19 A, 19(f) – Sentence may be reduced if the convict cannot be at all characterized to be a menace to the society as well as languishes in custody for quite a longtime.- Mofa v. The State, 34 BLD (HCD) (2014) 195.
19 A, 19(f) –When a convict incarcerates in jail for a long time his quantum of sentence of sentence may be reduced on consideration of the humanitarian ground. – Abdul @ Azid Dacoit & Ors. V. The State , 34 BLD (HCD) (2014) 393.
19 A and 9(f) – The High Court Division found there is no positive evidence on record in order to prove that the alleged arms and ammunition were recovered from the exclusive control and possession of the convict-petitioner and the same were kept by him of the place of occurrence thus the Court quashed and order. – Md Iqbal Hossain Bhuyan – Vs – The State( Criminal) 4 ALR (HCD) (2014) 79.
19 A and 19(f) – It transpires that the evidence of all the prosecution witness in respect of recovery of the arms from the convict-appellants are consistent, and corroborative with one another in respect of all materials particulars. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve the consistent and corroborative evidence of those competent witness having no reason whatsoever to depose falsely against the appellants. The defense extensively cross- examined them but so nothing could be elicited to shake their credibility in any manner whatsoever. So the same are invulnerable to the credibility. The appeals are dismissed with modifications of sentence to the effect that the appellants are convicted under section 19 A and 19(f) of the arms Act and each of them sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years. – Abdul Azid @ Azid Decoit Vs. The State (Criminal),3 LNJ (HCD) (2014) 371.
19 A and 19(f) – All the witness in a chorus corroborated the prosecution case that the arms were recovered per showing of the two confessing accused and the confessional statements corroborated others materials on record. And such the submissions for the petitioners that the arms and ammunition in question were not recovered from the direct possession of the accused person and the confessional statements of two accused are exculpatory in nature merit no consideration. – Kazi Kamrul and others-Vs-The State (Criminal) 4 ALR (AD) 2014 125.
19A and 19(f) – It transpires that the evidence of all the prosecution witness in respect of recovery of the arms from the convicts-appellants are consistent, uniform and; corroborative with each other in respect of all materials particulars. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve the consistent and corroborative evidence of those competent witness having no reason whatsoever to depose falsely against the appellants. – Abdul Aziz alias Azid Dacoit – Vs-The State.(Criminal), 4 ALR 2014(2) 351.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.