is that one Mr Joynal Abedin, son of Late Insaf Ali came to Lalbagh Police Station on 05.11:2020 and lodged an ejahar alleging inter alia that Insat Ali was suffering from enluged per Abdul Latif hired the rickshaw pulled by Insaif Ali for going to Azimpur Colony from Kamlapur statin. Abdul Latif met Insaf Ali only on that day and did not know Insaf Ali. After reaching Azimpur Colony, Abdul Latif offered Tk.15/-as fare while Insaf Ali demanded Tk. 20/- consequently an altercation followed between the two and at one stage Insaf Ali uttered a foul word and Abdul Latif in fury kicked Insaf Ali in the abdomen. Insaf Ali fell down and some pepole took him to Dhaka Medical College Hospital where he died next day and hence the case./Hence the F.I.R.

3. That the police after investigation submitted charge sheet against the accused-appellant under section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 being charge sheet No 567 dated on 02.02.2021.

4 That the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Dhaka framed charge on 03.03.2021 against the convict appellant under section 302 of the Penal Code.

5. That the convict appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried stating that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He did not commit any offence as alleged in the F.LR.

6. That the learned trial Court examined 7 (seven) prosecution witnesses and the defence examined none.

7. That it is further submitted that it appears from the post- mortem report that the victim died due to heart failure and as such the impugned order of conviction and sentence is illegal and liable to be set aside.

8. That being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the appellant begs to move this appeal before your Lordships on the following amongst other-

GROUNDS

I. For that the judgment and order of conviction and sentence is bad in law as well as facts and circumstances of the case.

II. For that the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence is bad in law as well as in facts and circumstances and as such the same is liable to be set aside.

III. For that the learned court below convicted the appellants just on a surmise and conjecture which can never take the place of proof.

IV. For that the prosecution could not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt

V. For that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case against this appellant.

VI. For that the prosecution could not prove the place, manner and time of occurrence and as such the order of conviction and sentence is illegal and liable to be set aside.

VII. For that all the prosecution witnesses were closely related to each other and they were very much interested in the prosecution case.

VIII. For that the prosecution did not produce any neutral witness of this case, as such the impugned conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside.

IX. For that there is every chance of acquittal of the appellant in the appeal.

X. For that the accused appellant had been falsely implicated in this case out of previous enmity with the informant.

XI. For that in view of the FIR, charge sheet, charge and depositions of P.Ws the sentence is illegal and it is liable to set aside.

XII. For that the ingredients of section 302 of the Penal Code has not been proved against the accused appellants and as such the conviction and sentence is illegal and cannot be sustained in law.

XIII. For that the provision of section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has not been complied in accordance with law.

XIV. For that the charge hearing is defective and as such the sentence is liable to be set aside.

XV. For that the learned Sessions Judge failed to consider a vital point of law as to place of occurrence and manner of incident and in the absence of such findings led an error of law and the order of conviction and sentence is not sustainable in law and the same is liable to be set aside.

And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.

• Facebook
• YouTube
• WordPress