Fact:
The victim Shefali Khatun was aged about 13 years. He
worked in the house of the accused Mostafizur Rahman for about 3 months and at that
time she was kept in confinement under lock and key and was raped by the accused
Mostafiz. When the report of the victim's torture was published in Newspaper,
seeing the newspaper, the informant Shamsunnahar Chowdhury took out a procession
on 11.10.1995. After that learned Judge took cognizance and framed the charge
against the accused Mostafizur Rahman under section 6(1) of Nari-O-Shisho Nirjaton
Daman ( Bishash Bidhan) Ain, 1995. And against accused Aleya Begum under
section 6(1)/14 of the said Ain.
Issue:
Whether the accused person has been convicted on charge
framing under section 6(1) and 6(1)/14 of the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjaton Daman (
Bishash Bidhan) Ain, 1995.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of the High Court
Division are set aside and the judgment and order of conviction and sentence
passed by the trial court is affirmed.
Justification:
The High Court Division allowed the appeal on the
grounds, that firstly there was no corroborative evidence regarding the rape
committed by the accused Mostafizur Rahman. Secondly, the High Court Division
disbelieved the story of the victim because her parents did not lodge the
F.I.R. nor came to depose in court, and they asked the victim to stay in the
house of the accused, who allegedly raped their daughter which is against human
conduct. But, the learned Judges were in patent error since the facts of the
instant case would show that it is a case of “statutory rape”. Section 375 of
The Penal Code 1860, clearly indicates that sexual intercourse with a child
below the age of 14 is rape whether it is with consent or without consent. The
medical report clearly shows that the victim was habituated to sexual
intercourse and, therefore, whoever had sexual intercourse with the victim
would be guilty of rape, even if sexual intercourse took place with her
consent.
Written by---
Jagannath University, Dhaka
0 Comments