Sohel Rana vs State (2014) 66 DLR

Fact of the case:

Md Ashraf Hossain lodged ejahar with the jamalpur police station stating that the family of the informants brother-in-law resides in the US. On the date of occurrence, 31-5-2001 , at about 8.30 pm accused petitioner No.2 Tofail Islam Hira called victim Mostasim Billa for drinking. After one or two hours accused petitioner No.2 Tofail Islam Hira came back to that house and wanted to know where Mostasim Billah was. At this moment mother of the victim cried out. The neighbours also came and on search and found that Tofail had bought a drink from Babla store and after drinking that Mostasim Billah is missing. Tofail Islam Hira on being questioned about the whereabouts of the victim said nothing. It was suspected that the accused – petitioner No.2 along with others might have kidnapped the victim with some ill motive.

The police took up investigation and on completion submitted charge- sheet aganist the accused petitioners and others under sections 302/201/34 of the penal code and under section 7/30 of the Nari o Sishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000.

Issue of the case:

Whether two courts tried the same case as the police officers submiited the charge sheets under penal code and Nari -O – Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain?

Decision of the case:

The Nari -O -Shishu Nirjatan Daman Tribunal jamalpur tried the case aganist the accused petitioner and others for the offence under sections 7/8 and 30 of the aforesaid Ain, 2000 and convicted accused petitioner No 1-2 and sentenced each of them to suffer imprisonment for life and acquitted the accused petitioner No.3.

The learned session judge, jamalpur also took cognizance aganist them over the self – same occurrence under sections 302/201/34 of the penal code.

Thus a question arises whether two courts tried same case?

Justification of the case

The accused appellant herein filed criminal petition for leave to appeal, wherein leave was granted to consider the following;

1. The learned Advocate on behalf of the Appellants submitted that appellants were tried for offences under sections 7/8/30 Nari -O -Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain,2000 and the appellants no 1 and 2 were convicted by the Tribunal by the judgement and order of conviction and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. The court of session judge ,jamalpur is barred under the aforesaid provision of law as well as under Article 35 of the constitution .

 

2. The appellants would thereby be subjected to double jeopardy if they are made to suffer the trial again for the disappearance of the same victim for which they have already been tried, convicted and sentenced. Tribunal had the power to try the offences under sections 302/ 201/34 of the penal code simultaneously as provided by section 27(3) of the Nari – O- Shishu – Nirjatan Daman Ain,2000. But once the case had been tried, the second trial over the same occurance by the court of sessions is barred under the Article 35 of the constitution.

Written by---
Mahmuda Ahmed
Department of Land Management and Law
Jagannath University, Dhaka