November 21, 2018, 10:18 am

Nari-O-Shishu

Appellant Attracts the Definition of defined in section 2(Kha) of the Ain

 2(Kha), 5, 7  and  30 – Appellant attracts the definition of defined in section 2(Kha) of the Ain therefore no doubt that the act of the , they committed an offence punishable under section 7 of the Ain. Besides, section 30 of the Ain relates the abetment or instigate the offence punishable under the the Ain .The conjunction ‘or’ has been used before the expression .This use of conjunction  ‘or’ before the said expression is used in disjunctive. Therefore, the appellants Md Shahin and Ariful Islam Asha have abetted the offence of abduction.   –  (per SK Sinha J,  agreeing with abdul Wahab J majority) Mehedi Hasan@  Modern  (Md) vs  State (Criminal), 66  DLR  (AD)  (2014) 111.

Nari o shisu Nirjatan ( Bishes  Bidhan) Ain 1995

S . 8 – The High Court Division noticed that P.W .6 Abdul Baset is not the full Brother of P.E.2,Nazma and that P.W.7,Asia Begum is not the mother of the victim; rather P.W.7 is step mother of the victim .With reference to the affidavit field by the petitioners ,the High Court Division found that the petitioners tried to impress upon that the victim of her own volition went to the brothel but that the said affidavit was neither properly exhibited nor was it field in the trial Court and that the victim denied making any affidavit .The High Court Division having considered evidence of doctor,P.W.9 and the medical report,exhibit-1 found  that the age of the victim was about 17 years on the date of her examination and that the victim in her evidence claimed that she was about 13 or 14 years old. …(15)  –  Shukur Mahmood Vs.The state (syed Mahmud Hossain J) (Criminal), 11 ADC  (AD) (2014) 691   

Nari o shisu Nirjatan ( Bishes  Bidhan) Ain 1995(XVIII of 1995)

22 – Statement of victim – The doctor as to age is belied by the fact that his report shows the taking place of menarche one year back .In context of development of girls in Bangladesh the stated by the victim would be more commensurate with menarche having started 1 year previously.- Sukur Mahmood Vs.State (Criminal),66 DLR (AD) (2014)167.

S.6(4), 10 (1)/14- A Division Bench of High Court  Division heard both the death reference and criminal appeal together and by the impugned judgment and order rejected the death reference and allowed the criminal appeal is already  mentioned above …(4) …The state Vs. Md Ekramul Haque Bachu (nazmu Ara Sultana)(Criminal) 11 ADC (AD) (2014)  858.

Nari-O-Shisu Nirjaton (Bishesh Bidhan) Ain, 1995 (as amended)  Section 6(1) read With penal code,1860; Section 83

Held; In view of the provision of section 83  of the penal code nothing shall be an offence which is done by a child above 9 years and below 12 years , who has not attained sufficient maturity  of understanding to judge of the nature and consequence of his conduct. On that occasion the court was under an obligation to examine the appellant a boy of 10 years as to whether he had the understanding about the alleged offence like the commission the rape. Moreover, so far the medical jurisprudence is concerned, it is absurd that a boy of 10 years being the appellant would have understanding of the consequence of committing of an offence of rape and that too with a child 4 years .But the Tribunal without examining the maturity of standing of the appellant as to the commission of the said offence found him guilty under section 6(1) of the Ain, 1995 and thus the Tribunal committed an illegality in passing the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence – Minnat @ minnat Ali Vs.The state,22 BLT (HCD )  (2014)  314.

Nari-O-Shisu Nirjaton (Bishesh Bidhan) Ai, 1995 (as amended)  Section 6(1) read With penal code,1860; Section 83

Held; In view of the provision of section 83  of the penal code nothing shall be an offence which is done by a child above 9 years and below 12 years , who has not attained sufficient maturity  of understanding to judge of the nature and consequence of his conduct. On that occasion the court was under an obligation to examine the appellant a boy of 10 years as to whether he had the understanding about the alleged offence like the commission the rape. Moreover, so far the medical jurisprudence is concerned, it is absurd that a boy of 10 years being the appellant would have understanding of the consequence of committing of an offence of rape and that too with a child 4 years .But the Tribunal without examining the maturity of standing of the appellant as to the commission of the said offence found him guilty under section 6(1) of the Ain, 1995 and thus the Tribunal committed an illegality in passing the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence – Minnat @ minnat Ali Vs.The state,22 BLT (HCD )  (2014)  314.

6(1) – Custody Of the mother is certainly safer for minor victim than that of the jail. – In consideration of the allegation made in the FIR, the statement of the victim and the medical report the trial Court earlier released the victim to the custody of her mother, the present petitioner. There was no allegation of misuse of the custodial responsibility of the mother. The Public Prosecutor on his own initiative field and application before the trial court praying for sending the minor victim to jail custody and the prayer was allowed . The High Court Division, in the facts and circumstances of the case, held that the impugned order sending the minor victim to jail custody from the safe custody of her mother is highly unjust and untenable .The victim would remain in her mothers custody till the disposal of the case. –  Rizia Khatoon – Vs. – The State (Criminal ), 4  ALR (HCD) (2014) 35.

Nari-O-Shisu Nirjaton (Bishesh Bidhan) Ain, 1995( XVIII  of 1995)

8(1) – The Appellate Division observed that the High Court Division come to a finding that the petition of complaint was lodged on 30-11-1998 and that the FIR was lodged on 30-11-1998, police went to the brothel on 29-11-1998 on the basis of G.D. No. 1398 dated 30-11-1998 which was made for the security of the victim and that after recovery of the victim, the FIR was lodged. The High Division further found that P.W.1 the informant and P.W.2 the victim P.Ws. 4 and 5 deposed that the accused took the victim with promise to give her job and without doing so they sold her to a brothel and that there was no contradiction in evidence of the victim and that of her father, P.W.1. – Sukur Mahmood & others – Vs.The State (Criminal), 4   ALR  (AD) 2014(2) 81.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

     More News Of This Category