Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abdul
Hannon
alias
Picchi
Judgment
and
order
dated
Judge,
to
suffer
rigorous
SHWETH;
1.
one Nedia Chowdury lodged a First Information Report (FIR) to the Officerin-Charge of the Police Station, Shahbag Dhaka, alleging inter alia that at
about 6.35 P.M she along with her friends went to the Shahid Minar
premises for taking light refreshment. At that time three unknown
miscreants compelled them to handover their vanity bags and wrist
watches to them under threat with a sharp cutting knife. Then they raised
a cry and hearing their cry her class mates and other people rushed to the
place of occurrence. Some of them chased the accused persons and witness
Masrur caught hold of the petitioner. The petitioner confessed his guilt and
disclosed the names of two other accused persons namely Kala Jahangir
and Mridul. The accused persons have extorted valuable articles amounting
to Taka 1,02,000.00. She recognized the arrested person and other accused
by the day light and narrated the occurrence to the witnesses. The
witnesses also saw the occurrence and heard about the occurrence. There
after she along with her classmates took the arrested the Police Station and
lodged the FIR.
2.
That after receiving the FIR the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station
started
Shahbag
Police
Station
(PS)
Case
No.1
dated
25.08.2014
corresponding to GR no- 5 of 2014 under section 386 of the Penal Code and
one Mr A. Halim, Sub-Inspector of police took up the investigation in to this
case.
3.
4.
submits a charge sheet against the appellant and two other accused
persons under section 386 of the Penal Code.
5.
That thereafter the case record was sent to the Court of learned
6.
framed charge against the appellant and other accused persons under
section 386 of the Penal Code.
7.
8.
That the defence case is that the appellant is quite innocent and he
has been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of rival of two other
accused persons. He is a worker of Toba Garment Industry and on the
alleged date of occurrence, he came to the Jatiyo Shaheed Minar premises
to attend a pro test meeting for realization of arrear salary and Eid bonus.
His name is Md. Abdil Hannun and according to his National ID card, SSC
certificate and the Identity card of Garments Industry he is 28 years old
and no incriminating article was seized from his possession.
9.
That the learned Joint Sessions Judge examined the appellant under
section 342 of the CrPC. During this examination the appellant has stated
the facts as mentioned in the paragraph No. 8 and he filed the copy of his
National ID card, SSC Certificate, ID card of his Garments and the some
other papers and documents.
10.
the CrPC The learned Joint Metropolitan Sessions Judge, First Court,
Dhaka convicted the appellant and two other accused persons under
section 386 of the Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Tk 10,000/- in default to
suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months more by the judgment and
order dated 13-11-2014.
11.
-GROUNDSI.
For that the judgment and order dated 13.11.2014 is bad both in
II.
For that the learned Joint Sessions Judge failed to appreciate the
For that the charge was not properly framed and read over and
For that the prosecution failed to prove the allegation against the
appellant under section 386 of the Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt.
V.
much doubtful.
VI.
For that the prosecution witnesses are very much interested and
partisan.
VII.
For that the most natural and independent witnesses who were
VIII.
IX.
For that the appellant was not properly examined under section
342 of the CrPC and the learned Joint Sessions Judge did not take into
consideration the statement made by the appellant and the papers and
documents submitted by him.
X.
For that the learned Joint Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that
the name, age and complexion of the appellant is inconsistent with the
prosecution story as stated by the informant and other witness.
XI.
For that the learned Joint Sessions Judge failed to appreciate the
defence case.
XII.
For that the learned Joint Sessions Judge misread and mis-
XIII.
XIV.
For that under the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence
and materials on record and the provisions of the law, the judgment and
order passed by the learned Joint Sessions Judge is liable to be set aside.
01
of
2014
and
acquit
the
And for this act of kindness the appellant as is duly bound shall ever pray.