%20(1).gif "State vs. Azam Reza")
Joyanti Munshi, an
architect and Senior Teacher at the Australian International School in Gulshan,
was killed by her husband, Azam Reza, in 2004. They have a son, and they had a
happy conjugal life for 3 ½ years. In the meantime, an illicit relationship
developed between Azam Reza and Afsana Mimi, an actress; in the sequel, he
began misbehaving with and torturing his wife, leading to her death. Azam Reza,
in writing, informed Gulshan Police Station that the deceased committed suicide
by hanging. An investigation began, and the dead body was sent to the morgue
for post-mortem examination. The mother filed a written complaint, alleging
that her husband caused the death, but recorded it as GD.
A Medical Board
conducted an autopsy and found the death to be homicidal. The informant filed
another complaint, leading to a regular murder case. The accused was put on
trial in the Druto Bichar Tribunal No. 4, Dhaka, where charges under Sections
302 and 201 of the Penal Code were framed against him, to which he pleaded
not guilty and claimed to be tried. The trial involved 13 prosecution
witnesses, and then the accused was examined.
The learned judge,
on consideration of the evidences on record and the facts and circumstances of
the case, convicted and sentenced the defendant to the death penalty with reference
under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for confirmation of
the sentence of death. The accused, dissatisfied with the judgment, appealed to
the High Court Division. The High Court Division convicted the accused and
commuted it to Life Imprisonment. Being dissatisfied with the judgment of the
High Court Division, both parties filed criminal petitions Nos. 17 and 38,
respectively, by the accused's senior advocate to acquit the accused and the
Deputy Attorney General to punish the accused with the death penalty.
Issues of the
Case:
1) Whether the death was suicide or murder by the alleged accused?
2) If it was murder, would the death penalty be justified as
a punishment?
Decision:
The Appellate Division has affirmed the judgment of the High
Court Division that the accused was convicted of murder and sentenced to life
imprisonment. Accordingly, the Division dismissed both petitions.
Justifications:
The Appellate Division didn’t interfere with the judgment
of the High Court Division and upheld its decision. The High Court Division
provides the following justifications for its decision:
1) Prosecution evidence shows bruises on the
deceased’s eyes and nose; these are not symptoms of death by hanging, and they
have gone unchallenged, making it unquestionable to discard.
2) Death was not attributable to hanging due
to other signs and symptoms, including petichial hemorrhage, ecchymoises,
saliva marks, carotid artery tears, lymph node congestion, cervical vertebra
fracture, and head injuries.
3) The authorities Medical jurisprudence
states that without a skull fracture or meninge injury, hemorrhage may occur on
the brain, leading to instantaneous death. The death of the deceased was due to
a hard substance blow, resulting in sub-arachnoid hemorrhage on the right
parieto-occipital area and frontal lobes.
4) The doctors rightly opined that the death
of the deceased was due to head injuries, which were ante-mortem and homicidal
in nature. The prosecution could prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the
offense of murder was committed.
5) The presence of the accused in the house
is material and is not disputed but rather supported and proven on record, and
the death of the deceased is within the special knowledge of the accused. He
came out with the story of suicide, which he failed to prove, and as such, the
High Court Division rightly held the accused guilty of murder.
6) The accused is not a hardened criminal, but the
deceased’s death was caused by a hard substance hemorrhage on her head in a
sequel of a bitter matrimonial relationship. The accused has three minor
children and an invalid first wife. It is viewed that justice be served if the
death sentence is commuted to life imprisonment.
Cases Cited:
Nausher Ali Sarder vs State 39 DLR (AD) 194 and Dipok Kumar Sarker vs State 40 DLR (AD) 139
Written by---
Shoena Akter
Department of Land Management and Law
Jagannath University, Dhaka
No comments:
Post a Comment