Mohibur Rahman Vs State (2017) 69 DLR

Fact:

In a fateful evening, victim montaj uddin came to Horipur Bazar when the petitioner and another chased him with deadly weapons and at that juncture Montaj Uddin had to take shelter in the grocery shop of Bashir Uddin to save his life form the clutches of the accused persons.

 

In the meantime, accused Mohibur Rahman inflicted a dao blow on the waist of montaj uddin. Another, accused Abdul Latif inflicted a dao blow aiming his head but montaj uddin resisted it with his right hand causing a cut injury on his figure and then Billal Mia inflicted a danger blow on the chest of Montaj Uddin.

 

The local people approached to the scene to rescue him. When the accused persons flied away towards tamabil road. Thereafter the witness shifted the victim to the mag osmani medical college hospital where the attending physician declared him dead.

 

Issue:

(1) For this injury,are the petitioners co-jointly responsible? Or if not,who is the principle offender?

(2) According to penal code,what is the life imprisonment for an offender?

Decision:

The high court division has stressed much on the question of abscondance of the petitioners. This is not a legal ground to award the extreme sentence. Beacuse, Billal is the principle offender. The court in the end of Justice would be met if the sentence of death is awarded the petitioners are commuted to imprisonment for life with a fine of taka 20,000 each and imprisonment for six months more.

Justification:

1) In this petition two convicts Mohibur Rahman and Abdul Latif seek leave from this division from a judgment and order of the court division which accepted the death reference and maintained the sentence of death awarded by learned judge.

2) Prosecution in support of it’s case has examined 16 witnesses. A division bench of the high court division accepted the death reference. Petitioners thereafter preferred this petition with an application for delay 895 days.

3) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed the judgment of the high court division and other materials on record and submits that the conviction of the petitioners is based on no legal evidence. Therefore this division should examine the legality of the conviction and sentence of the petitioners.

4) The high court division however noticed some minor discrepancies in their evidence. According to it, these are neither material nor significant and did not discard their evidence holding that, human psychology is such that rarely do two witnesses like two clocks,narrate all details of an event which they have jointly witnessed.

5) The high court division also noticed that these petitioners remained in abscondance during the course of the trial and this conduct does not impress if to commute the sentences. In the judgment, the high court division so far as it relates to the petitioners participation in the murder and the finding as to their guilt of the charge.

Written by---
Abul Hasnat Nanno
Department of Land Management and Law
Jagannath University, Dhaka