Nurul Huda vs State (2015) 67 DLR (AD) 231

Fact of the Case

The Appeal is directed Against an order dated the 4^th day of October 2007, passed by the High Court Division in Criminal Appeal No. 158 of 2006. Fact disposal of this appeal is that the appellant along with his father, Amanath Ullah Fakir was put on trial before Nari - o- Shishu Nirjaton DamanTribunal No. 2 Lalmonirhat in Nari-o-Shishu Nirjaton Bishesh mamla No 147 of 2000 and was charged under sec-11(ka) of Nari -o-Shishu Nirjaton Daman Ain 2000 to which the pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

In the case of the prosecution, as stated by PW1, the informant was those two years before the occurrence his daughter, Sabina Yasmin Rumi, was given in marriage to the accused.  At the time of marriage, the accursed demanded a dowry of taka 50000 but he gave 20,000.  After marriage, his daughter went to her father-in-law's house and started living there. After 6/7 months of her marriage, his daughter informed him that she was being tortured for the remaining dowry. Then the PW went to the accused's house with member Mujibur Mozammel and Baten and through a Salish sent his daughter to the house of the accused.  Sometime after that the accused again tortured his daughter for dowry and sent her to his house. Thereafter, the PW after arranging some money on 25-8-2000, had called for the accused through his sons, they came to his house on the morning of 26-8-2000. In the presence of Mujibur, Abdul Baten, and Wahidul, the PW gave taka 10000 to the accused and when he prayed for the time to pay the rest of the dowry, the father of the accused became agitated and showed anger for not paying the entire dowry. However, he went away with the said money without taking his daughter. The further prosecution case was that the accused assaulted his daughter with a lathi at his house at that time his daughter was 8 months pregnant.  He rescued the victim and then filed a case.

Issues

When punishment under section 11(ka) can be inflected?

Decision

Md Abdul Wahab Miah J: A reading of section 11(ka) of the Nari-O-ShishuNirjatan Daman Ain,2000, A person shall be punishable with imprisonment for life for causing death or for attempting to cause death and in both cases with a fine in addition to the said sentence.

In the instant case, that the defense has appeared from the trend of cross-examination of the prosecution witness was that the accused did not go to the house and he did not demand any dowry and assault the victim, that case the accused was implicated in the case falsely.  However, after times found the accused guilty under section 11(ka) of the Ain, 2000, and convicted him there under and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of tk 50,000 in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years.

Justification

1. The learned Advocate on the record made on behalf of the appellant to the effect of the injury certificate issued by Dr. Md Sirajul Islam (Pw10), shows that all injuries are simple in nature.

2. Mr. Biswajit Deb Nath, learned Deputy Attorney General, appearing for the state, has contended that PW1 (informer), has clearly stated in his evidence that the victim was 8 months pregnant at the time of occurrence and the accused assaulted her with lathi.

Written By---
Imtiaz Ara Suborna
Department of Land Management and Law
Jagannath University, Dhaka