June 25, 2024, 5:27 pm


Motive is a very important element to consider the circumstantial evidence

Motive is a very important element to consider the circumstantial evidence in a charge of murder against an accused ,motive I s a very important element. – State vs Abdul Kader @ Mobile Kader (Criminal), 67 DLR(AD) (2015) 6

Motive-Where there is no eye witness of the incident of killing, the prosecution is required to prove as far as possible the motive of the accused to connect him in the incident- (Per SK Sinha,J agreeing with Md Abdul Wahaab Miah,J) State vs Abdul Kader @ Mobile Kader (Criminal) ,67 DLR ( AD) (2015) 6

Motive – Reporting of any event, occurrence or incident is likely to excite the mind,but if the adding an explanation or comment in the reporting I such that its create a negative impact and it is the intention of the writer to do so ,then his motive becomes questionable- Ekramul Haque Balbulk vs Md Faiz (Criminal) ,67 DLR (AD) (2015) 208

News paper Report

The news report published in the daily “Bhorer Kagoj” certainly had the effect of scandalizing the justice delivery system- Ekramul Haque Balbulk vs Md Faiz (Criminal) ,67 DLR (AD) (2015) 208

Non – examination of sitting judge

If any judge considers it expedient to depose before a court or tribunal, it the decision as to ewhether as sitting judge he should depose on oath before a tribunal maintaining his dignity and status.It is none of the business of the chief justice to permit a sitting judge to accord permission to depose in a tribunal.There is no legal bar for a sitting judge to prosecute litigation in any court of law or to depose before a tribunal.Salauddin Qader Chouwdhury vs Bangladesh( Criminal )67 DLR (AD) (2015) 295


 Even after receipt of the judgment of the High court Division the commission issued  a memo. Accoding to that memo if Zulfikar Ali had been made an accused,there would be no witness to produce and prove any document in court. Since there was no other option, Jlfikar Ali  was made  a witness. The views expressed in the memo are objectionable and derogatory to the observation and direction made by high court Division. It is not comprehensible of the commission  took such a stand in respect of Zulfikar Ali- Mafruza Sultana vs State ( Criminal), 67 DLR (AD) (2015) 227


Observations made by the learned Judge in respect of his competency and bonafide intention in filing the application  for modification of  order by deleting directive no-2 given while issuing the suo moto Rule, were undesirable, unnecessary and uncalled for- State vs Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration (Criminal) ,67 DLR(AD) (2015) 271


  Plea of accused undergoing study in West Pakistan during the relevant times in 1971 being the sheet anchor of the case must be proved beyond doubt. The accused has utterly failed to proved the same . Salauddin Qader Chouwdhury vs Bangladesh( Criminal )67 DLR (AD) (2015) 295


 A review in the criminal matter can be made on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record, a review can not be equated with an appeal. It does not confer a right in a way to a litigant. A review of an earlier order is not permissible unless the court is satisfied that material error, manifest on the face of the order,undermines it’s soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. A review of judgment is a serious step and the courts are relucktant to invoke their power except where a glaring omission or patent mistake or error have crept in earlier by judicial- Kamruzzaman vs Government of the Bangladesh (Criminal) ,67 DLR (AD) (2015) 157

 Power of review is not an inherent power- it must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication and that despite there being no provision in the Act or the rules for review from the judgment of this division on appeal., by fiction of law a review is maintainable from t he judgment of this division subject to the condition that where the error is so apparent and patent that review is necessary to avoid miscarriage of justice- Kamruzza,an vs Government of Bangladesh represented by the Chief Prosecutor, International Crimes Tribunal, Dhaka (Criminal) ,67 DLR (AD)(2015) 157

Retracted Confession

 Use of confessional statement which has been retracted against co- accused is very weak type of corroborative fact and a conviction taking it as corroborative evidence is not permissible in law – – (Per SK Sinha,J agreeing with Md Abdul Wahaab Miah,J) State vs Abdul Kader @ Mobile Kader (Criminal) ,67 DLR ( AD) (2015) 6

Victim in a Rape case

There is no gainsaying that once it becomes a known that a girl had been raped, she effectively becomes an outcast having no prospect of marriage. It takes a lot of bravery to publicize the fact of rape of an unmarried girl in a conservative society such as ours,This factor alon speaks of truthfulness of the victim- ( Per Md Ali Ammam Ali J, minority) vs Mostafizur Rahman (Criminal) , 67 DLR (AD) (2015)218.

Criminal trial- Non seizure of the means of recognition

Non seizure of the means of recognition is a very important factor and vital thing of this case which has falsified the case of the prosecution and besides this there is no legal evidence from the side of t he prosecution to implicate the accused person with the occurrence of killing the victim. Ayub Ali vs State ( Criminal) , 67 DLR (JCD) (2015) 567

Observation-  Government may set up an enquiry committee in the interest of the public, it they fail itexpedient in the circumstances of the case. So we leave it it on th e ground to form any kind of inquiry committee/ inquiry commission to find out the truth of missing of Salauddin Ahmed. Government is  at all liberty to take independent decision about formation of any kind of inquiry commission/inquiry committee. – Hasina Ahmed vs State ( Criminal) ,67 DLR ( HCD) (2015) 343

Observation- Some appointees who are beneficiaries of the crime and they can not get the benefit of the crime because their appointments took place through disputed appointment process. The commission should inquire and investigate ionto the involment of those appointees.- Abdul Wadud Bhuiyan (Md) vs State (Criminal) ,67 DLR (HCD) (2015) 435

Get it touch with us






Adv Rafiqul Islam


Leave a Reply

     More News Of This Category