Mufti Abdul Hannan vs State (2017) 69 DLR (AD) 490

Fact:

On the 21st May, 2004 Mr Anwar Chowdhury, the high commissioner of United Kingdom(UK) was returning after saying Jumma Prayer near the gate of Hazrat Shahjalal ® Shrine, at that moment the convicts attempted to kill him. Fortunately he could save his life but by being grievous hurt. In that incident three innocent people were died by bomb explosions including a police officer in charge. The name of the convicts are Mufti Abdul Hannan Munshi (who was the chief of Harkatul Jihad Al Islam(HuJI). Another two abettors are, Sharif Shahidul Alam(Bipul), Md Delwar Hossain(Ripon). The trial court found the appellants guilty and sentenced death. Then High Court Division (HCD) also confirmed the sentences. But the appellants of being dissatisfied with the confirmation of HCD appealed to Appellate Division(AD) to commute the sentences. They appealed under criminal petition numbers 10 & 14 of 2017.

 

Issues:

1. Whether the appellants can be convicted under sections 302/120B with other counts of the Penal Code or not?

2. If they are convicted, death sentences can be commuted or not?

 

Decision:

The Appellate Division found them guilty but altered the charge of the appellants. Sentenced Md Delwar Hossain (Ripon) under 302 and Mufti Abdul Hannan Munshi under 302/109 of the Penal Code. But it found no extraneous ground to commute the sentences so confirmed the sentences passed by HCD and dismissed the review petitions.

Justification:

1. The case is based upon inculpatory confessional statements of the convicts and there are evidences that Mufti Abdul Hannan is the masterminded of the activities of terrorist and in this incident he supplied bombs and others directly participated in the incident.

 

2. It was proved by the evidences that the petitioners had clear intention to kill the High Commissioner of UK.

 

3. The court in its view relied on clause “fourthly “of section 300 of the penal code, that relates the accused committed the incident which was so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability may cause death.

 

4. In case of commutation of sentences, the argument was that the petitioners have been suffering for ten years in condemned cell but it was denied by the court and stated that merely because of delay is not a legal ground to commute the sentences. Commutation is possible only in case of extraneous circumstances but delaying is not.

 

Cases Cited:

Pulkuri Kottaya vs R, AIR 1947 PC 67; Babul vs State, 42 DLR (AD) 186; Major Bazlur Huda vs Stale, 62 DIR (AD) 1; Mohd. Khalid vs State of West Bengal, (2002) 7 SCC 334; Ferozuddin Basheeruddin vs State of Karalla, (2001) 7 SCC $96; State vs Nalini, (1999) S SCC 283; Mirja Akbor vs King Emperor, AIR 1940 PC 176, Bhagwan Swarup vs State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC 682; Zulfikar Ali Bhutto vs State, PLD 1979 SC 283; State vs Nalini, (1999) 5 SCC 283; Maharastra vS Kamal Ahmed Mohammad Vakil Ansary, (2013) 12 SCC 17, State of Gujarat vs Mohd. Atik, AIR 1998 SC 16%, Rajendra vs Sheopersun, 10 MIA 438; Fazal Din vs Kann Hossain, 162 IC 404; R. vs Ellis, 6 B & C 145; Narayan YS Gopal AIR 1960 SC 100; Avadhikishore vs Ram, AIR 1979 SC 861 and Dharmatar vs State of Horyana, (2014) 3 SCC 306, RN Agarwal vs RC Bansal, (2015) I SCCAS Haripada Biswas vs State, 6 BSCR 83.

Written by---
Farzana Suvra
Department of Land Management and Law
Jagannath University, Dhaka