Sohel Rana Shippon vs. State 2014) 66 DLR AD 160

Facts of the case:

The case involves the disappearance of a victim named Mostasim Billah. The brother-in-law of the victim's father lodged a complaint stating that the accused-petitioner No.2, Tofail Islam Hira, had called the victim out of his house for a soft drink. Later, it was discovered that the victim went missing after consuming the drink, and it was suspected that the accused petitioner No.2, along with others, may have kidnapped him.
 
The police conducted an investigation and filed a charge-sheet against the accused petitioners and others under relevant sections of the Penal Code and the Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000.
 
The Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Tribunal convicted accused-petitioner No. 1-2 under the Ain, 2000 and sentenced them to imprisonment for life. Accused-petitioner No. 3 was acquitted. The Sessions Judge, Jamalpur, also took cognizance of the case against them under sections of the Penal Code.
 
The accused-petitioners filed a case before the High Court Division, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in the Sessions Case No.35 of 2002. The High Court Division discharged the Rule, and the accused-appellants filed a petition for leave to appeal before the Appellate Court.
 
Issues of the case:

The main issue raised in the appeal was whether the second trial in Sessions Case No. 35 of 2002, which involved charges under the Penal Code, was barred due to the earlier trial and conviction under the Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000.
 
Arguments of the case:

The appellants argued that the second trial amounted to double jeopardy as they had already been tried, convicted, and sentenced for the same occurrence under the Ain, 2000. They contended that the Tribunal had the power to try all the offences together, including those under the Penal Code, but failed to do so. They claimed that the continuation of the proceedings violated their constitutional rights.
 
The State argued that the offences under the Penal Code were distinct from those under the Ain, 2000, and there was no bar to the present trial. They conceded that the Tribunal could have tried the offences under the Penal Code simultaneously but emphasized that it was not done.

Judgment of the case:

The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal. It held that the offences under sections 302/201/34 of the Penal Code were distinct from those under the Ain, 2000. While the appellants had been tried and convicted under the Ain, 2000, they had not been tried for the offences under the Penal Code. The Court acknowledged that there was an oversight in not trying the offences together but concluded that there was no bar for the trial to proceed. The Court directed the trial judge to consider the existing sentence of the appellants, if convicted, while passing a sentence in accordance with the law.

Written by---
HT AL-AMIN KHAN
Department of Land Management and Law
Jagannath University, Dhaka