ফৌজদারী : হত্যা মামলা
Heading of Judgement of Sessions Case
Court of Session, Original Jurisdiction.
District:-
Kushtia
In
the Court of 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kushtia.
Present
: Mr. Md. Tajul Islam, Additional Sessions Judge, Kushtia.
wfKwUg
Bgivb‡K AcniY K‡i Zvi gUievBK Gi Rb¨ Avmvgx †g‡n`x, wciæ wgVzb, †g‡nw` nvmvb
RR, bvwn`, AwbK I ivRy GKB D‡Ï‡k¨ nZ¨v K‡i †`n †_‡K gv_v wew”Qbœ K‡i jvk ¸g
Kivi Aciva| |
Sessions Case No. 1070/2020
(Kumerkhali G.R Case No. 60/2018)
Date of judgment:
State Vs
Accused |
1) Md. Mehedi Hasan, (Confessional
Statement, 164) 2) Md.
Shahidur Rahman @ Piru Mithun (Confessional Statement, 164) 3) Md. Mehedy Hasan @
Joj (active participant) 4) Md. Nahid Hasan (in
offence of murder,) 5) Munshi Anik Hasan (Active
participant in offence of murder) 6) Md. Wadud Islam @
Raju (Co-accused). |
Charge:-
Under Sections 364/302/201/379/411 read with Section 34 of The Penal Code 1860.
1.
Anup Kumar
Nandy..........Ld. PP for the State.
2.
Jahangir Alam
Galib,
3.
Mr.Aminuzzaman
Biswas Raju,
4.
Golam Mowla ........learned
Addl. P.P: For the State.
and
1. Mr. Md. Shafikul Islam Polash
2. Mr. Md
Abu Zaffore Siddique
3. Mr.
Adv. Hasanur Askar Hasu
4. Mr.
Md. Asaduzzaman Khan......... learned Advocate for accused-persons.
JUDGEMENT
1. This is a brutal and preplanned ‘Imran’ murder case. The case is lodged under
section Under Sections 143/448/302/34 of The Penal Code 1860. Victim
Imran an young man of only 22 years old while he was supposed to dream a good
dream and to build up his career but at that time he (victim) was prey to be
killed by some known friends and unknown young man like some miscreants and was
killed finally when the murderer were failed to take away/snatching the
motorbike from him and brutally the accused (FIR and charge sheeted named)
slaughtered and cut throat to the victim and beheaded with a sharp knife and
that offence was so brutal in nature and inhumane that was beyond description. Offence
of murder is not only an offence against person but it is always a crime
against humanity and crime against society and at large at state. It would be
presumed that the state must ensure the justice and would punish the criminals
for the crime of murder. In the instant case it reveals that the FIR named
accused Md. Mehedi Hasan and Piru Mithun with preplanned called on the victim
over mobile phone and executed the plan of stealing the victim’s Motorbike and while
to some extent being failed to steal motorbike the accused persons all in furtherance
of common intention killed the victim Imran with the active assistance of other
four accused namely Mehedi Hasan Joj, Nahid, Anik and Wadud @Razu. Now I will
tell a tale in deatils how the victim Imran was kidnapped & killed and the
offence of killing committed.
Prosecution Case:-
2. That prosecution version may briefly be stated that
the informant Md. Badsha Sheikh son of Late Moslemuddin, Village- Monohorpur,
Police Station- Kumerkhali, Kushtia lodging the Ezahar (herein FIR) stating
inter-alia that informant Md. Badshah Sheikh filed a complaint with Kumarkhali
Police Station on 20/3/2018 A.D to the effect that his eldest son Imran Sheikh
had eaten at Mizan's house in Raydanga village on 16/3/2018 A.D. at around 3.10
pm after eating a phone call came at 01756055033 from the number to his son's
phone number is 01710343967. In fact, he kept his own mobile phone from that
place with the informant's younger brother's son Md. Shishir. That Imran left
for Manoharpur village with his own used red and black 150cc Pulsar motorcycle
(engine No. DHYWHH18539, chassis No. MD2-A11-CY7-HWH-86751). Shishir, the son
of his younger brother, received the call again on his son's mobile from
01722-599121 and said, "My brother left the mobile with me and left."
As the son of the complainant did not return home even after evening, he called
the number and asked about his son. After much searching, she could not find
her son and continued searching. Later on 18/3/2018 A.D. at around 9.30 am, Md.
Sayem from Manoharpur village called him and informed him that Mehedi had
informed Sayem that there was a decapitated headless corpse lying in Sadarpur
maize field. Mehdi identified the decapitated body as that of Imran. The
informant quickly went to the spot and saw a headless decapitated body lying
naked in the corn field of Mohammad Zaheer of Sadarpur village. He identified
the body as that of his son. Witnesses Badal, Md. Nur Alam, Md. Naib Ali and
many others were present at his shout. According to the ‘Ezahar’of the petitioner
at any time between 19.00 hrs on 16/03/2018 A.D. to 9.30 hours on 18/3/2018
A.D. the accused 1. Mehedi Hasan, 2. Md. Piru Mithun and other unidentified
persons abducted his son in a pre-planned manner and at that place they took
him, cut his throat and killed him and stole her son's used motorcycle. The
plaintiff filed an ‘Ezahar’ in this case in the light of this incident. After
receiving the news, the police came to the spot, prepared an inquest report of
his son's body and sent it to Kushtia General Hospital Morgue for autopsy.
After informing his relatives about this, there was a slight delay in filing an
FIR/Ezahar to the Police station .Hence this case of the prosecution in short.
3. On the basis of the above FIR, Kumerkhali P.S.
case No. 16 dated 20-03-2018 A.D. was started. That the offence in question was investigated
by the investigation officer and that the investigation officer went to the
place of occurance and prepared ‘Sketch-Map’ and ‘Index’ and that the
investigation officer recorded the statements of witnesses under section 161 of
the Criminal Procedure Code and that the investigation officer finding
preliminary evidence relating to the offence in question submitted Charge-Sheet
No. 73 dated 23-04-2020 A. D against the accused persons namely (1) Md. Mehedi
Hasan, 2) Md. Shahidur Rahman @ Piru Mithun, 3) Md. Mehedy Hasan @ Joj and (4) Md.
Nahid Hasan, 5) Munshi Anik Hasan @ Imran & 6) Md. Wadud Islam @ Raju under section 364/302/201/379/411/34 of the
Penal Code 1860.
4. That ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushtia transferred
the Case record to this Sessions Court for trial. That receiving the Case
record this Sessions Court considered the Case and took cognizance and fixed the
date for framing out charge against the accused persons namely (1) Md. Mehedi Hasan, 2) Md. Shahidur
Rahman @ Piru Mithun, 3) Md. Mehedy Hasan @ Joj and (4) Md. Nahid Hasan, 5) Munshi
Anik Hasan @ Imran & 6) Md. Wadud Islam @ Raju under section 364/302/201/379/411/3 of the
Penal Code and that charge was framed out in presence of accused persons and
that charge was heard and read over and that accused persons claimed themselves
innocence and demanded for trial.
Statement
of the accused:
5. That in the instant Case prosecution has adduced 22
(Thirteen) witnesses from the 37 (thirty Seven) Charge sheeted accused as P.W.1-22
and that defence examined P. Ws; and that in the instant Case defence adduced
the accused Md. Mehedi Hasan as D.W.1 and submitted a
letter of his own hand written . That in the instant case 02 accused persons
Md. Mehedi Hasan & Md Shahidur Rahman @ Piru Mithun made confessional
statements under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. That the
documentary evidences have been marked as Extb. Nos.1-1/1 (Ezahar and the
signature of P.W.1 in Ezahar), Exbt. Nos. 2 (Surathal report of deceased Imran
Dead body and Head, Exbt. Nos. 2/1/2/2-2/3, 3-3/1-3/3 (signature of P.W. 1 &
2, P.W.20 & 22 in Surathal report), Exbt. Nos. 5-5/1-6, 6/1, Seizure list
and the signature of P.W.2 & 20, Exbt. No. 7-7/1-8, 8/1, 10, 10/1 (Post
Mortem Report and signature of P.W.9 ), Exbt. Nos. 4-4/1-4/6 (six signatures of
P. W. 4 as signed in 164 statements of accused Md. Mehedi Hasan), Exbt. Nos. 9-9/1-9/6
(six signatures of P. W. 19 as signed in 164 statements of accused Md. Piru
Mithun), Exbt. No.11-11/1 (Charge Sheet and signature of P.W.21) Exbt. Nos. 12-12/1,
13-13/1 (Two Sketch Map and signature of P.W.22), Exbt. Nos. 14-14/1, 15-15/1 (
two Index and signature of P.W.22) and
that material Exbts; marked Exbt. Nos. I, II, III & IV (Series).
6. That after clossing the evidence of prosecution
accused persons were examined under section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code
and that accused persons claimed themselves innocent and demanded for trial.
That from the trend of defence cross-examination it is patent that defence has
attempted to assert that accused persons have been falsely implicated in the
instant Case and that for the previous enmity the incident in quesiton did take
place and that the instant case has been filed false against the accused
persons and that the accused-persons did not kill the victim as it was narrated
in the Ezahar and that accused persons
did not commit the offence in question
as claimed by prosecution.
Arguments
and Defence Case:
7. The Ld. Advocate for the defence argues that the
prosecution has failed to prove the charge brought against all the accused and
they are entitled to acquittal. On behalf of accused Mehdi Hasan, his appointed
lawyer claimed that accused Mehdi was arrested on 18-03-18 A.D. while
recovering the headless body of late Imran. Apart from this the Ld. Counsel of
the accused Mehedi Hasan & Piru Mithun further argued that the accused
Mehedi Hasan& Piru Mithun’s confessional statement under section 164 of the
Criminal Procedure Code was not legal and proper and it has no legal leg in the
eye of law and that confessional statement was taken by police with force and fear
and police gave pressure with electric shock & crossfire and that
confessional statement was not true and voluntary so on the basis of the
confession the accused should not be punished and for want of proper and legal
evidence the accused Mehedi Hasan and Piru Mithun are entitled to get acquital.
The Ld. Counsel for the accused Md. Mehedi Hasan further argues that the Ld.
Senior Judicial Magistrate, P.W.19 did not give memorandum properly as per
section 164 (3) of Cr.P.C after recording confessional statement of accused
Mehedi Hasan son of Faridul Islam @ Latif as a result the accused Mehedi
Hasan’s confessional statement was not properly recorded and would not be true
and voluntary and in this connection cited a rulings case of Babul Mia Vs
The State reported in 63 DLR (AD) 11. The Ld. Advocate for the accused
Mehedi and Piru Mithun submitted some rulings regarding the authencity and
legal base of the confession cited on 10 ALR (AD) 231-233, 26 BLC (AD) 114-115,
22 BLC (AD) 155 and as the accused confessional statement were ex-culpatory in
nature and accused Mehedi confession was not corroborated with the other
evidences as per case of Shafiqul Islam vs State rpeorted in 73 DLR (AD) 189 so
the accused Mehedi Hasan is entitled to get acquittal from the alleged offence.
The Ld. Counsel for the accused Piru Mithun stated
in argument that no eye witness is available in the instant case. No pre-plan
and common intention was found in this case so section 34 of the Penal Code 1860
will not be applied here and in this connection cited a case of Sarder Ali Vs
Crown reported in 9 DLR (HC) 7. FIR version and court version are different and
Inquest report and Post Mortem report does not match with the prosecution
version and in this conncetion cited a case of Shafi Alom Vs State cited in 10
BLD (AD) 25. The accused Razu stated to the police that the accused Mehedi Hasan,
Piru Mithun, Mehedi Hasan joj, Nahid, Anik & Rzau killed the victim but
police did not record any statement under 161 of Cr.P.C and any statement made to
police officer is called Extrajudicial confession and it is settled principle
of law that Extra-judicial confession made before a authority cannot be relied
upon as evidence it was held in the case of Mobarak Ali vs The State 55 DLR
(HCD) 116-117. No direct evidence was adduced by the prosecution side as per
section 60 of the Evidence Act, 1872 but it is cardinal principle of law that
evidenc emust be direct and the accused cannot be convicted merely on hearsay
evidence has no basis and thus the court of law can not rely on hearsay
evidence and this contention was decided in the case of Md. Isaque Vs State
cited in 16 BLT (HCD) 69. The Ld. Counsel further submits that P.W.12, 15-18
was declared tendered and the defence declined to cross examine it was held in
the case cited in 6 BCR (HCD) 112-119, murder case tendering not proper,
disapproved and finally Ld. Counsel argues that the accused Piru Mithun made
confessional statement with force and fear by police after 03 days of arrest of
the accused which was beyond law and procedure and that confession will not be
considered as true & voluntary as per a case of State vs Rawsan reported in
5 BLC (HCD) 452 as well as without corroborative evidence conviction can not be
sustained on the basis of confessional statement it was held in the case cited
in 21 BLD (HCD) 300 and in another case of State vs Abdul Basahr cited in 19
BLC (HCD) 130 it was held that confession obtained by torture while examining
under section 342 the accused shown the iron nail (para-8) was inserted in his
hand to make a confession by the police so the statement under section 164 of
Cr.P.C not voluntary and ture and not properly recorded so on the basis of such
coersive and compulsive manner made confessional statement, the accused Piru
Mithun would not be punished.
On the otherhand the Ld. Counsel for the accused
Nahid Hasan and Mehedi Hasan Joj has stated that these two accused were not FIR
named and they are not involved in the allged offence and being influenced by
the enemy of these accused Investigation officer (I.O.) included their name in
the charge sheet. The two other accused Mehedi Hasan son of Md. Faridul Islam
Latif and accused Md. Sahhidur Rahman @ Piru Mithun stated these two accused
Mehedi Hasan Joj and Nahid Hasan named in their confessional statement so they
will be acquitted from the offence in question as co-accused confession can not
be the basis of conviction. The Ld. Counsel further submits that section 30 of
the Evidence act will not be applied for this case as such only on the ground
of co-accused, these two accused namely Mehedi Jasan Joj & Nahid Hasan is
entitled to get acquittal from the allged offence. The Ld. Counsel also
submitted a case reported in 26 BLC (AD) 114-115. On the other hand, Ld.
Counsel for the accused Anik Hasan adopted the argument of Accused Mehedi Hasan
Joj and Nahid Hasan and also claimed that the accused Anik is innocent and he
is not involed in the offence in question so he is entitled to get acquittal.
On the other hand Ld. Counsel for the accused Md.
Wadud Islam @ Razu argued that the accused Razu was a night guard of Bank at
Alauddin More of Kumerkhali Upazila. He was not involved with offence in
question and his name was not named in FIR and the investigation officer being
failed to gain illegally from him included Razu’s name in the charge sheet.
There is a confessional statement of the two accused but no accused said this
accused Razu’s name in their confessional statement. Apart from this accused
Razu is not active particiapnt in the alleged offfence. His home village in
Moheshpur Jhenaidah and as service purpose he used to live in Kumerkhali and
known to the accused Piru Mithun. As the prosecution failed to bring charge
against
8.
On the Contrary, the Ld. Public
Prosecutor, on an anlysis of the prosecution evidences, argues that the
prosecution has proved the charge of murder against accused persons namely 01.
Md. Mehedi Hasan, 02. Md. Shahidur Rahman @ Piru Mithun, 03. Md. Mehedi Hasan @
Joj, 04. Md. Nahid Hasan, 05. Munshi Anik Hasan @ Imran and 06.Md. Wadud Islam
@ Raju and the o2 accused Md. Mehedi
Hasan and Piru Mithun by their confessional statement revealed that the other
accused 03. Md. Mehedi Hasan @ Joj, 04. Md. Nahid Hasan, 05. Munshi Anik
Hasan @ Imran and 06.Md. Wadud Islam @ Raju actively participated in the offence of murder and they are all liable
to be convicted accordingly. The Learned Public Prosecutor, on an anlysis of
the prosecution evidence, further argues that the prosecution has proved the
charge of murder against accused, 01. Md. Mehedi Hasan, 02. Md. Shahidur Rahman
@ Piru Mithun, 03. Md. Mehedi Hasan Joj, 04. Nahid Hasan, 05Anik Hasan and 06.
Wadud Islam @Razu and two accused 01. Md. Mehedi Hasan, 02. Md. Shahidur Rahman
@ Piru Mithun, by their confessional statement named other three accused namely
Nahid, Anik & Mehedi Hasan Joj actively participated in the offence of
murder and they are liable to be convicted accordingly. Public Prosecutor on
behlaf of the state strongly argued that the prosecution has been able to prove
the charge of murder against the co-accused 03. Md. Mehedi Hasan Joj, 04. Nahid
Hasan, 05Anik Hasan and 06. Wadud Islam @Razu. That the Ld. Public Prosecutor
on behalf of the state argued a long and cited a case reference 67 DLR (AD)
Page-8 where it was held that “to consider the circumstantial evidence
in a charge of murder against an accused, motive is a very important element.
When 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.” That Ld. Public Prosecutor for the state argued that the
accused Mehedi Hasan as per admission was a friend of accused Md. Mehedi Hasan
and inhabitant from the same locality who called on the victim by mobile phone before
occurrence, and accused Mehedi Hasan Joj, Nahid Hasan, Anik Hasan & Wadud @
Razu is the friend of accused Piru Mithun and they had a clear motive as well
as intention to murder the victim Imran, and the Motives are furnished
as follows;
1. to steal/snatch the motorbike from him,
2. to get money from the victim by intimidating him
and his family,
3. to establish the accused undue influence and
unfair domain over the total locality of the accused.
That the Ld. Public prosecutor also argued that
among the six accused persons 02 in the FIR named and 04 accused Charge sheet
named persons and two accused persons were given confessional statement which
were true and voluntary so all the accused should be punished maximum in the
alleged offence. That the Ld. Prosecution on behalf of the state argued
strongly that in furtherence of common intention the accused persons all namely
01. Md. Mehedi Hasan, 02. Md. Shahidur Rahman @ Piru Mithun, 03. Md. Mehedi
Hasan Joj, 04. Nahid Hasan, 05Anik Hasan and 06. Wadud Islam @Razu with bad
intention and motive caused death to the victim Imran on the alleged date of
occurrence which the prosecution has been able to prove the case intoto. The
Ld. PP appealed for exemplary punishment of the accused, claiming that the case
had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt by the state's impartial, credible
and impartial evidence. After hearing the arguments of the case, the verdict
was announced.
Charge/Point
for determination:
1. Did the accused 01. Md. Mehedi
Hasan, 02. Md. Shahidur Rahman @ Piru Mithun, 03.00Md. Mehedi Hasan @ Joj, 04. Md.
Nahid Hasan, 05. Munshi Anik Hasan @ Imran and 06.Md. Wadud Islam @ Raju at any
time between 16-03-2018 AD to 18-03/18 A.D. at approximately 9.30 am, whether
the son of the petitioner was abducted in a pre-planned manner and taken to the
place of occurrence and killed by cutting his throat and whether the used
motorcycle of the petitioner's son was stolen in furtherence of common
intention or not.?
2. Did the prosecution prove the
charge against the accused persons under section 364/302/201/379/411/34 of the
Penal Code 1860 beyond all reasonable doubt?
Findings and Decision:
9. Let's start with the evidence presented by the
prosecution. At this stage let us first discuss the testimony of the prosecution
witnesses. Let's see how much the prosecution has been able to prove the
allegations against the accused through evidence. With this end in view the
evidence on record is discussed hereinbelow. For the sake of convenience of
discussion both points are taken up together for decision. That the offence is
labelled against the accused persons for committing murder after kidnapping the
victim Imran for stealing his motorbike and murder to the victim in furtherence
of common intention and causing dispaperance of the victim’s and headless dead
body and head fell down separtely.
Let's
start with a brief summary of the Evidence obtained.
10. P/W.1, the Informant, Md. Badsha Sheikh, father
of deceased & Victim Imran stated in her examination in-chief that On
17/3/2018 A.D. at around 3:10 pm, after eating at the house of his eldest son
Imran Sheikh Raydanga village Md. Mizar, father-Yakub, his mobile number from
01756-055033 on his mobile phone is actually his own mobile phone from the
mentioned place. Leaving the phone with his younger brother's son Md. Shishir,
he (Imran-victim) left for Manoharpur village with his used red and black 150cc
Palchar motorcycle with engine number DHYWWHHI8539. His son's mobile phone
number again from 01722-599121. In fact, his younger brother's son Shishir
received the phone and said that his brother left the mobile phone with him and
left. Since he (victim) did not return home even after evening, he called the
number and asked for his son's name. Faridul Islam Latif, Sang- Manoharpur,
Thana- Kumarkhali, and District- Kushtia called my son's mobile. He couldnot
find his son even after searching a lot and he kept searching. Later on
18/3/2018 A.D. at around 9.30 am, Md. Sayem from Manoharpur village, father-Md.
Naib Ali called him and informed that Mehedi had informed him that there was a
headless decapitated body lying in Sadarpur maize field. Mehdi identified the
decapitated body as that of Imran. He quickly went to the spot and saw a
headless decapitated body lying naked in the corn field of Md. Zaheer of
Sadarpur village. He identified the body as that of his son. Witnesses Badal,
Md. Nur Alam, Md. Naib Ali and many others who were nearby were present at my
shout. His guess is that any time between 16/3/2018 A.D. night estimate from
19.00 hrs to 18/3/2018 A.D. estimate 9.30 hours accused Mehedi, Md. Piru
Mithun, Mehedi Hasan @ Judge, Nahid Hasan, Anik Hasan and by some unidentified
accused including Imran and Raju abducted his son and took him to that place
and killed him by cutting his throat. Then Kumarkhali police came and prepared
the inquest report of his son's headless body and sent it to the hospital for
autopsy. Police seized the Alamots. Later he lodged this ‘Ezahar’. On 25/8/2018
A.D, the head of my son's body was found in the Ulu field as shown by the
accused Raju. He (P.W.1) identified his Ezahar which marked as Exbt. No.1 and
his signature theron marked as Exbt. No.1/1. P.W.1 during cross-examination of
the accused stated that on behalf of Mehedi son of Faridul Islam Latif that he
knew little. The Ezahar was written from a computer store. The Ezahar was read
to him. The Ezahar has his signature which has been marked as Exbt No.1 &
1/1. On 16/3/18 A.D., they went to eat dawat in the afternoon. After taking the
medicine, his son Imran got a call from the mobile number of accused Piru
Mithun. He later said that he did not know in whose name the number was
registered. Shishir doesn't remember whether there are witnesses in this case
or not. They are three brothers and four sisters. The three brothers were alive
at the time of the incident. He, Nur Alam, Abul Kalam Azad, Shishir and his
brother Badal and many others went to the spot. Get Sayem's phone and go to the
scene. Mehdi's house is not far from his house. However, it may be after 5/6
houses from his house. He is older than his brother Badal Mehdi. It is not known
whether Mehdi had an argument with his brother Badal before the incident. He
went to the spot and did not see Mehdi. He saw the body and fainted. Can't say
how many people were at the scene, but there were a lot of people. Accused
Mehdi and his son Imran were friends. It is not true that his brother Badal
handed over Mehdi to the police or Mehdi was falsely implicated in the case or
he did not sign the statement. P.W.1 stated in cross-examination on
behalf of Wadud Islam@ Raju, the witness said that Raju was not accused in the FIR.
When he fell ill, many of his relatives took him home. According to the accused
Raju, the head of his son's body was found. It is not true that he did not
identify his son's body. P.W.1 stated in cross-examination on behalf of
accused Piru Mithun, his son's body was found near a garlic field in Sadarpur
Zaheer's maize field. There was blood on the ground. Then he fell ill. He and
his relatives were present at the time of filing the statement. It is not true
that he did not go to the scene or that the statement was made by the accused
on the side of the enemy. P.W.1 stated during in cross-examination on
behalf of accused Mehedi Hasan @ Joj and Nahid Hasan, the witness said that the
distance from the spot to Sadarpur was close. The distance from his house to
the scene is less than one kilometer. Her son was not studying at the time of
the incident. The phone his son left behind was a touch phone. The motorcycle
was registered in his name. Although his son was not found on 16/3/18, he did
not file a GD with the police. The statement did not mention what he saw in his
son's headless body. Darikomarpur village is half a kilometer away from his
house. Rayadanga may be one kilo in the north-west corner. Rhythm may be south
of his home. His son went to Raydanga in the afternoon to have a feast. He went
to the police station on the afternoon of the 20th. He didn't remember the
time. The police did not come to his house before. He did not mention the names
of Mehdi Hasan Judge and Nahid Hasan in the statement. It is not true that the
phone number mentioned in the statement was incorrect or that his son was a
drug addict and terrorist or that other terrorist killed him because he was a
member of the terrorist forces.
11.
P/W-2 Md. Naeb Ali son of Azimuddin
of Monohorpur Village of Kumerkhali Thana Naeb Ali supported P.W.1 and stated
that Badsha Sheikh came to my house on 16/3/2018 AD. The declaring Badsha
Sheikh is his nephew. Badshah Sheikh says that his son Imran cannot be found.
Then he called the last 21 mobile phone number. Then Awal picked up the phone.
Awal picks up the phone and says that he did not call, Mehedi did. The incident
took place anytime between 16/3/2018 A.D. to 18/3/2018 A.D. at 9.30 am. On
18/3/18 at 9.30 am his son Sayem called him and told him that there was a
decapitated body lying in the corn field. He went to the spot after hearing the
news. He went & saw a corpse lying naked. But there is no head. He can see
the body and recognize that his grandson is the son of Badsha Sheikh. Police
arrived at the scene. The police took his signature on a piece of paper. Later
on 25/3/2018 A.D. according to the accused Raju, the victim's head was found.
The police interrogated him. The accused are in the dock. He knows the accused.
He identified the Surothal report where he put signature thereon which has been
mared as Exbt. No. 2 and 2/1, 2nd Surothal report marked as
Exbt. No.3 and signature marked as Exbt. No.3/1. P.W.2 said in
cross-examination on behalf of the accused Mehedi' son of Faridul Islam
Latif that he did not tell the police that Mehedi called Imran from Awal. Awal
was at Mizanur's house when he called, which he told police he did not know -
not true. His nephew Badshah came to his house and said that his son could not
be found, he did not tell the police - not true. He gave false testimony as
taught by the plaintiff. That on behalf of the accused P.W.2 said in
cross-examination on behalf of Wadud Islam Raju that he had not witnessed any
incident. He testified to the police. He did not remember how many policemen
came. Don't know their names. He did not tell the police that the head of the
body was found as shown by the accused Raju - not true. The plaintiff, being a
relative, gave false testimony on his behalf as per his teachings - not true. P.W.2
during the cross-examination on behalf of the accused Piru Mithun, the
police interrogated him several times. Accused Mithun did not give any witness
to the inspector to be involved - not true. He (P.W.2) was not cross-examined
by the accused Mehedi Hasan Joj and Nahid. The witness (P.W.2) testified on
behalf of all the accused on Re-call dated 22-09-21 A.D. and stated that he
identifed seizure list which has been marked as Exbt. No.5 and his signature
marked as Exbt. No. 5/1. On recall he (P.W.2) was cross-examined and sated that
he had given statements to the police several times. However, the date is not
remembered. It is not true that according to them the statement of evidence is
not correct or did not mention the name of any accused to the investigating
officer or did not tell the investigating officer about signing the seizure
list.
12.
That P/W-3, Mr. Sayem, son of Nayeb
Ali stated in his examination in-chief that the The accused Mehedi Hasan, Piru
Mithun, Mehedi Hasan Judge, Nahid, Imran, Raju killed Imran and took him to the
corn field of Sadarpur Zaheer anytime between 16/3/2018 A.D. to 18/3/2018 A.D.
at 9.30 am. He left his body in the corn field of Zaheer and left his head
elsewhere. Badsha Sheikh comes to our house. Badshah Sheikh told my father that
his son Imran could not be found. Then he called the last 21 mobile phone
number. Then Awal picked up the phone. Awal picks up the phone and says that hedid
not call, Mehedi did. On 18/3/18 A.D. at 9.30 am he saw a corpse in the corn
field and called my father and told him that there was a decapitated corpse
lying in the corn field. After a while the police came. Later on 25/3/2017 A.D.,
according to the accused Raju, the victim's head was found. At that time, the
accused Raju informed the police that the accused Mehedi Hasan, Piru Mithun,
Mehedi Hasan Judge, Nahid, Imran, Raju had killed the victim Imran by cutting
his throat. That P.W.3 said in cross-examination on behalf of accused Mehedi's son
of Faridul Islam Latif that after receiving the news on 18/3/2018 A.D., when
the body was recovered, he, his father, Nure Alam, Badsha, Shishir and many
others went. He didn't know who informs the police. Police did not arrest
anyone at the scene. Mehedi was apprehended from the scene and handed over to
the police - not true. Due to Mehdi's enmity with Badal, Badal has implicated
Mehdi in this case. The Badsha Sheikh came to thier house. He did not tell the
police - this is not true. He either gave false testimony or gave false
testimony as taught by the plaintiff. P.W.3 said in cross-examination on behalf
of Wadud Islam @ Raju that he had not witnessed any incident. The deceased
Imran is in my possession. He did not see the murder. He did not tell the
investigator my statement - not true. He did not name any accused - not true. He
did not know the name of the investigating officer; He did not remember the
date on which hetestified. The plaintiff and both are his relatives. As the
complainant was a relative, he gave false testimony on his behalf as per his
teachings. P.W.3 during cross-examination testified on behalf of accused Piru
Mithun that he did not go to the spot - not true. He has not seen any incident.
P.W.3 during cross-examination on behalf of accused Mehedi Hasan Joj and Nahid
Hasan, the witness said, "He was studing." He did not tell the
investigator his statement - not true. Mehedi son of Latif told him that the
body was in the corn field - not true. He did not go to the police station. He
testified fictitiously or he testified under the influence of the enemy of the
accused - not true.
13.
P/W-4, Md. Enamul Haque, Senior
Judicial Magistrate, Kushtia said examination in-chief that he is currently
working as Senior Judicial Magistrate of Kushtia on 25/03/2020 A.D. The accused
in this case Md. Shahidur Rahman @ Piru Mithun was presented to him to record
his (accused) confessional statement by Inspector Abdul Alim. He (Magistarte)
then gave the accused more than three hours to think. He asked many questions
to the accused before recording confession about the law and the rules that no
one is obliged to confess and that confession can go against him (the accused).
The accused made this confession voluntarily and spontaneously. In his opinionn
this confession is completely voluntary. This is the confessional statement
recording in a prescribed form and it has 06 signatures of him (Senior Judicial
Magistrate) marked as Exbt. No. 4 and his 06 signature as Exbt. Nos. 4/1-4/6.
The recoded confessional statement was read over after recording to the accused
who after heard and found to be true the accused gave signature as it is
correct. That P.W.4 in the cross-examination of the Ld. Counsel on
behalf of the accused Md. Piru Mithun, he said that in the original form, Abdul
Alim was written in the house of the accused and then it was cut off and then
Shahidur Rahman alias Piru Mithun was written. Time is also cut and written. On
the first page of Form No. M-45, there are some quarrels. The statement was not
written at the time the record was started. At 1.30 pm on 25/3/20 A.D. accused
Piru introduced Mithun to him. The accused was first arrested on 09/9/2019 A.D.
at around 12.00 noon. Then he presented it to him around 5.00 pm. The accused
was in jail custody till 25/3/20 A.D. It was not mentioned at the end of the
statement that the accused read out his statement and signed the statement. It
is not true that the accused was tortured by the police or the accused
testified as per the instructions of the police or there were signs of torture
on the body of the accused or the statement of the accused is not voluntary or his
recorded statement is not correct.
14.
That P/W-5 Md. Abdul Awal son of Md.
Mozibor Rahman of Monohorpur Village under Kumerkhali Police station said in
his examination in-chief that he was at their house in Manoharpur village on 16/3/2018
AD., the day his cousin Tofa died. The accused Mehedi arrives there at around
4:00 pm. Mehdi came and said that he didn't have money in his mobile phone. He
took his mobile phone away from him and talks to someone. Then he left with the
phone to him. The next call came to his phone from an unknown number. He asked him
and his name from the other side of the phone. Then he said his name. He tells him
that he called Badshah from Manoharpur. He asked him who had called his son
Imran. He told him that he did not call. Mehedi called with his phone. P.W.5
during cross-examination on behalf of accused Mehedi Hasan, the witness
said that he did not know who Mehedi had called from him. He (P.W.5) was
declared hostile by the state and during the cross-examination; the witness
said that it was not true that he had given a statement to the investigator. On
18/3/2018 at 9.30 am, Mehedi told sayeem of Manoharpur village and Sayem called
the informant told him that there was a headless body lying in Sadarpur maize
field or that the body belonged to Imran Sheikh and he denied the suggestion
that being inflenced by the accused he is giving eveidence in favor of the
accused.
15.
That P/W-6 Md. Tipu Sultan son of
Late Afil Uddin of Sadarpur Village, Kumerkhali, Kushtia said in his
examination in-chief that on the evening of last 16/3/2018
AD, he went to the market in Alauddin Nagar. Informant Badsha told him, "his
son Imran was called by a boy named Mehedi and taken away on a
motorcycle". Her son has not been found since. Later we went to Zaheer's
corn field on 16/3/2018 AD after hearing about a headless corpse. He went and
saw a naked body lying there without a head. Later the police came there and
took the body to the hospital. The body was found on 18/3/2018 AD. On 25/3/2018
A.D, before Maghrib, the head of the corpse was found under the weed/Ulu pile
placed on the isle of Ulu forest in Manipur of Sadarpur. The head was found
according to the identification of accused Raju. Raju had a handcuff in his
hand. When the investigating officer questioned Raju about the incident, he
said that the accused Mehedi, Raju, Piru Mithun, Judge, Imran, Nahid together
caused the incident and the accused judge led them. This is my statement. The
accused are in the dock today. He gave a statement to the investigator on
23/01/2020 AD. P.W.6 during cross-examination on behalf of accused Mehedi
Hasan, said that it was not true that he did not tell the investigator that
Mehedi Hasan was led by Judge. He has not seen any incident himself. But he saw
the body and the head. He has not seen who called where and how. He has not
seen where and how the killings took place. During cross-examination on behalf
of the other accused, the witness said that Sadarpur and Manoharpur as well as
villages. He has nothing to do with the plaintiff. But he knew him. It is not
true that he did not tell the investigator about Raju's confession and
identification of the head of the body or He was not present at the time of
retrieving the head of the body or the plaintiff did not tell me the names of
the accused or He did not see the head and body recovered because he was not
there or or he gave false testimony for good relationship with the plaintiff.
16.
P/W-7 Md. Kamrul said in his examination
in-chief that the inspector took a signature from me on the fact that the
motorcycle was recovered. He didn't see the car. He identified the Seizure list
which has been marked as Exbt. No.6 and his signature marekd as Exbt. No.6/1. P.W.7
during cross-examination on behalf of all the accused, the witness said that he
was sitting in a tea shop at Ishaldanga intersection. At that time the police
took his signature.
17.
P/W-8 Md. Nur Alam said in his examination
in-chief that on the evening of 16/3/2018 AD, he went there after seeing the
people at the informant Badsha's house. He went and heard that someone had
called the Badsha's son and his son got the phone and left. He never came back
later. The Badsha 's son's name is Imran. Later on 18/3/2018 A.D. at around
9.30 am, a headless body was lying naked in the corn field of Sadarpur Zaheer. The
informant Badsha identified the body as that of his son. The informant Badsha
cried and fainted. Later the police came and sent the body to Kushtia Hospital.
The body was later buried. In the afternoon of 25/03/2018 A.D., the accused
Raju was taken to Manoharpur ground by the police. Raju informed the police
that Mehdi, Mithun, Joj, Nahid; Imran had killed the son of the accused. Later,
according to Raju, the head of the body was recovered and taken away by the
police. At that time he signed a paper. This is his statement. He identified
the surothal report where he put signature which has been marked as Exbt.
No.3/2. P.W.8 during cross-examination of all the accused, said that the
plaintiff Badsha was his neighbour's cousin. His house is in Manoharpur Madhyapara.
Next to the Badsha's house, One or two houses in his house then the informant
Badsha's house. He has not seen any incident happen. However, he saw bodies and
heads recovered. When Raju told the investigator about the incident, according
to Raju, He knew the accused. He knew Raju before. He did not know in which
village his house is. He didn't know the name of Raju's parents. He did not
know the name of the investigator. The investigator later questioned me.
Accused Raju told the names of the accused to the investigating officer in
front of me. He did not come to court with the plaintiff. He was coming later. He
did not have much talk with the plaintiff. It is not true that he did not know
or do not know Raju or he did not tell the names of the accused to the
investigator or he did not tell the investigator about the recovery of the body
and head or he told the court today by
fabricating a new story or Raju did not admit any incident.
18.
P/W-9 Dr. Tapash Kumer Sarker said in his examination in-chief that he was working Residential Medical
Offcier in Kushtia General Hospital. Worked as a Medical Officer in Kushtia
General Hospital on 18-03-2018 A.D., while he was engaged, he conducted an
autopsy on the body of Imran Sheikh (45) as per the presentation of Constable
No. 276 Md. Ashraf. The body received the following injuries as he found at the
time of autopsy-.
1. Cut throat wound in middle of neck
with complete scperation of head from body measuring about 10 inch x 10 inch
with injury of vessels, nerves, bones and about 48 hours old. 2. A bruise in
left leg measuring about 1 inch x 1 inch.
On dissection: The vertebral column and spinal cord and injured. The great
vesselse of neck are injured.
Opinion: Cause of death is due
to haemorrhage and shock as a result of above mentioned injury which is
ante-mortem and homicidal in nature.
This is the
post-mortem report marked as Exbt. No.7 dated 18-03-2018 A.D and his signature
on as Exbt. No.7/1. This witness was cross-examined on behalf of the accused
and he denied the suggestion that he did not do post mortem report and give
opinion properly.
According to the identification of
Constable No. 481 Nirmal in the 250-bed General Hospital Morgue at 10.00 am on
26/3/2018 A.D, he completed the autopsy of the head of the deceased Imran
Sheikh and gave the report-
1. Cut throat wound involving whole neck
with detachment from body measurng about 15 cm x 15 cm and about 72 hours old.
On dissection: Antemortem blood clot,
tissue laceration with congestion is present associated with above said
viscera. The great vessels of neck and spinal cord are injured. The brain
matter is partially decomposed.
Opinion: The death is due to
haemorrhage and shock as a result of above mentioned injuries which are
ante-mortem and homicidal in nature.
This is the post-mortem report of only head marked
as Exbt. No.8 dated 26-03-2018 A.D. and his signature on as Exbt. No.8/1. P.W. 9 during the cross-examination
of the accused, the witness said that the first autopsy was done on 18/3/2018
and the age of injury was mentioned as 48 hours. The second autopsy was done on
26/3/2018 and he mentioned the age of 72 hours of injury. Separate autopsies of
heads and corpses have been completed, hence mentioning separate times.
19.
P/W.10 Md. Abul Kalam Azad said in
his examination in-chief that on 16/03/2018 AD, Badshah, Badshah's son Imran,
Shishir went to eat medicine on Friday. Then Imran got the phone and came out
with the motorcycle. Shishir gets a phone call. On 18/3/2018 A.D. at 8.30 am,
we came to know that body was lying
naked in the Zahir's corn field. The body was cut throat. He identified the
body as Imran. Then the police came to the spot. The police came and made an
inquest report of the body. The body was brought to Kushtia Hospital and on
25/3/2018 A.D. the head was recovered in the presence of Manik/Fanik Ding,
according to the accused Raju. Accused Raju, Mehedi, Mehedy @Joj, Nahid, Anik
and Mithu Wadud together killed the victim. He testified to the police. The
accused appeared at the dock. P.W.10 during cross-examination of the
accused, the witness said that he did not give statement to the police on
18/3/2018 A.D. and 25/3/2018 A.D. He later testified. According to Raju, the
victim's head was not recovered and it is not true that Mehedi, Piru Mithun,
Nahid, Anik and Wadud did not go to the spot. Badsha is his cousin. What he
said while giving a statement to the police on 20/02/2020 A.D. is not true. He
did not say in his statement about leaving his mobile phone with Shishir. It is
not true that he gave false testimony.
20.
P/W-11 Md. Zahir Sheikh said in his examination in chief that on 18/3/2018 A.D. at 9.30 am, many
people saw the corn field in the field. In that corn field, he and the
plaintiff saw the corpse of Imran, the son of the king, in a state of
decapitation. He saw and left. He heard the police come. He later heard that
the accused Mehedi, Peer Mithun, Nahid, Anik, Wadud and Mehedi @ Joj killed and
left the body and fled. The accused appeared at the dock. P.W.11 said in
cross-examination that he heard from leaving his corn field that the police had
arrested Mehedi. He himself did not see the victim killed. The plaintiff Badsha
has nothing to do with it. The informant was neighbor of the village. It is not
true that accused Mehedi, Piru Mithun, Nahid, Anik is not involved in any
incident.
21. P.W.12 Sabur Ali has been declared tendered by
the prosecution side and the defence side declined to cross-examine.
22.
P/W-13 Md. Inzamul Karim @ Shishir said in his examination in chief that on 16/3/2018 AD, we heard that the
accused Mehedi, Piru Mithun, Babu Ahmed, Nahid, Mehedi George and Wadud 06
killed the plaintiff's son Imran and dumped his decapitated body in the Zaheer’s
corn field of Sadarpur. Last Friday 16/3/2018 AD to eat the invitation on the Raidanga
village. Imran gets a call and after getting the phone, he leaves the phone on
the table and leaves with the motorcycle. After a while, the call to Imran's
number finally came from number 21. He actually received the call and say Imran
bhai is gone. Then after accepting the invitation, he left for home with his
uncle Badsha. He went home and elder Uncle goes to the market. In the evening the
elder uncle asks if Imran is coming. Imran said that the call came from 2
numbers and he gave those two numbers to his uncle. Later he sat down to read. He
falls asleep at night. On last 17/3/2018 AD, he heard that Imran did not come
back. He searched all the relatives at home. He found the body of Imran Bhai on
18/3/2018 A.D. Later, the police took his signature on the seizure list.
Knowing the accused, they appeared at the dock. P.W.13 during the cross-examination
of the accused, the witness said that according to the statement of the accused
Raju, on 25/3/2018 A.D. he mentioned the names of other accused to the police.
The police wrote to the name of the accused in front of him. It is not true
that he did not give any statement to the police. His house is 1 km away from
Zaheer's corn field and he was also with the plaintiff. Big uncle Badsha tells
him that Imran's decapitated body is lying there. It is not true that his
statement is not correct. It is not true that Mehdi was arrested by the police
and his uncle Badsha. Mizan of Raydanga village does not know what kind of
relatives he is. It is unknown at this time what he will do after leaving the
post. He gave a statement to the police in 2020. His cousin Imran left his
phone and left. He didn't know what phone company's phone, Samsung J7 model. It
is not true that he did not tell the police about the seizure list or that his
cousin was killed.
23. P/W-14 Constable No.226 Md. Asraful Islam
said in his examination in chief that on 18/3/2018 A.D., the body of Victim
Imran was taken to Kushtia Sadar Hospital from Sadarpur village from Zaheer's
corn field. Prepared the seizure list on 18/3/2018 A.D. S.I. Ferdous Alam wrote
his name in column 3 of the witness but did not give his signature. His name is
on the seizure list. During the interrogation, the witness said that his name
was in the seizure list. S.I. Ferdous Alam informed. He did not identify the
victim. Alamat rescued Sir as he was rescued from the seizure list.
24. P.W.15 Md. Saidul Islam has been declared
tendered by the prosecution side and the defence side declined to
cross-examine.
25.
P.W.16 Md. Abdul Mannan has been
declared tendered by the prosecution side and the defence side declined to
cross-examine.
26.
P.W.17 Md. Mohidul son of Kawser Ali Mondol of Ishaldanga village of Moheshpur, Jhenaidah has been
declared tendered by the prosecution side and the defence side declined to
cross-examine.
27.
P.W.18 Mrs. Dolon Nessa has been
declared tendered by the prosecution side and the defence side declined to
cross-examine.
28.
P/W-19 Md. Mizanur Rahman Senior
Judicial Magistrate, Kushtia said examination in-chief that he is currently
working as Senior Judicial Magistrate of Kushtia on 21/03/2020 A.D. The accused
in this case Md. Shahidur Rahman @ Piru Mithun was presented to him to record
his confessional statement by Inspector Abdul Alim. He then gave the accused
more than three hours to think. He asked many questions to the accused before
recording confession about the law and the rules that no one is obliged to
confess and that confession can go against him (the accused). The accused made
this confession voluntarily and spontaneously. In his opinion this confession
is completely voluntary. This is the confessional statement recording in a
prescribed form and it has 06 signatures of him (Senior Judicial Magistrate)
marked as Exbt. No. 9 and his 06 signature as Exbt. Nos. 9/1, 9/2, 9/3, 9/4,
9/5 & 9/6. The recoded confessional statement was read over after recording
to the accused who after heard and found to be true the accused gave signature
as it is correct. P.W.19 in the cross-examination of the Ld. Counsel on behalf
of all the accused including the accused Mehedi Hasan and said that the
memorandum was given at the end of the statement. It is not true that the
memorandum given by him was not given properly or he did not write it even
though he spoke about the torture in the body of the accused or who presented
it to him after three days of physical torture or he did not record his
statement in proper format Columns 5 and 6 were not read properly or the
statement of the accused was not voluntarily motivated.
29.
P/W-20 S.I. Ferdous Alam as Surothal maker police officer said in his examination in-chief that while working in
Kumarkhali police station on 18/3/2018 A.D., he got the news that there was a
murder in Manoharpur. He went to the spot and found a headless body from Md.
Zaheer the corn field. He prepared the inquest report in front of the witnesses
at the P.O. He accepted the signatures of the witnesses and signed himself. Who
or what kills and leaves the dead body. He sent the body to the morgue through
Constable Ashraful. On 18/3/2018 A.D. at 11.10 am he prepared the seizure list
by recovering the description of the seized goods from the corn field of Md.
Zaheer under Kumarkhali police station. It has his signature on the Inquest
report which has been marked as Exbt. No.2 & 2/2. He also prepared a
seizure list dated 18-03-2018 AD which has been marked as Exbt. No.10 and his
signature marked as Exbt. No.10/1. That P.W.20 during cross-examination on
behalf of all the accused stated that he prepared the original inquest report
on GD No. 72 at 10.15 am. The statement was filed on 20/3/20 AD. In the
inquest, it is mentioned that unknown persons have killed. It was not
immediately clear who killed him. On 18/3/2018 A.D. he prepared the inquest reprot
of this case and prepared the seizure list. S.I Milton went to the P.O with
other officers at that time. At that time S. I. Milton arrested one and did not
remember his name.
30.
P/W-21 Inspector Abdul Alim as Investigation police officer (I.O.) said in his examination in-chief that he was the
investigating officer in this case. On 09/11/2019 A.D. while working as
Inspector (Investigation) in Kumarkhali Police Station, he got the
responsibility of investigation of this case. He reviewed the docket of the
case. Let's visit the P.O. of the case. He did not re-prepare the Sketch map
and Index prepared by the previous investigating officer as it was found to be
correct. He tried to arrest the accused Mehedi Hasan Joj. He inquired about the
stay order of the remand hearing Hon'ble High Court of arrested accused Piru
Mithun. Accused Piru Mithun was remanded for three days on a court order. The
accused Piru Mithun made a confessional statement in Court involving him and
others. After questioning 09 witnesses, their statements were recorded under
section 161, FIR, Section 161 Statement, Inquiry Report, Seizure List, Sketch
map and Index, Accused Piru Mithun's Confessional Statement, DNA Report Review
In his overall investigation, the accused 01. Md. Munshi Anik Hasan @ Imran, 02.
Md. Wadud Islam @ Raju as against them the preliminary truth of the allegations
has been proved, he filed the Charge Sheet No. 73 of Kumarkhali Police Station
against them on 23/4/2020 A.D under Sections 364, 302, 201, 369, 411 and 34 of
the Penal Code. He (P.W.21) identified his signature on the charge sheet which
has been marked as Exbt. No. 11 & 11/1. That P.W.21 During cross-examination
on behalf of all the accused said that he first went to the spot on 12/11/2019
AD. He couldn't estimate the distance to get the head from where the body was
found. Although the place is a little far away, there are houses. He saw the Case
diary (CD) with the phone call before the charge sheet is filed. He did not
inquire whether the accused Mehedi Hasan @ Joj and Nahid was registered in the
name of in that phone call or whether the call was made from their mobile
number. Confessional statements are kept confidential in court documents. It is
limited to the investigating officer. In the statement of 161, the witnesses
are heard to give the confessional statement of the accused. Witnesses are not
supposed to know the confessional statement. But he wrote what they said.
Mehedi Hasan was arrested on 20/3/2018 AD. The names of Mehedi Hasan @Joj and
Nahid Piru Mithun and their names did not come up till the arrest of Mehedi
Hasan. He saw the confessional statements of Mehedi Hasan and Piru Mithun. He
did not mention that Mehedi Hasan and Piru Mithun have blamed each other in
their statements. Piru Mithun was remanded on 23/3/2020 A.D. Surrendered by
Piru Mithu on 09/9/2019 AD. After six long months, Piru Mithun was remanded. He
forwarded Piru Mithun to the court on 25/3/2020 A.D after remand. He has
recorded the statement of 161 of the accused Piru Mithun on 25/3/2020 AD.
Despite being a witness, he did not give any explanation as to why he did 161
of the accused; He was not forced. He had reviewed the papers along with the statement.
According to Wadud Islam Raju, the head of the victim, the rescue is mentioned.
The inquest report mentions the home address of accused Wadud in Kumarkhali
police station and Jhenaidah district. There is no Kumarkhali police station in
Jhenaidah district. It was a mistake. Victim's head is recovered from the land
of Fanik Mia. Md. Kalam raised the victim’s head. He did not write section 161
statements of Fanik Mia and Kalam. How far is Shilaidaha Ghat from the land of
Fanik Mia? He estimates it was 1/1.5 km. Mehdi Hasan in his confession said
that he threw victim’s head at Shilaidaha Ghat. The date of arrest of Wadud
Islam Raju was not mentioned. His investigation did not mention that. The name
of accused Wadud Islam Raju was not mentioned in section 164. Wadud Islam Raju
used to work as a guard at Sonali Bank, Alauddin Nagar. When the victim died,
Badshah Sheikh made a General Diary (G.D) and he did not submit a copy of that
GD. He started the investigation based on the incident that took place on the
night of 16/3/2018 A.D. Mehdi Hasan's statement of 164 mentions the date of the
incident as 16/3/2018 AD. Piru Mithun's statement under section 164 mentions
the time of the incident as 16/3/2018 AD. CDR has information. According to the
information of CDR, the incident took place on 18/3/2018 AD. Witness Sabur Ali
has said in 161 statements that accused Mehdi has been arrested. But no date is
mentioned. It is not true that their statement did not contain details about
the date, time and place of the incident or his investigation report did not
provide details about who killed Victim Imran with whom and when or where he
was forced to make a confessional statement for fear of crossfire by torturing
him inhumanely or he stood by the Magistrate's room until the statement was
recorded or he confessed to threatening Mehdi Hasan to death or cross fire or
for what reason the accused Wadud Islam Raju was arrested or Wadud Islam Raju
was not involved in the incident or implicated the accused Wadud in immoral
collusion with the informant or 09 witnesses made similar statements about
Mehdi's arrest or there was no material to file the charge sheet and being
influenced by the inflential person he filed this charge sheet or all the
accused are innocent.
31.
P/W-22 S.I. Milton Kumer Debdas as Investigation police officer said in his examination in-chief that he is the
first investigating officer (I.O.) in the case. Last 20/3/2018 A.D. Kumarkhali
police station as S.I. when this case was filed while he was working as an officer,
the officer in charge Kumarkhali handed over the investigation to him. He took
charge of the investigation and visited the spot after reviewing the statement.
Draw the sketch map and Index of the site on separate sheets of paper. The
statements of the witnesses were recorded under section 161. He later conducted
a raid and arrested the accused. Based on the information given by the accused
Raju, the evidence of this case was recovered by recovering the motorcycle and
preparing the seizure list. He signed it himself and accepts the signatures of
the witnesses. After recovering the head of the deceased, he prepared the
inquest report and seizure list of the head. The accused in the case handed
over Mehdi to the court and we arranged the record of Mehdi's confessional
statement. When he was later transferred, he handed over the docket of the
case. P.W.22 during cross-examination on behalf of all the accused, the
witness said that he first visited the spot on 20/3/2018 AD. He couldn't say
what time it is. The investigation also found another pile of abandoned garbage
in the north-west corner of the alleged chan field. He arranged the record of
the confessional statement of the accused No.1 named Mehedi Hasan. Shilaidaha
Ghat did not come under his investigation. He has not prepared any seizure list
at Shilaidaha Ghat. He did not collect a copy of the GD on which the
post-mortem report and the inquest report are based. The incident started on
18/3/2018 A.D. at 19.00 pm. The post-mortem was done at 14.30 hrs and the body
was sent to GD at 11.15 hrs. The statement was filed two days late. Let's start
the investigation of this case in GD - this is not true. The places marked A,
B, C, D in the draft map are crop fields but did not mention whose fields. He
did not even mention the second sketch map. He recorded 161 statements of Naib
Ali and Chayem Ali. The statements of Naib Ali and Chayem did not mention the
involvement of any of the accused. He collected mobile call list. He will take
the CDR of the specific person. There is no location in any tower of Sadarpur
in his submitted CDR. There is no Rayadanga either. He had the CD of the case
till 15 May 2017. No drugs were found in the abdomen of his body during
investigation. The name of accused Wadud Raju is not in the statement. Wadud @
Raju's name is not in the confessional statement of accused Mehdi. Mehdi says
in his confession that the other accused threw their heads at Shilaidaha Ghat -
it is mentioned in 164. The inquest report mentions Hanif Mia and Kalam. They
raised their heads. Their signature is not in the inquest report. Accused Wadud
Raju was arrested from Alauddin Nagar on 22/3/2018 AD at 9.25 am. The accused
Wadud Raju's invoice form did not mention his arrest from Alauddin Nagar. He
didn't remember who was arrested in front of whom. He recovered the motorcycle
from the barn of Abdul Mannan's house in Maheshpur, Jhenaidah district. He did
not know whether the house is accused Wadud Raju or not. Wadud Raju's house is
in Tulsitala. He mentioned Wadud Raju's house Tulsitala, Kumarkhali Thana in
the inquest report. He had witnessed the people present at Abdul Mannan's
house. He did not witness Abdul Mannan. They arrested Wadud on the basis of the
information provided by the source and the mobile call list. Wadud Raju's
network was in Alauddin Nagar. Talking to Piru Mithun from Wadud's mobile
number 01954-59062, the conversation started from 18/03/2018 A.D. The phone is
going to come again and again. Calls have been coming from both directions. In
short, he did not investigate any issue of mobile SIM registration. It is not
true that there was no talk of Piru Mithun's mobile phone with Wadud or he was
influenced by the informant and unjustly arrested the accused Wadud and sent
him away or it is not correct to save the head as shown by the accused Wadud.
Wadud Alauddin Nagar used to work in Sonali Bank. It is not true that accused
Wadud Raju is not involved in the incident. He went to the PO after receiving
the investigation of the case. The inquest report in this case is probably S.I.
Ferdous have done. It is not true that when Ferdous reported the inquest and
recovered the body, he went to the spot or arrested an accused as a suspect at
that time or gave the name of that accused as Mehdi, father-Faridul Islam Latif
or Mehdi to Imran's uncle Badal. He didn't know if the officer-in-charge of the
police station told various media outlets about the arrest of an accused. S.I.
Ferdous It is not right for me to arrest an accused while preparing
interrogation report. It is not true that he arrested Mehdi on the 18th and
drove him on the 21st or tortured the accused Mehdi in his custody or prepared
him to give his taught statement or he was standing in front of him during the
recording of his statement. Mehedi has stated the date of the incident as
18/3/2018 A.D. According to his part of investigation, the incident started on
the 16/03/2018 A.D. and the incident on the 17/03/2018 AD. It is not true that
Mehedi said that the date of the incident was 18-03-18 after being tortured by him.
It is not true that according to what he have taught, the accused Mehdi made a
statement which was later proved to be false or he involved him because he did
not get unfair advantage from Mehdi's family or Mehedi's confessional statement
is not correct.
32.
That D.W.1 the accused Md. Mehedi Hasan said as defence witness that he himself in this case submitted a paper
or letter written by him on the day of his examination today (the accused's
examination) under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the subject
matter of my detention at the time of the incident was submitted to the
accused.
Discussion:
33.
Now let us analyze the evidence obtained in the light of the various
circumstances raised by the arguments of the accused and the real circumstances. A summary
of the arguments presented in favor of the accused person have already
been mentioned sepearately. Accused’s questions and answers have flowed in a
virtually separate stream. First, in their statement, the state/prosecution
side could not present sufficient and legal evidences to implicate the accused
in the alleged allegations. Secondly, since the victim Imran was an young man
with dreams and friend of the accused Imran so there was no reason to kill her
by slaughtering & cutting his throat from the body as beheaded, there has
been not a clear motive to the accused in this case and intention so the
accused could be acquitted as the incident was taken place due to sudden
greedines or stealing motorbike.
34. These are the evidences by the prosecution. Of
the witnesses, P.Ws.1-6 are local witnesses of whom P.Ws. 1, Badsha Sheikh, the
informant, father of the victim Imran, Surothal witness P.W.2, Md. Naeb Ali,
& P.W.3 Saem son of Naeb Ali, P.W.4 Md. Enamul Haque, Senior Judicial
Magistrate, Kushtia as confessional statement recording witness, P.W.5 Md. Abdul Awal, P.W.6 Md. Tipu Sultan,
P.W.7 Md. Kamrul, Surothal Report Witness P.W.8 Md. Nur Alam, P.W.9 Dr. Taposh
Kumar as post-mortem doing medical officer, P.W.10 Abul Kalam Azad, P.W.11 Md.
Zahir Sheikh, Sobur Ali as P.W.12, P.W.13 Inzamul Karim @ Shisir, P.W.14 Constable
226 Md. Ashraful Islam, P.W.15 Md. Saidul Islam, , P.W.16 Md. Abdul Mannan, ,
P.W.17 Md. Mohidul Islam, , P.W.18 Mrs. Dolon Nessa, P.W.19 Md. Mizanur Rahman
Senior Judicial Magistrate, Kushtia as confessional statement recording
witness, is the son of the victim,
P.W.20 S.I. Ferdous Alam who prepared Inquest report and seizure list, P.W.21,
Ploice Inspector Abdul Alim as Investigation Officer, P.W.22, Ploice
Sub-Inspector Milton Kumer Debdas as first Investigation Officer, P.W.2-3 are the neighbouring witness, P.W.9,
is the medical witness, P.W.4 & 19 are the Senior Judicial Magistrate who
recorded confessional witnesses, P.W.10-13, 15-18 are the local witnesses and P.W.14
is the official witness. Admittedly in this case there is no eye witness to the
occurrence. As a matter of fact ocular witness is nil. However, there is a
confessional statement made by the two accused Md. Mehedi Hasan and Md. Piru
Mithun. The Confessional statement has been marked as Exbt. No. 4& 9.
35.
The second or alternative arguments on behalf of the accused can be gradually
shed light on. First of
all, let us discuss the evidence obtained in the light of the facts to be
considered and the allegations made and the actual surrounding circumstances. That
the allegations levelled against the accused as per ‘Ezahar’ is that his eldest son Imran Sheikh had eaten at
Mizan's house in Raydanga village on 16/3/2018 A.D. at around 3.10 pm after
eating a phone call came from the number 01756055033 to his son's phone number
is 01710343967. In fact, he kept his own mobile phone from that place with the informant's
younger brother's son Md. Shishir. That Imran left for Manoharpur village with
his own used red and black 150cc Pulsar motorcycle (engine No. DHYWHH18539,
chassis No. MD2-A11-CY7-HWH-86751). Shishir, the son of his younger brother,
received the call again on his son's mobile from 01722-599121 and said,
"My brother left the mobile with me and left." As the son of the
complainant did not return home even after evening, he called the number and
asked about his son. After much searching, she could not find her son and
continued searching. Later on 18/3/2018 A.D. at around 9.30 am, Md. Sayem from
Manoharpur village called him and informed him that Mehedi had informed Sayem
that there was a decapitated headless corpse lying in Sadarpur maize field.
Mehdi identified the decapitated body as that of Imran. The informant quickly
went to the spot and saw a headless decapitated body lying naked in the corn
field of Mohammad Zaheer of Sadarpur village. He identified the body as that of
his son. Witnesses Badal, Md. Nur Alam, Md. Naib Ali and many others were
present at his shout. According to the statement of the petitioner, at any time
between 19.00 hrs on 16/03/2018 A.D. to 9.30 hrs on 18/3/2018 A.D., the accused
1. Mehedi Hasan, 2. Md. Piru Mithun and other unidentified persons abducted his
son in a pre-planned manner and at that place they took him, cut his throat and
killed him and stole her son's used motorcycle. The plaintiff filed an ‘Ezahar’
statement in this case in the light of this incident. After receiving the news,
the police came to the spot, prepared an inquest report of his son's body and
sent it to Kushtia General Hospital Morgue for autopsy. After informing his relatives
about this, there was a slight delay in filing an FIR/Ezahar to the Police
station
36. Let us see who are the accused in this case as
per the oral evidences of P.Ws. Firstly we see what the Ezahar states; In the
FIR named accused were 01. Mehedi Hasan, 02. Md. Shahidur Rahman @ Piru Mithun.
The other four accused namely 01. Mehedi Hasan Joj, 02. Nahid Hasan, 03. Anik
Hasan & 04. Wadud Islam @ Razu were charge sheeted named. As per recored it
is seen that S.I. Milton for the first time arrested the accused Mehedi Hasan
son of Faridul Islam Latif and all the prosecution witnesses oral evidences are
credible, neutral and had given their evidence in supporting the case of the
whole incident. Regarding the 06 accused involvement in the offence of murder
has been proved and how the involement should have been ascertained?. In
supporting the FIR version statement P.W.1 the informant Badsha Sheikh stated
that-
“MZ
16/3/2018 wLªt Zvwi‡L Abygvb `ycyi 3t10 NwUKvi mgq Zvi eo †Q‡j Bgivb †kL
ivqWv½v MÖvg¯’ †gvt wgRvi, wcZv- BqvKze Gi evox‡Z `vIqvi LvIqvi ci Zvi †gvevB‡j
01756-055033 b¤^i n‡Z Avgvi †gvevBj b¤^‡i †dvb Avm‡j Avgvi †Q‡j D‡jøwLZ ¯’vb
n‡Z Zvi wb‡Ri †gvevBj †dvbwU Avgvi †QvU fvB‡qi †Q‡j †gvt wkwk‡ii Kv‡Q †i‡L Zvi
e¨eüZ jvj Kv‡jv is Gi 150 wmwm cvjPvi †gvUimvB‡Kj hvi BwÂb bs DHYWWHHI8539 wb‡q g‡bvnicyi
MÖv‡gi w`‡K iIbv K‡i| mܨvi c‡iI evox‡Z wd‡i bv Avmvq Avwg D³ b¤^‡i †dvb K‡i
Avgvi †Q‡ji K_v Rvb‡Z †P‡j D³ b¤^i †_‡K †gvt AvIqvj Rvbvq †h, Zvi b¤^i †_‡K
†g‡n`x, wcZv- †gvt dwi`yj Bmjvg jwZd, mvs- g‡bvnicyi, _vbv- KzgviLvjx, †Rjv-
Kzwóqv Avgvi †Q‡ji †gvevB‡j †dvb K‡i‡Q| †LuvRvLywR Ae¨vnZ ivwL| cieZ©x‡Z 18/3/2018 wLªt ZvwiL mKvj Abygvb
9.30 NwUKvi mgq g‡bvnicyi MÖvg¯’ †gvt mv‡qg, wcZv- †gvt bv‡qe Avjx Avgv‡K †dvb
K‡i Rvbvq †h, †g‡n`x Zv‡K Rvwb‡q‡Q m`icyi f~Æv †ÿ‡Zi g‡a¨ GKwU gv_vwenxb
MjvKvUv jvk c‡o Av‡Q| †g‡n`x mbv³ K‡i‡Q †h, gv_vwenxb MjvKvUv jvkwU
Bgiv‡bi| Avwg `ªæZ NUbv¯’‡j wMqv †`L‡Z cvB †h, GKwU gv_v wenxb MjvKvUv jvk m`icyi MÖvg¯’ †gvt Rwn‡ii fzÆv †ÿ‡Zi g‡a¨
Dj½ Ae¯’vq c‡o Av‡Q| jvkwU Avgvi †Q‡ji e‡j Avwg mbv³ Kwi| Avgvi wPrKv‡i
Av‡kcv‡k _vKv mvÿx ev`j, †gvt b~i Avjg, †gvt bv‡qe Avjx mn Av‡iv A‡b‡KB †mLv‡b
Dcw¯’Z nq| Avgvi aviYv n‡”Q †h, 16/3/2018 wLªt ZvwiL ivwÎ Abygvb 19.00
NwUKv †_‡K 18/3/2018 wLªt ZvwiL Abygvb 9.30 NwUKvi g‡a¨ †h‡Kvb mgq Avmvgx
†g‡n`x, †gvt wciæ wgVzb, †g‡n`x nvmvb @ RR, bvwn` nvmvb, AwbK nvmvb @ Bgivb I
ivRy mn AÁvZbvgv Avmvgx Avgvi †Q‡j‡K c~e© cwjKwíZfv‡e AcniY K‡i D³ ¯’v‡b wb‡q
wM‡q Mjv †K‡U nZ¨v K‡i‡Q| Gici KzgviLvjx _vbv cywjk G‡m Avgvi †Q‡ji
gv_vwenxb jv‡ki myiZnvj cÖwZ‡e`b cÖ¯‘Z c~e©K g„Z †`n gqbv Z`‡šÍi Rb¨ nvmcvZv‡j
†cÖiY K‡i| AvjvgZ Rã K‡i| cieZ©x‡Z Avwg GB gvgjv Kwi| 25/8/2018 wLªt Zvwi‡L Avgvi †Q‡ji jv‡ki g¯ÍK Avmvgx ivRyi †`Lv‡bv g‡Z
gvwb‡K Djy †ÿ‡Z cvIqv hvq|”
That the defence side cross-examined the informant
seperately on behalf of the accused and the P.W.1 denied the suggestion that
the accused Mehedy Hasan has been falsely named in FIR and his son Imran was
drug addicted. That P.W.1 stated in cross-examination on behalf of the accused
Mehedy “16/3/18 wLªt Zvwi‡L Zviv `vIqvZ
†L‡Z hvb `ycy‡ii ci| `vIqvi LvIqvi ci
Zvi †Q‡j Bgiv‡bi †dv‡b †dvb Av‡m Avmvgx wciæ wgVz‡bi †gvevBj b¤^i n‡Z| c‡i
e‡j b¤^iUv Kvi bv‡g †iwRt Zv wZwb Rv‡bb bv| wkwki GB gvgjvq mvÿx Av‡Q wK-bv
†Lqvj/¯§iY bvB| Zviv wZb fvB Pvi †evb| NUbvi mgq Zviv wZb fvB RxweZ wQ‡jb|
NUbv¯’‡j wZwb, b~i Avjg, Aveyj Kvjvg AvRv`, wkwki I Zvi fvB ev`j mn Av‡iv A‡b‡K
hvq| mv‡q‡gi †dvb †c‡q NUbv¯’‡j hvb|
†g‡n`xi evwo nB‡Z Zvi evwoi `~iZ¡ Lye †ekx bv| Z‡e Zvi evwo n‡Z 5/7 evwo ci n‡Z
cv‡i| Zvi fvB ev`j †g‡n`xi †_‡K eo| NUbvi Av‡M Zvi fvB ev`‡ji mv‡_ †g‡n`xi
ZK©vZwK© nq wKbv Rv‡bbv| NUbv¯’‡j wMqv
†g‡n`x‡K †`‡Lb bvB| wZwb jvk †`‡L AÁvb n‡q hvb| NUbv¯’‡j KZRb †jvK wQj Zv
ej‡Z cvi‡eb bv, Z‡e A‡bK †jvKRb wQj| Avmvgx
†g‡n`x I Zvi †Q‡j Bgivb eÜz wQj|” P.W.1 stated in cross-examination on behalf of the accused Wadud Islam
Razu that “GRvnv‡i ivRy‡K
Avmvgx K‡ib bvB| Avmvgx ivRyi
†`Lv‡bv g‡Z Zvi †Q‡ji jv‡ki g¯ÍK cvIqv hvq|” P.W.1 stated in cross-examination on behalf of the accused Mehedi Hasan
Joj & Nahid Hasan that “wZwb †g‡n`x
nvmvb RR I bvwn` nvmv‡bi bvg GRvnv‡i
D‡jøL K‡ib bvB|” P.W.1 stated
in cross-examination on behalf of the accused Piru Mithun that
“Zvi †Q‡ji jvk
m`icyi Rwn‡ii fzÆv †ÿ‡Z imy‡bi †ÿ‡Zi cv‡k cvIqv hvq| gvwU‡Z i³ jvMv wQj| Zvici wZwb
Amy¯’ n‡q c‡owQ‡jb| GRvnvi `v‡q‡ii mgq wZwb Ges Zvi AvZ¥xq-¯^Rb wQj| mZ¨ bq †h,
wZwb NUbv¯’‡j hvb bvB ev GRvnv‡ii e³e¨ Avmvgx‡`i kÎæc‡ÿi †jv‡Ki †kLv‡bv|”
P.W.1 the informant stated and supported the same as
narrated in the Ezahar and the defence side cross-examined the informant
regarding the manner of occurrence but failed to bring any contradictions
regarding the date, time place & manner of occurreence. Apart from this
P.W.1 denied the suggestion of the accused persons that the statement narrated
in Ezahar was written as per the accused rival statement. In this regard maternal
uncle of the informant, seizure list witness as well as Inquest report witness
(Exbt. No.2)
37. P.W.2 Md. Naeb Ali also supported the
Ezahar version and P.W.1 informant regarding the date, time place and manner of
occurrence. P.W.2 said that- “MZ 16/3/2018 wLªt ZvwiL ev`kv †kL Avgvi evwo‡Z
Av‡m| GRvnviKvix ev`kv †kL Avgvi fv‡Mœ| ev`kv †kL e‡j †h, Zvi †Q‡j Bgivb‡K
cvIqv hv‡”Q bv| ZLb jv‡ó 21 b¤^‡ii †gvevBj †dvb b¤^i †mB b¤^‡i †dvb †`q| ZLb
AvIqvj †dvb a‡i| AvIqvj †dvb a‡i e‡j †h, Avwg‡Zv †dvb Kwi bvB, K‡i‡Q †g‡n`x| 16/3/2018 wLªt ZvwiL n‡Z 18/3/2018 wLªt
ZvwiL mKvj 9t30 NwUKvi g‡a¨ †h‡Kvb mgq NUbv| 18/3/18 Zvwi‡L mKvj 9t30 NwUKvi
mgq Avgvi †Q‡j mv‡qg Avgv‡K †dvb w`‡q e‡j †h, fzÆv †ÿ‡Zi g‡a¨ GKwU MjvKvUv jvk
c‡o Av‡Q| Avwg msev` ïwbqv NUbv¯’‡j hvB| wMqv †`wL †h, Dj½ Ae¯’vq GKwU jvk
cwoqv Av‡Q| wKš‘ gv_v bvB| Avwg jvk †`‡L
wPwb‡Z cvwi †h, Avgvi bvwZ †Q‡j A_©vr ev`kv †k‡Li †Q‡j| NUbv¯’‡j cywjk Av‡m|
cywjk GKwU KvM‡R Avgvi ¯^vÿi †bq| cieZ©x‡Z
25/3/2018 wLªt Zvwi‡L Avmvgx ivRyi †`Lv‡bv g‡Z wfKwU‡gi gv_v cvIqv hvq|
cywjk Avgv‡K wRÁvmvev` K‡i| Avmvgxiv W‡K Av‡Q| Avwg Avmvgx‡`i‡K wPwb|Ó That P.W.2 was cross-examined by the defence accused Md. Wadud Islam Raju
and stated that “Avmvgx ivRyi
†`Lv‡bv g‡Z jv‡ki gv_v cvIqv hvq Ggb K_v wZwb cywj‡ki Kv‡Q e‡jb bvB- mZ¨ bq|” He (P.W.2) deneid the suggestion that he was
giving false evidence as the informant was his relatives and he did not say
that the accused Piru Mithun was involved with offence which he did not tell to
the investigation officer. That it is very clear that the defence side by
cross-examination failed to bring any contradiction regarding the date, time
& place of occurrence. That P.W.2 Md. Naeb Ali went to the Place of
occurrence and he (P.W.2) stated that “Avwg
msev` ïwbqv NUbv¯’‡j hvB| wMqv †`wL †h, Dj½ Ae¯’vq GKwU jvk cwoqv Av‡Q| wKš‘
gv_v bvB|” then police prepared an Inquest report (1st) and Inquest
Report (2nd) and he (P.W.2) put signature thereon. (Exbt. No.2, 2/1,
3, 3/1 respectively).
38. That the very day on date, place and manner of
occurrence P.W.3 Sayem admitted that he (P.W.3) his father Md. Nayeb Ali
(P.W.2) when he saw a dead body of the victim in the mage filed of Zahir.
Unlike P.W.2 he (P.W.3) has stated that Ò18/3/18 Zvwi‡L
mKvj 9t30 NwUKvi mgq Avwg fzÆv †ÿ‡Z jvk
†`‡L Avgvi AveŸy‡K †dvb w`‡q ewj †h, fzÆv †ÿ‡Zi g‡a¨ GKwU MjvKvUv jvk c‡o Av‡Q|
wKQzÿY c‡i cywjk Av‡m| cieZ©x‡Z
25/3/2018 Zvwi‡L Avmvgx ivRyi †`Lv‡bv g‡Z wfKwU‡gi gv_v cvIqv hvq| H mgq
Avmvgx ivRy cywjk‡K Rvbvq †h, Avmvgx
†g‡n`x nvmvb, wciæ wgVzb, †g‡n`x nvmvb RR, bvwn`, Bgivb, ivRy wfKwUg Bgivb‡K
Mjv †K‡U nZ¨v K‡i‡Q|” It is very common & natural statement of P.W.3 regarding the PO
where the dead body was found and it appears that Place of occurrence, time of
occurrence was admitted and defence did not ask any question about the veracity
of the P.O. in cross-examination. That the accused sides have in no way denied
the allegations in support of the state's allegations and have no reason to
doubt its veracity. That P.W.3 Sayem supported the facts of the case as stated
by P.W.2 and the informant P.W.1 so the statement of the P.W.2 & 3 was very
reliance.
39. That
P.W.5 Md. Abdul Awal son of Md. Mojibur Rahman village Monohorpur, Kumerkhali
Kushtia stated in supporting the statement of the Ezahar and the statement of
P.W.1 regarding the first phone call to the victim’s mobile number and this
witness (P.W.5) reveals the real picture of calling on phone by Mehedi to
victim Imran and in this regard P.W.5 clearly- “MZ 16/3/2018
wLªt Zvwi‡L g‡bvnicyi MÖv‡g Avgvi dzdv‡Zv fvB †Zvdv gviv hvIqvi w`b Avwg Zv‡`i
evmvq wQjvg| Abygvb weKvj 04t00 NwUKvi c‡i Avmvgx †g‡n`x †mLv‡b Av‡m| †g‡n`x
Avwmqv e‡j †h, Avgvi †gvevBj †dv‡b UvKv bvB| Avgvi KvQ †_‡K Avgvi †gvevBj
†dvb wb‡q GKUz `~‡i wM‡q Kvi mv‡_ †hb K_v e‡j| Zvici †dvbUv Avgv‡K w`‡q †m P‡j
†Mj| cieZ©x‡Z AcwiwPZ GKUv b¤^i †_‡K Avgvi †dv‡b Kj Av‡m| †dv‡bi Aci cvk^© †_‡K
Avgv‡K Avgvi bvg wRÁvmv K‡i| Zvici Avwg Avgvi bvg ewj| wZwb Avgv‡K e‡j †h, wZwb ev`kv g‡bvnicyi †_‡K †dvb K‡i‡Q| wZwb Avgv‡K
wRÁvmv K‡i †h, Zvi †Q‡j Bgivb‡K †K †dvb w`‡qwQj| Avwg Zvnv‡K ejjvg †h, Avwg‡Zv
†dvb w`B bvB| Avgvi †dvb wb‡q †g‡n`x †dvb w`‡qwQj|” In cross-examination on behalf of the accused Mehedi Hasan P.W.5 stated
that- “†g‡n`x Avgvi KvQ †_‡K †dvb wb‡q Kvi Kv‡Q †dvb
w`‡qwQj Zv Avwg Rvwb bv|” P.W.5 was delcared hostile by the
prosecution where P.W.5 denied the suggestion that he was giving false evidence
being influenced by the accused side. That P.W.6 Md. Tipu Sultan regarding the
time, place and date of occurrence stated the same like P.W.1, 2, 3 & 5 and
in examination in chief P.W.6 stated that- “MZ
16/3/2018 wLªt Zvwi‡L mܨvi mgq Avwg AvjvDwÏb bM‡i evRvi Kwi‡Z hvB| ev`x ev`kv
Avgv‡K e‡j, ÒAvgvi †Q‡j Bgivb‡K †g‡n`x bvg K‡i GKUv †Q‡j †W‡K wb‡q †M‡Q gUi
mvB‡K‡jÓ| Zvici †_‡K Zvi †Q‡j‡K Avi cvIqv hvq bvB| c‡i Rwn‡ii fzÆv †ÿ‡Z 16/3/2018 wLªt Zvwi‡L GKwU
g¯ÍK wenxb jv‡ki K_v ï‡b Avgiv †mLv‡b hvB| wMqv †`wL †h, †mBLv‡b GKwU Dj½ jvk
gv_v wenxb Ae¯’vq c‡o Av‡Q| c‡i †mLv‡b cywjk Av‡m Ges jvk nvmcvZv‡j wb‡q
hvq| jvk cvIqv hvq 18/3/2018 wLªt Zvwi‡L| 25/3/2018 wLªt Zvwi‡L gvMix‡ei Av‡M
m`icy‡ii gvwb‡K Djy e‡bi AvB‡ji Dci ivLv AvMvQvi ¯‘‡ci bxP nB‡Z D³ jv‡ki gv_v
cvIqv hvq| D³ gv_v Avmvgx ivRyi mbv³
†gvZv‡eK cvIqv hvq| ivRyi nv‡Z n¨vÛKvd wQj| ivRy‡K Z`šÍKvix Kg©KZ©v NUbvi
wel‡q wRÁvmvev` Kwi‡j †m Rvbvq †h, Avmvgx
†g‡n`x, ivRy, wciæ wgVzb, RR, Bgivb, bvwn` wg‡j NUbvwU NUvq Ges Zv‡`i †bZ…Z¡
†`q Avmvgx RR|”
40. That P.W.8 Md. Nur Alam neighbor of the informant and he stated in his Examination
in-chief that “16/3/2018 wLªt
Zvwi‡L mܨvi c‡i ev`kv‡`i evwo‡Z †jvKRb †`‡L Avwg †mLv‡b hvB| wM‡q ïwb‡Z cvB
†h, ev`kvi †Q‡j‡K †K †hb †dvb w`‡qwQj Ges Zvi †Q‡j †dvb †c‡q P‡j hvq| c‡i Avi
wd‡i Av‡m bvB| ev`kvi †Q‡ji bvg Bgivb| c‡i 18/3/2018 wLªt Zvwi‡L Abygvb 9t30 NwUKvi mgq m`icyi Rwn‡ii fzÆv
†ÿ‡Zi g‡a¨ GKwU g¯ÍK wenxb jvk Dj½ Ae¯’vq c‡o Av‡Q| ev`kv D³ Zvi †Q‡ji jvk
e‡j mbv³ K‡i|” P.W.8
further siad that “25/3/2018 Zvwi‡L weKvj †ejv Avmvgx ivRy‡K cywjk
g‡bvnicyi gv‡Vi g‡a¨ wb‡q hvq| ivRy cywjk‡K Rvbvq †h, †g‡n`x, wgVzb, RR, bvwn`, Bgivb GRvnviKvixi †Q‡j‡K nZ¨v K‡i‡Q|” That P.W. 8 was cross-examined by
all the accused and stated that “ev`x ev`kv Avgvi cÖwZ‡ekx PvPv‡Zv fvB|
Avgvi evox g‡bvnicyi ga¨cvov| ev`kvi evwoi cv‡k| Avgvi evwoi GKUv/`yBUv Ni c‡i
ev`kvi Ni| Avwg wb‡R †Kvb NUbv NwU‡Z †`wL bvB| Z‡e jvk I gv_v D×vi Kiv †`‡LwQ| ivRy hLb Z`šÍKvixi Kv‡Q NUbv e‡j ZLb
ivRyi K_vgZ Avwg Avmvgx‡`i wP‡bwQ| Avwg ivRy‡K Av‡M †_‡K wPbZvg|” He (P.W.8) denied the suggestion
that he did not say the name of the accused to the I.O. and did not tell
anything to the IO about the recovery of dead body and head as seperate.
41. That P.W.10 Abul Kalam Azad
stated in his examination in-chief that
“MZ
18/3/2018 wLªt Zvwi‡L mKvj 8.30 NwUKvi mgq Rvb‡Z cvwi †h, Rwn‡ii fzÆv †ÿ‡Z jvk
Dj½ Ae¯’vq c‡o Av‡Q| Mjv KvUv wQ‡jv jv‡ki|
jvkwU Bgiv‡bi e‡j mbv³ Kwi| Avmvgx ivRy,
†g‡n`x, †g‡nx` RR, bvwn`, AwbK I wgVz Iqv`y` wg‡j wfKwUg‡K nZ¨v K‡i| Avwg
cywj‡ki wbKU Revbew›` w`B| Avmvgxiv W‡K nvwRi|” In Cross-examination by the accused
side Ld. Counsel P.W.10 stated that “MZ
18/3/2018 wLªt I 25/3/2018 wLªt Zvwi‡L wZwb cywj‡ki wbKU Revbew›` †`qwb|
c‡i e‡j Revbew›` †`b| ivRyi †`Lv‡bv g‡Z wfKwU‡gi gv_v D×vi nqwb
Ges †g‡n`x, wciæ wgVzb, bvwn`, AwbK Ges Iqv`y` †KD NUbv¯’‡j hvqwb Zv mZ¨ bq|” That it is very clear that by doing
cross-examination the defence failed to bring any contradiction regarding the
manner of occurrence. P.W.10 also deneid the suggestion cross-examination athat
the beheaded dead body was not recovered as the accused Razu showed it.
42. That P.W.11 Md. Zahir Sheikh the most important witness stated in his examination
in-chief that “MZ 18/3/2018 wLªt Zvwi‡L mKvj 9.30 NwUKvi mgq gv‡Vi g‡a¨
fzÆv †ÿ‡Z A‡bK †jvKRb †`‡Lb| H fzÆv †ÿZwU Zvi Ges †mLv‡b ev`x ev`kvi cyÎ
Bgiv‡bi jvk †`‡Lb MjvKvUv Ae¯’vq|
wZwb †`‡L P‡j Av‡mb| cywjk Av‡m Zv ï‡bwQ‡jb| c‡i ï‡bb †h, Avmvgx †g‡n`x, wcyi wgVzb, bvwn`, AwbK, Iqv`y` I †g‡n`x RR© wg‡j nZ¨v
K‡i jvk †d‡j †i‡L cvwj‡q hvq|” That P.W.11 in cross-examination stated that “wZwb Zvi fzÆv †ÿZ n‡Z P‡j Avmvi ci ïb‡Z cvb †h, cywjk †g‡n`x‡K AvUK K‡i| wZwb wb‡R
wfKwUg‡K nZ¨v Ki‡Z †`‡Lb bvB| ev`x ev`kv Zvi wKQz nqbv| MÖv‡gi cÖwZ‡ekx| mZ¨ bq †h, Avmvgx †g‡n`x, wciæ wgVzb,
bvwn`, AwbK †Kvb NUbvi mv‡_ RwoZ bq|” That it very clear from the oral evidence of P.W.11 the
owner of the maze filed that the police recovered a body less head (Inquest
report marked as Exbt. No.2) from the “Rwn‡ii fzÆv †ÿ‡Z” and that has been proved so and
later we will discuss the PO as described in the Sketch Map & Index
prepared by the three Investigation officer (P.W.21, P.W.22 & P.W.23).
43. That P.W.13 Inzamul Karim @ Shishir
stated in his examination in-chief that “MZ
16/3/2018 wLªt Zvwi‡Li g‡a¨ ïb‡Z cvB Avmvgx †g‡n`x, wciæ wgVzb, evey Avn‡¤§`, bvwn`, †g‡n`x RR© I Iqv`y` 06 Rb
wg‡j ev`xi cyÎ Bgivb‡K nZ¨ K‡i Zvi MjvKvUv jvk m`icyi Rwn‡ii fzÆv †ÿ‡Z †d‡j
Bgiv‡bi cvjPvi gUi mvB‡Kj wb‡q cvwj‡q hvq| MZ
16/3/2018 wLªt Zvwi‡L ïµevi ivq Wv½vq `vIqvZ †L‡Z hvq| Bgiv‡bi wbK‡U †dvb
Av‡m GeO †cvb †c‡q LvIqv †kl K‡i †Uwe‡ji Dc‡i †dvb †i‡L gUi mvB‡Kj wb‡q P‡j
hvq| wKQzÿY ci Bgiv‡bi b¤^‡i †dvb Av‡m †k‡l 21 b¤^i †_‡K| †dvb Avm‡j Avwg wiwmf
Kwi Ges Bgivb fvB P‡j †M‡Q ewj|” That P.W.13 is the most vital witness who saw the victim Imran last
time when he went out after getting phone call bearing last number 21 digit and
he (P.W.13) recieved the call and stated that victim Imran was gone away having
with a Pulser motorcycle. P.W.13 was cross-examined but he (P.W.13) he deneid
the suggestion that he did not tell nothing to the I.O. what he is giving
evidence today. That it is very clear that about the involvement of the 06 accused
namely 01. Mehedi Hasan, 02. Md. Shahidur Rahman @ Piru Mithun, 03. Mehedi
Hasan Joj, 04. Nahid Hasan, 05. Anik Hasan & 06. Wadud Islam Razu were in
the murder to the victim on the alleged date, time and place of occurrence
P.W.3, P.W.6, P.W.8, P.W.10, P.W.11 supported and corroborated with the
evidence of P.W.1, the informant and with the evidence of P.W.21 police
Inspector Abdul Alim who after intoto investigation submitted charge sheet against
the above mentioned 06 (six) accused persons being found primary allegations
against them. That it is to be mentioned here that the defence side stated the
prosecution witnesses was merely hearsay witnesses and on the basis of hearsay
evidence no punishment is to be awarded. It is very clear from the statement of
P.W.3, P.W.6, P.W.8, P.W.10, P.W.11 along with other local witnesses &
official witnesses they all have supported the proposition of the informant
P.W.1 and the statement of Ezahar so the witnesses statement is not mere
hearsay as there was a chain of hearing the incident from the relevant person
& source as such the defence of hearsay evidence adduced by the prosecution
can not be sustained and the prosecution has successfully proved the incident
by adducing oral evidence regarding the accused person who were present at the
time of occurrence.
Date of Occurrence:
44. The date of occurrence was on 16-03-2018 A.D. at 7.00 PM to
18-03-18 A.D. at 9.30 PM and within this any time at Sadarpur village of
Kumerkhali police station, Kushtia. P.W.1, Badsha Sheikh the informant stated
in ‘Ezahar’ that- “GRvnviKvixi
aviYv MZ 16/3/2018 wLªt ZvwiL ivwÎ Abygvb 19.00 NwUKv †_‡K 18/3/2018 wLªt ZvwiL
Abygvb 9.30 NwUKvi g‡a¨ †h‡Kvb mg‡q Avmvgx †g‡n`x, †gvt wciæ wgVzb mn AÁvZbvgv
Avmvgxiv Zvi †Q‡j‡K c~e© cwiKwíZfv‡e AcniY K‡i D³ ¯’v‡b wb‡q wM‡q Mjv †K‡U nZ¨v
K‡i‡Q Ges Zvi †Q‡ji e¨eüZ gUi mvB‡KjwU Pzwi K‡i‡Q|” and as
P.W.1 Badsha Sheikh stated the same regarding the date of occurrence and P.W.2
Nayeb Ali, P.W.3 Sayem, P.W.5 Abdul Awal, P.W.6 Tipu Sultan and P.W.8 Md. Nur
Alam, P.W.10 Abul Kalam & P.W.13 Shishir has supported and corroborated the
statement of P.W.1 and the defence side Ld. Counsel of the accused perosns did
not cross-examin the P.Ws. and failed to bring any contradictions regarding
date of occurrence so it is well asserted that from the oral evidence of P.W.2,
P.W.3, P.W.5, P.W.6-7, P.W.10 & P.W.13 regarding the date of occurrence was
very much reliance and caused reasonable.
Place of
Occurrence:
45. As per
FIR version “MZ 18-03-2018 wLªt Zvwi‡L Bgiv‡bi MjvKvUv jvk cvIqv hvq
Rwn‡ii fzUªv †ÿ‡Zi wfZi Dj½ Ae¯’vq|” P.W.1 the informant stated in his examination
in-chief “18/3/2018
wLªt ZvwiL mKvj Abygvb 9.30 NwUKvi mgq g‡bvnicyi MÖvg¯’ †gvt mv‡qg Zv‡K †dvb
K‡i Rvbvq †h, †g‡n`x mv‡qg‡K Rvwb‡q‡Q †h m`icyi
fzÆv †ÿ‡Zi g‡a¨ GKwU gv_vwenxb MjvKvUv jvk c‡o Av‡Q|” In this
regard of P.O. the defence side did not cross-examine this witness (P.W.1).
P.W.3 Sayem in his examination in-chief supported the statement of FIR and
P.W.1 and said that “18/3/18 Zvwi‡L mKvj 9t30 NwUKvi mgq Avwg fzÆv †ÿ‡Z
jvk †`‡L Avgvi AveŸy‡K †dvb w`‡q ewj †h, fzÆv
†ÿ‡Zi g‡a¨ GKwU MjvKvUv jvk c‡o Av‡Q| wKQzÿY c‡i cywjk Av‡m|” P.W.2 Nayeb Ali in his
examination in-chief supported the statement of FIR and said that “18/3/18 Zvwi‡L
mKvj 9t30 NwUKvi mgq Avgvi †Q‡j mv‡qg Avgv‡K †dvb w`‡q e‡j †h, fzÆv †ÿ‡Zi g‡a¨ GKwU MjvKvUv jvk c‡o Av‡Q|
Avwg msev` ïwbqv NUbv¯’‡j hvB| wMqv †`wL †h, Dj½ Ae¯’vq GKwU jvk cwoqv Av‡Q|
wKš‘ gv_v bvB|” That P.W.2 was also an witness of Inquest report (Exbt. No.2) and put
signature on the Surothal report very properly and in this regard the defence
side did not make cross this witness (P.W.2) and did not bring any material
contradictions regarding P.O. That P.W.8 Md. Nur Alam stated in his examination
in-chief that “c‡i 18/3/2018 wLªt Zvwi‡L Abygvb 9t30 NwUKvi mgq m`icyi Rwn‡ii fzÆv †ÿ‡Zi g‡a¨ GKwU g¯ÍK
wenxb jvk Dj½ Ae¯’vq c‡o Av‡Q| ev`kv D³ Zvi †Q‡ji jvk e‡j mbv³ K‡i|” the
defence side did not make cross this witness (P.W.8) and did not bring any
material contradictions regarding P.O. That P.W.10 Abul Kalam stated in his
examination in-chief that “MZ 18/3/2018
wLªt Zvwi‡L mKvj 8.30 NwUKvi mgq Rvb‡Z cvwi †h, Rwn‡ii fzÆv †ÿ‡Z jvk Dj½ Ae¯’vq
c‡o Av‡Q| Mjv KvUv wQ‡jv jv‡ki| jvkwU Bgiv‡bi e‡j mbv³ Kwi|” and the
defence side did not cross-examine this witness (P.W.10) regarding P.O. That
P.W.11 Md. Zahir Sheikh stated in his examination in-chief that-“MZ 18/3/2018 wLªt Zvwi‡L mKvj 9.30 NwUKvi mgq gv‡Vi g‡a¨
fzÆv †ÿ‡Z A‡bK †jvKRb †`‡Lb| H fzÆv †ÿ‡ZwU Zvi Ges †mLv‡b ev`x ev`kvi cyÎ
Bgiv‡bi jvk †`‡Lb MjvKvUv Ae¯’vq|” and the defence side did not
cross-examine this witness (P.W.11) regarding P.O. and it is well proved that
the maze filed owner Zahir himself adduced evidence regarding first P.O. “Rwn‡ii fzÆv †ÿ‡Z”. That P.W.14 constable
No.226 Ashraful Islam stated in his examination in chief that “MZ 18/3/2018 wLªt Zvwi‡L wfKwUg Bgiv‡bi jvk Rwn‡ii fzÆv †ÿZ
n‡Z m`icyi MÖvg n‡Z Kzwóqv m`i nvmcvZv‡j wb‡q hvb|” and the
accused side did not cross-examined this witness about the P.O. and that P.W.20
S.I. Ferdous Alam has stated in his examination in-chief that “MZ 18/3/2018
wLªt Zvwi‡L KzgviLvjx _vbvq Kg©iZ _vKv Ae¯’vq msev` cvB †h, g‡bvnicy‡i GKwU
gvW©vi n‡q‡Q| Avwg NUbv¯’‡j wM‡q R‰bK †gvt Rwni Gi fzÆv †ÿZ n‡Z GKwU g¯ÍK wenxb
jvk cvB| Avwg NUbv¯’‡j mvÿx‡`i mvg‡b myiZnvj
wi‡cvU© cÖ¯‘Z Kwi|” He further stated in his examination in-chief that
“18/3/2018
wLªt Zvwi‡L Avwg 11.10 NwUKvi mgq KzgviLvjx _vbvaxb †gvt Rwn‡ii fzÆv †ÿ‡Zi ga¨
n‡Z RãK…Z gvjvgv‡ji eY©bvq ewY©Z AvjvgZ D×vi K‡i RãZvwjKv cÖ¯‘Z Kwi|” and it is
proved that P.W.20 prepared surothal report (Exbt. No.2) of victim Imran
dated 18-03-2018 A.D. and prpeared also seizure list on 18-03-2018 A.D. (Exbt.
No.10). That regarding
the P.O. Zahir’s maze field “Rwn‡ii fzÆv †ÿ‡Z” (Sketch Map-Exbt. No.12) as First Place of occurrence, the P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3,
P.W.5-8, P.W.10, 11 & P.W.12-13, P.W.15-18 and Investigation Officer I.O.
P.W.22 & 21 stated in same tune and the defence side cross-examined
regarding the P.O. but the PO was not at all shifted and date, time and place
was same as stated & narrated in Ezahar which was corroboarted by the
evidence of P.W.1 the informant.
2nd Place of Occurrence:
46.
That P.W.1 the informant stated in his
examination in-chief “25/8/2018 wLªt
Zvwi‡L Avgvi †Q‡ji jv‡ki g¯ÍK Avmvgx ivRyi †`Lv‡bv g‡Z dvwb‡Ki Djy†ÿ‡Z cvIqv
hvq| |” In this regard of 2mw P.O. the defence side did not
cross-examine this witness (P.W.1). P.W.2
Nayeb Ali
in his examination in-chief supported the statement
of FIR and said that “cieZ©x‡Z 25/3/2018 wLªt Zvwi‡L Avmvgx ivRyi †`Lv‡bv
g‡Z wfKwU‡gi gv_v cvIqv hvq|” That P.W.2 was also an witness of 2nd Inquest report (Exbt.
No.3) and put signature on the Surothal report very properly and in this regard
the defence side did not make cross this witness (P.W.2) and did not bring any
material contradictions regarding P.O. That P.W.6 Md. Tipu Sultan by supporting
the statement of P.W.1 stated in his examination in-chief that-“25/3/2018 wLªt
Zvwi‡L gvMix‡ei Av‡M m`icy‡ii gvwb‡K Djy e‡bi AvB‡ji Dci ivLv AvMvQvi ¯‘‡ci bxP
nB‡Z D³ jv‡ki gv_v cvIqv hvq| D³ gv_v Avmvgx ivRyi mbv³ †gvZv‡eK cvIqv hvq|” That P.W.8 Md. Nur Alam by supporting the
statement of P.W.1 about 2nd P.O. and stated in his examination
in-chief that “25/3/2018
Zvwi‡L weKvj †ejv Avmvgx ivRy‡K cywjk g‡bvnicyi gv‡Vi g‡a¨ wb‡q hvq| ivRy
cywjk‡K Rvbvq †h, †g‡n`x, wgVzb, RR, bvwn`, Bgivb GRvnviKvixi †Q‡j‡K nZ¨v
K‡i‡Q| c‡i ivRyi †`Lv‡bv g‡Z jv‡ki gv_v D×vi K‡i cywjk wb‡q hvq|” and this witness also put signature on the 2nd
Inquest report and put signature which has been marked as Exbt. No. 3/2. That P.W.10 Abul Kalam stated in his examination
in-chief that “25/3/2018 wLªt Zvwi‡L dvwbK w`s Gi
Djy‡ÿ‡Z gv_v D×vi nq Avmvgx ivRyi †`Lv‡bv g‡Z|” and P.W.22 S.I. Milton Kumer recovered the skull of
(‡`n †_‡K wew”Qbœ gv_v) of the dead body of victim Imran and P.W.22 prpeared Surothal report
(Exbt. No.3) and put signature thereupon which has been marked as Exbt. No. 3/3 and the defence side did not cross-examine this
witness (P.W.22) regarding 2nd P.O.That regarding
the 1st and 2nd Place of occurrence the Inevstigation
Officer P.W.21 Inspector Abdul Alim and P.W.22 S.I. Milton Kumer Debnath has
stated and corroborated with the statement of ‘Ezahar’ version as well as with
the informant oral evidence as P.W.1. That P.W.20
S.I. Ferdous Alam prepared Inquest report (Exbt. No. 2) and Seizure list dated
18-03-2018 A.D. (Exbt. No.10). That P.W.
21 and 22 as formal witness according statements in ‘Examaination-in-chief’
stated that as investigation officer in the instant case he (P.W.22) visited
the place of occurance and that he
prepared ‘Index’ marked as Exbt Nos. 14, 15- and S.I. Miltons’s
signature as Exbt. No.14/1-15/1 and ‘Sketch Map’ marked as Exbt Nos. 12,
13 -and S.I. Milton’s’s signature as Exbt. No. 12/1, 13/1 separate and that he
(P.W.22) examined informant and witnesses and that recorded the statements of
witnesses under section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code and that took steps
for examining the seized ‘Alamats’ in question and that considering the
statements of witnesses, seizure list witness S.I. Milton’s signature on
Inquest as Exbt No.3/3 and his prpeared seizure list and S.I. Miltons signature
thereon marked as Exbt. No.5/2 & 6/2 and S.I. Miltons while transferred
during investigation handed over the case docket to the P.W.21 Police Inspector
Md. Abdul Alim who after overall investigation connected all relevant papers as
preliminary Case was made out so, he ( P.W.21) submitted charge-sheet No.73
dated 23-04-2020 A.D. against the accused persons namely (1) Mehedi Hasan, 2) Shahidur
Rahman @ Piru Mithun, 3) Mehedi Hasan Joj and (4) Nahid Hasan, 5) Anik Hasan
& 6) Md. Md. Wadud Islam @ Razu. That the defence side Ld. Counsel
cross-examined P.W.21 & 22 but failed to bring any contradictions regarding
the palce of occurrence (PO) of the case so the evidence of P.W.21 & P.W.22
caused cogent and is very much reliance and P.W.22 S.I. Milton Kumer boldly
denied the suggestion that the confessional statement of accused Mehedi was
recorded and made with coercion and by fear of cross-fire. The accused side did
not ask any question about the veracity of such Place of occurrence Sketch Map
& Index. Even the defence did not deny the testimony of P.W.21 & 22
regarding P.O. of the instant case. So it is well assserted in oral evidence of
P.W. 9 about 2nd place of occurrence rather than the Index &
Sketch map of P.O. It is well proved the 1st and 2nd place
of occurrence (P.O.) of this case.
Seized Alamots and its
recovery
47.
That P.W.7 Md. Kamrul Islam is the seizure list witness who stated in
Examination in chief that- “gUi mvB‡Kj D×vi
n‡q‡Q e‡j `v‡ivMv GKwU KvM‡R Avgvi KvQ †_‡K ¯^vÿi †bq| Avwg Mvwo †`wL
bvB| mKj Avmvgxi c‡ÿ †Rivq GB mvÿx (P.W.7) e‡jb †h, wZwb
BkvjWv½v †gv‡o Pv‡qi †`vKv‡b e‡m wQ‡jb|
H mgq cywjk Zvi ¯^vÿi †bq|”. That P.W.7 as seizure list
witness he put signature on the seizure list which has been marked as Exbt. No.
6/1 and the defence did not ask on elaborate in cross-examination so the
statement of the P.W.7 was very reliance. That P.W.14 Constable No. 226 Md.
Asraful Islam stated in his examination in chief that “MZ 18/3/2018 wLªt Zvwi‡L wfKwUg Bgiv‡bi jvk Rwn‡ii fzÆv †ÿZ
n‡Z m`icyi MÖvg n‡Z Kzwóqv m`i nvmcvZv‡j wb‡q hvb| RãZvwjKv cÖ¯‘Z K‡i MZ
18/3/2018 wLªt Zvwi‡L Gm. AvB †di‡`Šm Avjg Ges mvÿxi Kjv‡g 3bs G Zvi bvg
wj‡LwQ‡jv wKš‘ ¯^vÿi cÖ`vb K‡ib bvB| RãZvwjKvq Zvi bvg Av‡Q|”
That P.W.2 also adduced evidence as seizure list witness and P.W.2 put
signature on the seizure list which has been marked as Exbt. No. 5 &
signature as Exbt. No. 5/1. P.W.22 S.I.Milton Kumer Devnath prepared seizure
list on 20/03/2018 A.D. (Exbt. No. 5) and another seizure list prpepared on
22/03/2018 A.D. (Exbt. No.6) and P.W.22 stated in his Examination in chief that
“Avmvgx
ivRyi †`qv Z‡_¨i wfwˇZ GB gvgjvi AvjvgZ gUi mvB‡Kj D×vi K‡i RãZvwjKv cÖ¯‘Z
Kwi| Dnv‡Z wb‡R ¯^vÿi Kwi Ges mvÿx‡`i ¯^vÿi MÖnY Kwi| wbn‡Zi gv_v D×vi c~e©K
gv_vi myiZnvj wi‡cvU© I RãZvwjKv cÖ¯‘Z Kwi|” P.W.20 S.I. Ferdous
Alam also prpeared a seizure list on 18-03-2018 A.D. (Exbt. No.10) P.W.20
stated in his Examination in chief that “MZ 18/3/2018 wLªt Zvwi‡L KzgviLvjx
_vbvq Kg©iZ _vKv Ae¯’vq msev` cvB †h, g‡bvnicy‡i GKwU gvW©vi n‡q‡Q| Avwg
NUbv¯’‡j wM‡q R‰bK †gvt Rwni Gi fzÆv †ÿZ n‡Z GKwU g¯ÍK wenxb jvk cvB| Avwg
NUbv¯’‡j mvÿx‡`i mvg‡b myiZnvj wi‡cvU© cÖ¯‘Z Kwi| mvÿx‡`i ¯^vÿi MÖnY Kwi Ges
wb‡R ¯^vÿi Kwi| †K ev Kviv †g‡i †d‡j †i‡L P‡j hvq| Kb‡÷ej Avkivdz‡ji gva¨‡g
jvkwU g‡M© †cÖiY Kwi| 18/3/2018 wLªt Zvwi‡L Avwg 11.10 NwUKvi mgq KzgviLvjx
_vbvaxb †gvt Rwn‡ii fzÆv †ÿ‡Zi ga¨ n‡Z RãK…Z gvjvgv‡ji eY©bvq ewY©Z AvjvgZ D×vi
K‡i RãZvwjKv cÖ¯‘Z Kwi| Dnv‡Z Avgvi ¯^vÿi Av‡Q|” the Ezahar
version and P.W.1 the informant’s statement regarding the seized alamots was
fully supported by the P.W.2, P.W.7, P.W.20 and P.W.22 and the defence side
thougfh corss-examined the P.Ws. but did not bring any contradictions about the
seized items so the prosecution has been able to prove the seizure list and
seized alamots intoo which caused reasonable and very much reliance.
48.
Apart from this P.W.12 Sobur Ali, P.W.15 Md. Saidul ISlam, P.W.16 Md. Abdul
Mannan, P.W.17 Md. Mohidul, P.W.18. Mrs. Dolon Nessa was declared tendred
witnesses and the defence side did not cross-examined as such their statement
remains intact as these five witnesses (P.W.12, P.W.15, P.W.16, P.W.17 &-P.W.18)
statement regarding the facts of the cases remains successfull and considered
as corroborative with the prosecution case.
P.W.12, P.W.15, P.W.16, P.W.17 &-P.W.18 was delcared tenered as
their statement was the same like P.W.10 & 11 and like P.W.13 & 14) and
that prosecution to avoid redundancy and duplicate evidence more time declared
the witnesses tendered as the law permits it and in support of this in the
connection we can refer a case of Takhaji
Hiraji Vs. Thakore Kubersing Chmansing & Others [6 SCC 145] where Indian Supreme Court held a decision
which as under observed;-
“19. It already overwhelming evidence
is available and examination of other witnesses would only be a repetition or
duplication of the evidence already adduced, non-examination of such other
witnesses may not be material. In such a case, the Court ought to scrutinize
the worth of the evidence adduced. The Court of facts must ask itself-whether
in the facts and circumstances of the case, it was necessary to examine such
other witness, and if so, whether wuch witness was available to be examined any
yet was being withheld from the Court. If the answer be positive then only
question of drawing and adverse inference may arise. If the witnesses already
examined are reliable and the testimony coming from their mouth is
unimpeachable the Court can safely act upon it, uninfluenced by the factum of
no-examination of other witnesses.........”
That the Ld. Counsel submits a case law about
tendering not proper in murder case not proper is not applied in the instant
case as reporetd in 6 BCR (HCD) 112-119 as the P.Ws all adduced by the
prosecution stated the same about place of occurrence, time of occurrence &
manner of occurence. So to avoid the redundancy the prosectuion tendered the
four witneses P.W.15-18 & P.W.12 which was approved in the criminal cases.
Confessional
Statement is how far true and voluntary:
49. As a result, in order to ascertain the truth of
this incident, it is necessary to pay close attention to the real situation, in
attending circumstances especially where there is a shortage of direct/eye-
witnesses. ” d‡j GB NUbvi mZ¨Zv wbiæc‡Yi ‡ÿ‡Î Attending Circumstances Z_v ev¯Íe cvwicvwk¦©KZvi cÖwZ Mfxi g‡bv‡hvM ivL‡Z n‡e we‡klZ †hLv‡b cÖZ¨ÿ
mvÿxi AcÖZzjZv i‡q‡Q|” However,
the specialty of the present case is that P.W. 3 Sayem, P.W. 2 Nayeb Ali and
P.W.13 Inzamul Karim Shishir, is a very important witness of this incident. as
first time P.W.3 Sayem saw the victim Imran’s dead body in the zahir’s maze
filed and shishir recieved the phone while victim imran went out by getting
phone. However, the important feature of the case is the confessional
statements (Exbt. No. 4 & 9) of the accused Mehedi Hasan and Md. Sahhidur
Rahman @ Piru Mithun. Let us first look at the statement of this
confession.
50. That the Ld. Senior Judicial Magistrate, Md. Enamul
Haque (P.W.4) Kushtia recorded the confessional statement of the accused Md.
Sahhidur Rahman @ Piru Mithun on 25-03-2020 A.D. under the provisions of
Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code following the procedure of section
364 of the Cr,P.C. Md. Sahhidur Rahman @ Piru Mithun in his confessional
statement said that,
ÒAvwg h‡kv‡i
GKwU Jla †Kv¤úvbx‡Z PvKzix KiZvg| †mLvb †_‡K weMZ 15/3/2018 wLªt Zvwi‡L QzwU
wb‡q evwo‡Z Avwm| 16/3/2018 wLªt ZvwiL ivwÎ 8 NwUKvi mgq Avwg Avgvi GjvKvi
Kwi‡gi †`vKv‡bi cv‡k emv wQjvg| H mgq GKwU gUi mvB‡Kj K‡i 3 Rb Av‡m| Zviv
†g‡n`x nvmvb RR, bvwn`, AwbK| Zv‡`i g‡a¨ †g‡n`x nvmvb RR Avgvi cwiwPZ| bvwn` I
AwbK Avgvi cwiwPZ wQj bv| Gici RR Avgv‡K m`icy‡ii Lv‡ji wbKU Avm‡Z ej‡j H mgq
Avwg ewj †Zviv hv Avwg fvZ †L‡q AvmwQ| Gici Avwg fvZ †L‡q 30 wgwbU ci Lv‡ji
Kv‡Q hvB Ges †`wL Zviv 3 Rb g` Lv‡”Q| H mgq RR GKR‡bi mv‡_ †gvevB‡j K_v e‡j Ges
Zv‡`i‡K `ªæZ Avm‡Z e‡j| K_v ejvi 30 wgwbU ci GKwU gUi mvB‡K‡j K‡i †g‡n`x I Bgivb
Av‡m| ZLb RR e‡j Bqvev Lv‡e †K †K? ZLb AwbK, †g‡n`x, Bgivb e‡j Avgiv Lv‡ev| ZLb
Zviv Bqvev Lvevi Rb¨ gv‡Vi w`‡K iIbv †`q| Avi Avwg I bvwn` Lv‡ji cv‡kB e‡m
_vwK| wKQzÿY ci Avgvi mv‡_ _vKv bvwn` GZ †`ix Ki‡Q P‡jb hvB †`‡L Avwm| bvwn‡`i
K_vgZ Avwg I bvwn` Zv‡`i Kv‡Q †h‡Z †h‡ZB GKUz `~i †_‡K M¨vÄv‡gi kã ïwb Ges Kv‡Q
†h‡q †`wL RR, AwbK, †g‡n`x Bgivb‡K gvi‡Q ZLb Avgvi mv‡_ _vKv bvwn`I I‡`i mv‡_
hy³ n‡q Bgivb‡K gvi‡Z _v‡K| GiB g‡a¨ RR wKQz GKUv w`‡q Bgiv‡bi gv_vq AvNvZ K‡i
Avwg †VKv‡bvi †Póv Kwi ZLb RR Avgv‡KI GKUv AvNvZ K‡i| Gici †g‡n`x nvmvb RR Zvi
c‡KU n‡Z PvKz †ei K‡i Bgiv‡bi Mjvq †cvR †`q ZLb Avwg RR‡K ewj ZzB GUv wK Kiwj|
ZLb †m Avgv‡K e‡j GKUv K_v ej‡j †Zv‡K gvi‡ev| Bgiv‡bi Mjvq †cvR †`evi ci †m
gvwU‡Z c‡o hvq| ZLb RR Avgv‡K G wel‡q KvD‡K Rvbv‡j Avgvi bvg Av‡M w`‡e e‡j ûgwK
†`q| Zvici RR Zvi c‡KU n‡Z GKwU wc¯‘j †ei K‡i Avgv‡K ûgwK †`q| R‡Ri K_v I wc¯‘j
†`‡L Avwg fq †c‡q hvB| H mgq †g‡n`x, AwbK, RR civgk© K‡i Bgiv‡bi jvk wK Kiv
hvq| ZLb AwbK e‡j jvkwU cywo‡q †`q| †g‡n`x e‡j jvk UzKiv UzKiv Kwi| ZLb RR
Bgiv‡bi Mjv †`n †_‡K Avjv`v Kivi Rb¨ PvKz w`‡q KvU‡Z _v‡K wKš‘ e¨_© nq| Gici
AwbK R‡Ri KvQ †_‡K PvKz wb‡q gv_v wew”Qbœ Kivi cÖ¯‘Z †bq| AwbK wKQzUv KvUvi ci
Awb‡Ki KvQ †_‡K PvKz wb‡q †g‡n`x gv_v wew”Qbœ K‡i| Zvici RR Avgv‡K I
bvwn`‡K e‡j †Zviv 2 Rb Mvox 2 wU wb‡q bvwn‡`i evwo‡Z †i‡L Avq| Zvi K_v gZ Avwg
I bvwn` Mvwo 2 wU bvwn‡`i evwo‡Z †i‡L Avwm| Avwg I bvwn` Mvwo ivLvi Rb¨ gvV n‡Z
P‡j Avwm H mgq Bgiv‡bi jv‡ki Kv‡Q AwbK, RR I †g‡n`x _v‡K| Zviv e‡j †Zviv hv
Avgiv jv‡ki e¨e¯’v K‡i AvmwQ| Avwg I bvwn` ivwÎ Abygvb 11.30 NwUKvi w`‡K P‡j
Avwm Mvwo wb‡q AviI NUbv N‡U| ivwÎ 11 NwUKvi w`‡K| RR Bgiv‡bi Mjvq †cvP
†`evi ci †m gvwU‡Z c‡o QUdU Ki‡Z _v‡K Ges ch©v‡q i³ÿi‡Y Bgivb gviv wM‡qwQ‡jv|Ó
That summing up the confessional
statements (accorded under section 164 of the Cr. P. C) of accused namely Md.
Shahidur Rahman @Piru Mithun it
is apparent that on 18/3/2018 A.D. at 8 o'clock in the night he was sitting
next to Karim's shop in his area. At that time 3 people came on a motorcycle.
They are Mehdi Hasan Judge, Nahid, Anik. Among them Mehedi Hasan Judge is known
to him. Nahid and Anik were not familiar to him. Then the judge asked me to
come near the canal of Sadarpur. At that time he told you that he was eating
rice. Then after eating rice he went to the canal after 30 minutes and saw 3
people drinking wine. At that time, the judge talked to someone on his mobile
phone and asked them to come quickly. After 30 minutes of talking, Mehdi and
Imran came on a motorcycle. Then the judge said who will eat yaba? Then we will
eat Anik, Mehdi, Imran. Then they set out for the field to eat yaba. And Nahid
and he were sitting next to the canal. After a while, Nahid, who was with him,
was going so late that he came to see him. According to Nahid, as soon as Nahid
and he approached them, they heard the sound of ganja from a distance and when
we approached, he saw Joj, Anik, Mehedi beating Imran. In the meantime, the Joj
hit Imran on the head with something and he tried to stop him, but the joj hit
me too. Then Judge Mehdi Hasan took a knife out of his pocket and posed for
Imran's neck. Then he told the judge what you did. Then if he says something to
him, he will kill you. After Imran posed on his neck, he fell to the ground.
The Joj then threatened to name him if Kaunek informed me about it. The judge
then pulled a pistol out of his pocket and threatened me. He was shocked to see
the judge's words and the pistol. At that time Mehedi, Anik, Joj suggested what
can be done with Imran's body. Then Anik said and burnt the body. He cut the
corpse into pieces called mehedi. Judge Imran then cut his throat with a knife
to separate it from his body but failed. Anik then prepares to behead the judge
with a knife. After cutting Anik, Mehedi cut off his head with a knife from
Anik. Then the Joj told me and Nahid to take two cars and leave them at Nahid's
house. According to him, Nahid and he left the car at Nahid's house. Nahid and he
left the field to park the car. At that time, Anik, Judge and Mehdi were near
Imran's body. They say you are what we have been arranging for the corpse.
Nahid and he arrived at around 11.30 pm and more incidents happened with the
car. Around 11 o'clock at night. After being punched in the neck by Joj Imran,
he fell to the ground and began to squirm, and Imran died of bleeding at the
stage. "
50. On the
other hand, and that P.W.19 Ld. Senior Judicial Magistrate, Md. Mizanur
Rahman recorded the confessional statement of the accused Md. Mehedi Hasan
dated 21-03-2018 A.D. under the provisions of Section 164 of the Criminal
Procedure Code and followed the procedure of section 364 of the Cr,P.C.. Md.
Mehedi Hasan in his confessional statement said that-,
ÒwfKwUg Bgiv‡b mv‡_ Avgvi †QvU
†ejv †_‡K cwiPq| wfKwU‡gi Kzwóqvi RbZv e¨vsK Gi mvg‡b ¯^‡Y©i †`vKvb GQ|
wfKwU‡gi mv‡_ Avwg GKmv‡_ Pjv †div, IVv-emv KiZvg| †h‡Kvb RvqMvq Avwg I Bgivb
GKB mv‡_ †hZvg| NUbvi 4 w`b Av‡M e„n¯úwZevi wciæ wgVzb bv‡g GKUv †Q‡ji mv‡_
†`Lv nq AvjvDwÏb bM‡ii †ij jvB‡bi Dci| Ii mv‡_ Avgvi †bkv Kivi Rb¨ cwiPq| Zv‡K
Avwg `v`v e‡j m‡¤^vab KiZvg| Avgiv †ij jvB‡bi Dci e‡m K_vevZ©v ej‡Z _vwK| Zvi
Kv‡QI UvKv cqmv wQ‡jv bv| Avgiv GKUv cøvb Kwi GB †h, Avgiv Bgivb‡K cÖPzi
cwigv‡Y †bkv Kwi‡q Zvi KvQ †_‡K Zvi bZzb †gvUi mvBKj cvjmvi 150 wmwm wb‡q
wb‡ev| hv‡Z †m †Kvb g‡Z †Ui bv cvq †h Avgiv Zvi †gvUi mvB‡Kj wb‡qwQ| wciæ wgVzb
Avgv‡K e‡j Zvi †dv‡b †Kvb Kj bv w`‡Z Ges AviI e‡j †h kwbevi 17/3/2018 wLª
Zvwi‡L ivZ 10.30 †_‡K ivZ 10.45 Gi g‡a¨ Avgv‡K euvk evMv‡bi Kv‡Q †cŠuQv‡Z e‡j|
ïµev‡ii w`b Avwg mܨv 7.00 Uv †_‡K 10.30 ch©šÍ covïbv Kwi| Gici Avwg Nywg hvB|
kwbevi mKv‡j Nyg †_‡K DwV| kwbevi 17/3/2018 wLªt Zvwi‡L Avwg mܨv 7.30 †_‡K ivZ
10.00 Uv ch©šÍ cov ïbv Kwi| Avwg Avgvi †gvevBjUv nv‡Z wb‡q wm‡bgv †`L‡Z _vwK|
Avwg 10.25 Gi mgq ev_iæ‡gii bvg K‡i jvBU Ad K‡i iæg †_‡K †ei nB| wUDiI‡qj Pvc
w`‡q e`bv fwi hv‡Z kã †c‡q AveŸy Av¤§y eyS‡Z cv‡i Avwg mwZ¨B ev_iæ‡g wM‡qwQ|
Avwg ev_iæ‡g bv wM‡q e`bvUv cv‡k †i‡L gv‡Vi wfZi w`‡q †mvRv H †MvKz‡ji euv‡ki
evMv‡bi Kv‡Q P‡j hvB| ZLb Abygvb ivZ 10.30 evR‡e| Avwg wM‡q †`wL ILv‡b Bgivb,
wciæ wgVzb AviI 02 Rb †jvK (wciæ wgVz‡bi mn‡hvMx Zv‡`i Avwg wPwb bv) Zviv †Mvj
K‡i e‡m evwk‡Z MuvRv LvB‡ZwQ| Avgv‡K †`‡L Bgivb e‡j fvwZRv Av‡mv| Avgv‡K GK
evwk evbv‡q `vI| Avwg I‡K GK evwk MvRv evwb‡q w`B| Bgivb Avgv‡K GKwU MvRvi w÷K
evwb‡q †`q (wmMv‡i‡Ui gZ)| Iiv evwk‡Z MvRv †_‡K _v‡K| Avwg w÷K G MvRv †L‡Z
_vwK| Avwg evievi †Lqvj Ki‡ZwQjvg †h, wciæ wgVzb Bgivb‡K †ewk K‡i MuvRv
LvIqvw”Qj| MvRv LvIqv †kl n‡j Iiv W¨vÛªv‡qU AvVv cwjw_‡bi g‡a¨ w`‡q Lvw”Qj| GUv
GK ai‡Yi †bkv| GUv LvIqv †kl n‡j Av‡m g` Lvevi cvjv| Avwg mevi Av‡M GK Møvm g`
wb‡q †Ljvg| Bgivb †evZ‡j K‡i Avav wjUv‡ii g‡Zv g` †L‡q wb‡jv| wciæ wgVzb I Zvi
2 mn‡hvwM Møv‡m K‡i g` †L‡Z jvM‡jv| mv‡_ wmMv‡iUI wQj| 4 wjUv‡ii g‡a¨ 3 wjUvi
g` LvIqv n‡q †M‡j wciæ wgVzb Avkv‡K GKUv Bw½Z †`q †h, GLb KvRUv Kiv hv‡e| (gUi
mvB‡K‡j Pvwe †bq hv‡e)| Avwg Bgiv‡bi Kv‡Q †gvU mvB‡KjwU PvB| †m e‡j †h ZzB †QvU
gvbyl| ZzB GZ eo †gvUi mvB‡Kj bvMvj cvwe bv| ZLb wciæ wgVzb e‡j Avwg j¤^v AvwQ|
Avgvi Kv‡Q Pvwe †`| ZLb Bgivb Pvex w`‡Z Pvqbv| ZLb Zv‡`i g‡a¨ evK weZÛv n‡Z
jvMj| wciæ wgVz‡bi GK mn‡hvwM Bgivb‡K wcQb †_‡K Rvc‡U a‡i| ZLb wciæ wgVzb
Bgiv‡bi KvQ †_‡K Pvex wb‡q wbj| ZLb Bgivb Svov †g‡i Pvexi wis a‡i †djj| `yR‡bi
UvbvUvwb‡Z gvSLv‡b wQ‡o †Mj| Bgiv‡bi nv‡Z Pvexi wis _vK‡jv Avi wciæ wgVz‡bi
Kv‡Q Pvex _vK‡jv| Bgivb I wciæ wgVz‡bi g‡a¨ gvivgvwi †e‡a †Mj| GK ch©v‡q
wciæ wgVzb cv‡k _vKv wZb wd‡Ui gZ j¤^v GKLvbv evk G‡b Bgiv‡bi gv_vi Dci †Rv‡i
AvNvZ Kij| Avwg wciæ wgVzb‡K ejjvg GUv wK n‡”Q| GUv‡Zv nevi K_v wQj bv|
wciæ wgVz‡bi mn‡hvwM GKUv Lyi †ei K‡i Avgv‡K e‡j †h Avi GKUv K_v ej‡j MjvUv
bvgv‡q w`‡ev| 1g AvNvZ Lvevi ci civB Bgivb nvUz †M‡o imy‡bi †ÿ‡Z e‡m c‡o| wciæ
wgVzb Avevi H evk w`‡q Bgiv‡bi gv_v AvNvZ Ki‡j Bgivb †m݇jm n‡q imy‡bi †ÿ‡Zi
g‡a¨ c‡o hvq| †h evkUv w`‡q Bgivb‡K AvNvZ Kiv nq wciæ wgVzb H euvkUv Bgiv‡bi
Nv‡oi wb‡P w`‡q Bgiv‡bi MjvUv DPz K‡i| wciæ wgVz‡bi 2 mn‡hvwMi GKRb Bgiv‡bi 2
Uv cv a‡i| Av‡iKRb Bgiv‡bi 2 Uv nvZ GKmv‡_ K‡i ey‡Ki Dci †P‡c a‡i| wciæ wgVzb
ZLb H ÿzi w`‡q Bgiv‡bi Mjv †K‡U kixi †_‡K gv_v Avjv`v K‡i †d‡j| wciæ wgVzb
Avgv‡K †Rv‡i agK †`q| e‡j †h Bgiv‡bi Mv‡qi wU kvU© I c¨v›U Ly‡j †dj‡Z| Avwg H
wU-kvU© I c¨v›U Ly‡j †dwj| Bgiv‡bi nv‡Z AvswU (3Uv) I †eªm‡jU wQj| wciæ wgVzb
e‡j †h H ¸‡jv wK †Zvi evc Lyj‡e ? Avwg H AvswU 3Uv I †eªm‡jU Ly‡j †dwj| Ly‡j
wciæ wgVz‡bi Kv‡Q w`B| wciæ wgVzb GKUv cwjw_‡b Bgiv‡bi KwZ©Z gv_v I wUkvU©,
c¨v›U, AvswU 3Uv Ges †eªm‡jU f‡i †d‡j| Avgv‡K Av‡`k K‡i †h, Bgiv‡bi jvkUv
imy‡bi †ÿ‡Zi g‡a¨ †_‡K fzÆvi †ÿ‡Zi g‡a¨ †i‡L Avm‡Z| Avwg Bgiv‡bi 2Uv cv awi I
wciæ wgVz‡bi 1Rb mn‡hvwM Bgiv‡bi jv‡k `yB eM‡ji wb‡P a‡i| Avgiv 2 Rb wg‡j
Bgiv‡bi jvkUv‡K fzÆvi †ÿ‡Zi g‡a¨ †i‡L Avwm| wciæ wgVzb Zvi 2 mn‡hvwM I Avwg GB
4 R‡b H gUi mvB‡Kj K‡i wkjvB`n Nv‡U hvB| Nv‡U wM‡q wciæ wgVzb †hLv‡b eøK †`qvi
KvR Pj‡Z‡Q HLv‡b Bgiv‡bi gv_v mn H cwjw_‡b hv wQj Hme †d‡j P‡j Av‡m 1 wgwb‡Ui
g‡a¨| ZLb Abygvb ivZ 1.00 †_‡K 1.20 evR‡e| wciæ wgVzb Avevi H †gvUi mvB‡Kj
WªvBf K‡i Avgv‡`i‡K wb‡q AvjvDwÏb gmwR‡`i Kv‡Q P‡j Av‡m| Avgv‡K ILv‡b bvwg‡q
†`q| Iiv wkjvB`ni w`‡K e¨vK K‡i| Avwg nvU‡Z nvU‡Z evwo P‡j Avwm| ZLb Abygvb ivZ
1.40 †_‡K 1.50 evR‡e| c‡ii w`b mKv‡j gv‡V †PPv‡gwP ï‡b gv‡V hvB| Avwg
Bgiv‡bi jv‡k 2Uv Qwe Zzwj Avgvi †gvevB‡j| Avwg hvevi 30/40 wgwb‡Ui g‡a¨ cywjk
Av‡m| cywjk Avgv‡K G‡ió K‡i| wfKwUg Bgiv‡bi PvPv ev`j Avgv‡K †`Lvq †`q| ZvB
cywjk Avgv‡K †MÖdZvi K‡i| †MÖdZvi K‡i _vbvq wb‡q hvq| cywj‡ki wRÁvmvev‡` Avwg
me e‡j w`B| GB Avgvi Revbew›`|Ó
That
summing up the confessional statements (accorded under section 164 of the Cr.
P. C) of accused namely Md. Mehedi Hasan and stated that "I have known
Victim Imran since he was a child. Victim has a gold shop in front of Janata
Bank in Kushtia. He used to walk, get up and sit together with Victim. Imran
and he would go anywhere together. On Thursday, 4 days before the incident, a
boy named Piru Mithun was met on the railway line of Alauddin Nagar. His
acquaintance was with him for intoxication. He used to call him Dada. We sat on
the railway line and kept talking. He also had no money. We have a plan that we
will take Imran's new motorcycle Pulsar 150cc from him after intoxicating him a
lot. So that he does not feel that we have taken his motorcycle. Piru Mithun
tells me not to make any call on his phone and also told him to reach the
bamboo garden on Saturday 16/3/2018 A.D. between 10.30 pm and 10.45 pm. On
Fridays he studied from 7.00 pm to 10.30 pm. Then he went to sleep. I woke up
on Saturday morning. On Saturday 18/3/2018 A.D. he read from 7.30 pm to 10.00 pm.
He kept watching movies with his mobile in hand. He turned off the lights at
10.25 am and left the room. Fill the vessel with trowel pressure so that his
father and mother can understand when he heard the sound. He had really gone to
the bathroom. He did not go to the bathroom but left the vessel aside and went
straight through the field to the bamboo garden of Gokul. It is estimated to be
10.30 pm. He went there and saw Imran, Piru Mithun and 2 other people (I don't
know Piru Mithun's associates) sitting in a circle and eating marijuana. Come
and see me nephew Imran. Make me a flute. He made him a Bashi Gaza. Imran made
me a Gaza stick (like a cigarette). They live in Gaza from Bashi. He keeps
eating Gaza on a stick. He kept noticing that Piru was feeding Mithun Imran
more cannabis. After eating Gaza, they ate dendrites in glue polythene. It is a
kind of intoxication. When it is time to eat, it is time to drink wine. He drank
a glass of wine first. Imran drank half a liter of wine in a bottle. Piru
Mithun and his two accomplices started drinking alcohol in the goose. There
were also cigarettes. After drinking 3 liters of wine out of 4 liters, Piru
Mithun gives Asha a hint that now the work can be done. (Keys can be taken on a
motorcycle). He wanted the total bicycle from Imran. He says you are a small
man. You can't afford such a big motorcycle. Then Piru Mithun said that he was tall.
Give him the key. Then Imran does not want to give the key. Then there was an
argument between them. One of Piru Mithun's associates grabbed Imran from
behind. Then Piru Mithun took the key from Imran. Then Imran swept the key
ring. The tension between the two broke in the middle. Imran had the key ring
in his hand and Piru Mithun had the key. A fight broke out between Imran and
Piru Mithun. At one point, Piru Mithun brought a bash about three feet long and
hit Imran hard on the head. I told Piru Mithun what was going on. That was not
to be. Piru Mithun's colleague pulled out a hoof and told me that if he said
anything else he would lower my throat. Immediately after the first injury,
Imran knelt down and sat down in the garlic field. When Piru Mithun hit Imran
on the head with that bash again, Imran became senseless and fell into the
garlic field. The bamboo with which Imran was hit Piru Mithun raised the bamboo
under Imran's neck. One of Piru Mithun's two associates grabbed Imran's legs.
Another held Imran's two hands together and pressed them to his chest. Piru
Mithun then cut Imran's throat with that razor and separated his head from his
body. Piru Mithun scolded him loudly. He says to take off Imran's T-shirt and
pants. He took off his T-shirt and pants. Imran had a ring (3 o'clock) and a
bracelet in his hand. Piru Mithun says that will your father open those? He took
off that ring and bracelet at 3 o'clock. He opened it and gave it to Piru
Mithun. Piru Mithun fills Imran's severed head and t-shirt, pants, 03 rings and
bracelet in polythene. He ordered me to leave Imran's body in the corn field
from the garlic field. He grabbed Imran's 2 legs and one of Piru Mithun's
associates grabbed Imran's body under his armpits. The two of us left Imran's
body in the corn field. Piru Mithun, his 2 associates and he went to Shilaidaha
Ghat on 8 motorcycles with these 4 people. When Piru Mithun went to the wharf
where the work of baking was going on, Imran's head and all that was in the
polythene was left in 01 minute. It is estimated to be 1.00 to 1.20 pm. Piru
Mithun drove that motorcycle again and took us to Alauddin Mosque. Lets him
down there. They back to Shilaidahar. He walked home. It is estimated to be
1.40 to 1.50 pm. The next morning he went to the field after hearing the
shouting. He took 2 pictures of Imran's body on my mobile. The police arrived
within 30/40 minutes of his departure. The police arrested him. Victim Imran's
uncle Badal shows him. So the police arrested him. He was arrested and taken to
the police station. He told everything during the police interrogation."
52. From the above mentioned confessional statement
of the earlier mentioned accused 01. Md. Mehedi Hasan
and 02. Md. Shahidur Rahman @ Piru Mithun recorded by P.W. 4 and P.W.19 by Ld. First Class Senior Judicial
Magistrate, Kushtia (prescribed form of confessional statement Exbt. No. 4
& 9) and the above confessional statement are very much pertinent to
this case and involvement of the accused named in charge sheet. It is settled
principle of Law on analyzing the evidence i.e. the confessional statement
clearly proves that the accused person namely 01. Md. Mehedi Hasan
and 02. Md. Shahidur Rahman @ Piru Mithun in the committing offence of murder to the victim and the statement is
corroborated by the evidence of P.W.1. 2-3, 5-11 & P.W.13 and by the
several circumstances as depicted in the planning and development of finality
of commiting murder to the victim Imran on 16-03-2018 A.D. at 7.00 pm at night
to 18-03-2018 A.D. at 9.30 PM and wihtin this time in the P.O. That after
careful scrutiny of the confessional statement of the two accused which marked
as Exbt. Nos. 4 & 9 was done with due care and attention by the recording
Ld. Magistrates and I find no legal drawbacks and vaccume in the conessional
statement and the Ld. Magistarte followed the procedures of section 164 &
364 of Criminal Procedure Code. So the defence case of accused Mehedi Hasan’s
Ld. Counsel in argument, Ld. Magistrate did not give memorandum after recording
confession could not be sustained in the law.
52. It is an established principle of evidence
analysis that the confessional statement of the accused must in fact be a
confession of guilt by attaching itself to the crime committed; it must be qualitatively
true and voluntary. If all these conditions are met, not only can it be
accepted as evidence against the narrator, but it can also be used against
anyone else involved in the confession. In the later case, however, an
additional precautionary condition is that the confessional statement must be
supported and corroborated by other oral, documentary or circumstantial
evidence. On the other hand, this statement of the absent witness cannot be the
basis of punishment. In other words, if the confessional record is not given by
the Magistrate, then according to the rules, there is no legal impediment for
the statement of 01. Md. Mehedi Hasan and 02. Md.
Shahidur Rahman @ Piru Mithun to be
considered as complementary evidence in determining the admissibility of the
confession or other evidence.
53. That
the accused Md. Mehedi Hasan has been in custody from the date of arrest
21-03-2018 A.D. to onward and the accused made a confession before the Senior
Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code and after end
of trial the accused was taken for examination under section 342 of the
Criminal Procedure Code accordingly and on the date of examination of the
accused Md. Mehedi Hasan son Faridul Islam @Latif desired to give
evidence as D.W.1 and submitted a letter which he wrote as retraction petition
and this letter written in jail is given in the following-
ÒAvgvi bvg †gvt †g‡n`x nvmvb| wcZv- †gvt dwi`yj Bmjvg jwZd,
gvZv- Av‡bvqviv †eMg| MÖvg- g‡bvnicyi, _vbv- KzgviLvjx, †Rjv- Kzwóqv| Avwg
Kzwóqv miKvwi K‡j‡R Bs‡iRx wefv‡Mi Z…Zxq e‡l©i QvÎ wQjvg| Avgvi †iwR bs-
14211035115| Avgvi evev K…wlKvR K‡i| Avgiv `yB fvB GK †evb| Avgiv Mixe gvbyl|
evevi m¤ú` ej‡Z †Zgb wKQz bvB| †QvU †ejv †_‡KB †L‡q bv †L‡q evev gv Avgv‡K
†jLvcov wkwL‡q‡Q| m¤ú` ej‡Z AvwgB wQjvg| Zv‡`i fwel¨Z| wKš‘ wbqwZi GK wbg©g
cwinv‡m AvR Avwg gvW©vi gvgjvi Avmvgx| †h gviv †M‡Q Zvi bvg Bgivb| Avgv‡`i cÖvq
cvkvcvwk evwo| †QvU †ejv †_‡K GK mv‡_ eo n‡qwQ| Bgivb wQj Avgvi †eó †d«Û| A_P
Avgvi fvM¨ AvR Ii nZ¨vi Avmvgxi evwb‡q‡Q| AvR Avwg Rxeb g„Zz¨i gvSvgvwS
`uvwo‡q| m¨vi, gvby‡li fvM¨ Dci KviI nvZ †bB| AvgviI †mg ZvB n‡q‡Q| wKš‘ Avgvi
Rxeb b‡ói Rb¨ `vqx AvR‡Ki GB mgvRe¨e¯’v| cÖkvm‡bi wKQz A_©‡jvwf gvbyl| A‡_©i
Mig Avi wKQz fzj †evSveywSi Rb¨ AvR Bgiv‡bi evev Avgvi bv‡g gvgjv K‡i‡Q|
16/3/20218 wLªt ZvwiL ïµevi wQj Avgvi PvPv‡Zv fvB‡qi mybœ‡Z Lvrbvi Abyôvb| mKvj
†_‡KB Lye e¨¯Í wQjvg| `ycyi 1.09 wgwb‡U Bgivb Avgv‡K Ii evevi bv¤^vi †_‡K †dvb
†`q| Avgv‡e e‡j KzgviLvjx †h‡Z n‡e| Avwg e¨¯Í _vKvq I‡K `ycyi 04 Uvi w`‡K hve
ejjvg| Avwg 04 Uvi w`‡K d«x n‡q Avgv‡`i MÖv‡g GK †g‡q Mjvq duvm w`‡q AvZ¥nZ¨v
K‡iwQj ILv‡b wM‡q jvk †`‡L Bgivb‡K †dvb w`‡Z w`‡q †`wL †dv‡b UvKv bvB| cv‡k
Avgv‡`i MÖv‡giB GK fvB bvg AvIqvj †h GB gvgjvi mvÿx `vwuo‡q wQj| fvB‡qi KvQ
†_‡K †dvb wb‡q Bgivb‡K †dvb w`jvg| wKš‘ †dvb wiwme Ki‡jv Bgiv‡bi PvPv‡Zv fvB
wkwki| †h GB gvgjvi mvÿx| wkwki Avgv‡K ejj, fvB‡Zv AvNv N›Uv Av‡M †K †hb †dvb
w`j, Zvi †dvb †c‡q Mvox wb‡q P‡j †M‡Q †dvb Avgvi Kv‡Q †i‡L| Avgvi Avðh© jvMj
†h, Bgiv‡bi cvi‡mvbvj †dvb †i‡L †Kb hv‡e| Avwg wkwki‡K ejjvg Zzwg †Kv_vq GLb|
wkwki ejj Avwg ivqWv½v wgRvb KvKzi evwo‡Z| Avwg wkwki‡K †ij jvBb Gi Dci Avm‡Z
ejjvg| Zvici AvIqvj Gi †dv‡b w`‡q Bgivb Gi evevi bv¤^v‡i †dvb w`jvg 3/4 evi|
wKš‘ wiwmf nq bv| AvIqvj fvB‡K ejjvg †dvb e¨vK w`‡j Avgvi K_v ej‡eb| Zvici Avwg
†ij jvB‡bi Dci emjvg wM‡q| wkwki Avm‡j `yRb e‡m Mí KiwQjvg| D‡Ïk¨ wQj Bgivb
†h‡nZz †dvb †i‡L †M‡Q Avm‡j wkwk‡iB Kv‡QB Avm‡e| wKš‘ mܨv nj, Bgivb Avmj bv|
Avwg evwo wM‡q gvMix‡ei bvgvR c‡o co‡Z emjvg| Avgiv wØZxq e‡l©i dvBbvj cixÿv
PjwQj| Bkvi bvgvR ci Bgvib Gi gv Ges wkwki Gi gv Avgvi evwo Avmj| Bgivb Gi †LvR
PvBj| Avwg we¯ÍvwiZ ejjvg Ges †Ubkb Ki‡Z wb‡la Kijvg| ejjvg, †hLv‡bB hvK iv‡Z
P‡j Avm‡e| wKš‘ ivZ cvi nq| Bgivb Avmj bv| mKv‡j Avwg D‡V me RvqMvq †LvR wb‡Z
jvMjvg| wKš‘ †KD †LvR w`‡Z cvij bv| Bgivb Gi evwo wM‡q Ii gv‡K wPšÍv Ki‡Z wb‡la
Kijvg| wKš‘ mwZ¨ ej‡Z Avgvi e¨vcK †Ubkb nw”Qj| nVvr Bgivb Gi †QvU PvPv ev`j
G‡m, Avgv‡K kvmv‡Z jvMj Ges ejj, Bgivb Gi wKQz n‡j †Zvi Kcv‡j `ytL Av‡Q| Avwg
†evSvevi †Póv Kijvg| wKš‘ eySj bv| Avgv‡K eKv w`‡q †ei K‡i w`j| †mB w`b I ivZ
cvi nj| ciw`b wQj Avgvi cixÿv| dRi Gi bvgvR c‡o wiwfkb w`w”Qjvg| mKvj 8.30 Gi
w`‡K gv‡Vi c~e© w`‡K †kvi‡Mvj ïb‡Z †cjvg| evB‡i wM‡q †`wL cÖPzi †jvK gv‡Vi
g‡a¨| wKQz`~i GwM‡q †h‡Z ïb‡Z †cjvg GKUv gv_v wenxb jvk fz‡Æv †ÿ‡Zi g‡a¨ c‡o
Av‡Q| Avwg †h‡q jv‡ki `yBUv d‡Uv Zzjjvg| wKQz mgq c‡i Bgivb Gi gvI PvPx G‡m jvk
†`‡L, IUv Bgivb Gi e‡j †PuwP‡q Kvu`‡Z _v‡K| Avgvi `yB cv‡q †hb cv_i R‡g †Mj|
`y‡PvL w`‡q ïay cvwbi AkÖæaviv eB‡Z jvMj| Ii gv‡K Kx e‡j mvšÍbv †`e †m fvlv
Ly‡R cvw”Qjvg bv| Bgivb‡K †h Gfv‡e cve, ¯^‡cœI fvwewb| †Lv`vZvjv Ii bwme GB
wj‡L w`‡qwQj| gv_vi g‡a¨ P°i w`‡q DVj| GKRb a‡i cv‡ki bvjv †_‡K Avgvi gv_vq
cvwb w`j| nVvr ev`j fvB‡K †`Ljvg `yBUv cywjk mv‡_ wb‡q GwM‡q Av‡m‡Z| Kv‡Q G‡m
ev`j Avgvi Kjvi a‡i cywjk Gi nv‡Z Zz‡j w`j| Avwg wKš‘ wKQz Rvwb bv| Avwg
wb‡`v©l ej‡jI cywjk ïbj bv| †mvRv n¨vÛKvc jvwM‡q Mvox‡Z Zz‡j KzgviLvjx _vbvq
wb‡q †`vZjvq GKUv iæ‡g AvUK ivLj| †m w`b wQj 18/3/2018 ZvwiL| wKQzÿY ci GK Gm.
AvB wgëb Kzgvi †`e`vm G‡m †PvL evaj| ejj, mwZ¨ K‡i ej, gv_v †Kv_vq? Avwg mZ¨
K_v ej‡j, wek¦vm Ki‡jv bv| GKUv iæj w`‡q †g‡S‡Z †d‡j w`‡q AgvbywlK wbh©vZb Ki‡Z
jvMj| e¨v_vq Avwg wPrKvi Ki‡j GKUv MvgQv G‡b gy‡Li wfZi w`‡q iæj w`‡q †e`g
†cUv‡Z jvM| wKQz mgq gvij| Zvici †PvL evav Ae¯’vq †d‡j †i‡L †Mj| wKQz mgq ci
`yRb †jvK G‡m `yB eM‡j nvZ w`‡q Avgv‡K wb‡q GKUv Mvoxi g‡a¨ wb‡q †Mj| A‡bK mgq
ci Mvox _vwg‡q Iiv Avgv‡K GKUv iæ‡g AvUK ivLj| wKPz mgq ci GKRb G‡m †Pv‡Li evab
Ly‡j w`‡q Avgv‡K ejj †g‡n`x mwZ¨ K‡i ej me| wKfv‡e Lyb K‡i‡Qv, Kviv RwoZ Ges
gv_v †Kv_vq? Avwg mwZ¨ K_v ej‡j Iwb wek¦vm Ki‡jv bv| Avgvi †PvL †e‡a w`j| wKQz
mgq ci GKRb a‡i wb‡q †Mj| GKUv †Pqv‡i ewm‡q `yB nvZ iwk w`‡q †e‡a iæj w`‡q
nvUz‡Z gvi‡Z jvMj| Amn¨ e¨v_vq wPrKvi Ki‡j †Kqvi Kij bv| KZ iKg †h UP©vi m¨vi wj‡L
†evSv‡Z cvie bv| GKUv evjwZ‡Z cvwb wQj| Iiv cÖmve Ki‡Z ejj, cÖkve Kiv gvÎB
wPrKvi w`‡q c‡o †Mjvg| wj½ w`‡q i³ †eiæ‡Z _vKj| IUv‡Z we`y¨r cwievwn Kiv wQj|
Avgvi `yB cv dz‡j cv‡qi Zvjy †d‡U i³ †eiæw”Qj| Iiv Wv³vi wb‡q G‡m cv‡q Bb‡RKkb
Kivj| †mw`b ivZ cvi| 19/3/2018 wLªt ZvwiL mKvj 10 Uvi ci Avevi †Riv ïiæ n‡jv|
nVvr ev`j †K †`L‡Z †cjvg| GBevi †PvL †e‡a Avevi †cUv‡Z jvMj| Avwg e¨v_vq Aw¯’i
n‡q cvwb PvB‡j mvgvb¨ GKUz Mig Pv w`j| GBevi Iiv Avgvi Wvb cv‡qi Pvov cøvm w`‡q
†U‡i Zz‡j †djj| Ávb nvwi‡q †djjvg| Ávb wd‡i †`wL Wv³vi| wKQz wPwKmv w`‡q †mw`b
Avi gvij bv| 20/3/18 ZvwiL mKvj †_‡KB †Riv ïiæ| gvi‡Z jvMj| Avwg ejjvg m¨vi
wKQz Rvbv _vK‡j †`vlx n‡j cÖ_g w`‡b me ejZvg| Avgv‡K †g‡i †dj‡jI Gi †_‡K †ewk
wKQz Avwg Rvwb bv| Iiv wek¦vm-B Kij bv Avwg wb‡`©vl| Kcv‡j wc¯Íj †VwK‡q ejj,
†Zv‡K †g‡i †`e mwZ¨ ej| Avwg ejjvg m¨vi, GZ AvRvi †`Iqvi †_‡K Avgv‡K †g‡i
†djvb| Iiv Avgv‡K IRy Ki‡Z ejj| Gfv‡e gvbwlK kvixwiK AZ¨vPvi Avgvi Avi mn¨ Ki‡Z
cviwQjvg bv| iv‡Z GK Iwm G‡m cwiPq w`j †m wWwei Iwm mvweŸi| mwZ¨ K_v ej bB‡Z
†Zv Rxeb AvR †L‡q †dj‡ev| Iwb Avgv‡K `yB nv‡Z e¨v‡ÛR Kvco cwi‡q d¨vb Gi ûK Dc‡i
wQj| †mLv‡b `ywo w`‡q Uvwb‡q Szwj‡q wQj| Zvici gvRv †_‡K cv‡qi wbP Aew` †cUv‡Z
jvMj| `yB cv‡qi nvUz‡Z †ekx †cUv‡Z jvMj| †dvjv cv‡q Avi mn¨ Ki‡Z cviwQjvg bv|
Amn¨ hš¿Yvq wPrKvi Ki‡Z Ki‡Z ïay Avjøvn‡K WvK‡Z jvMjvg| nVvr Ávb nvwi‡q †djjvg|
Ávb wd‡i †`wL Wv³vi| Wv³vi I wb‡la Kij bv gvi‡Z| m¨vi, Avgvi kixi GLbI ÿZ-weÿZ|
`yB cv‡q Ges nv‡Z GLbI ÿZ Gi `vM my¯úó Av‡Q| hv †`L‡j gvbyl AvZ‡K D‡V| Zvici
Avgvi gvgjvi AvBI wgëb m¨vi Avm‡j †m Avgv‡K Avjv`v K‡ÿ wb‡q hvq Ges nv‡Z GKUv
wkU aivBqv w`‡q e‡j, GB wk‡U hv wjLv Av‡Q Zv m¨vi‡`i mvg‡b ej, Zvn‡j †Zvgv‡K
Avi gvi‡e bv| cÖ_‡g ivRx bv n‡jI c‡i wPšÍv K‡i †`Ljvg †h kixi Gi †h Ae¯’v Giv
Avgv‡K euvP‡Z †`‡e bv| hv Rxe‡b †eu‡P _vwK| c‡i fvev hv‡e| wgë‡bi K_v Abymv‡i
mv‡K©j GwWkbvj Gmwc w`k¨v g¨vWvg Gi mvg‡b wkU Abyhvqx ejjvg| Iiv cÖ_‡g wek¦vm
Ki‡jv bv| c‡i GB K_v Dc‡i AUj _vKjvg wgë‡bi K_v g‡Zv| †k‡l Iiv wek¦vm Kij| GB
kxU Gi K_vB Avgvi eZ©gvb 164| c‡i wkU Abyhvqx gv_v cÙv b`x‡Z †d‡j‡Q ejv n‡j Iiv
Avgv‡K ivZ cÖvq 1.30 Gi w`‡K wkjvB`n cÙv b`xi Nv‡U wb‡q hvq gv_v D×vi Ki‡Z|
ILv‡b GKUv RvqMv †`Lv‡j Iiv GKUv †Uªmvi G‡b †eo †d‡j| wKš‘ wKQz cvqbv| ZLb wgëb
m¨vi g¨vWvg‡K e‡j, g¨vWvg GZ †mªv‡Z gv_v †Kv_vq P‡j †M‡Q †K Rv‡b| c‡i Avgv‡K
wWwe Awd‡m e¨vK wb‡q Av‡m| ciw`b mKv‡j Avi gvij bv| Avwg nvU‡Z cviwQjvg bv|
cv‡qi Zvwj dvUv, bL Dcov‡bv, ZvQvov `yB nvUz GZ e¨v_v g‡b nq †f‡½ †M‡Q| Amn¨
hš¿Yv nw”Qj| n¨vÛKvc nv‡Z e‡m wM‡q †K‡U wM‡q wWc n‡q wM‡qwQj| `ycyi 2.30 Gi
w`‡K Wv³vi wb‡q G‡m cv‡q †Wªwms KivBqv w`j| `yB cv‡q `yBUv e¨v_vi Bb‡RKkb w`‡q
w`j Avi GKUv M¨v‡mi| wKQz mgq ci cv‡q e¨v_v wKQz Kg‡j Avgv‡K †Kv‡U© wb‡q Avmj|
wgëb Avgv‡K ejj, Avgv‡`i GK eo Awdmvi Gi mvg‡b IB kxU Abymv‡i ej‡e Zvn‡jI
†Zvgv‡K †Q‡o †`‡ev| Avgvi Rxe‡bi me‡_‡K eo e¨_©Zv GB RvqMvq| †evKvi gZ wkU
Abymv‡i me ejjvg| hvevi Av‡M wgëb Avgv‡K wc‡V wc¯Íj †VwK‡q e‡jwQj, GB wkU
Abymv‡i bv ej‡j †Zv‡K GLv‡bB ¸wj Ki‡ev| hv‡nvK, 164 †k‡l IB Awdmvi Avgvi ¯^vÿi
†bevi mgq nvZ Uv †`L‡Z †cj| Avgv‡K ejj, †Zvgv‡K †g‡i‡Q wK? Avwg ejjvg n¨vu| †m
ejj ¯^xKvi Kivi Av‡M bv c‡i? Avwg ejjvg Av‡M| Iwb ejj, wVK Av‡Q| Gici evB‡i G‡m
wgëb Avgv‡K ejj hv †R‡j hv †Zvi evev‡K †`Lv Ki‡Z ewjm| 02 jÿ UvKv w`m PvR©wkU
bigvj K‡i †`e‡b| Gici m¨vi †R‡j G‡m wfZ‡i XzK‡ZB Ily‡ai wiG¨vKkb †K‡U †M‡j Amn¨
hš¿Yvq wPrKvi Ki‡Z wQjvg| †gwW‡Kj Gi cÖvq 4 gvm fwZ© wQjvg| `y&B nvUz c‡P
wM‡qwQ‡jv| Avjøvn gvwjK GLb my¯’ †i‡L‡Qb| AvR cÖvq 04 eQi n‡jv Rvwgb cvBwb|
evev e„× eq‡m wKQz Rwg wQj †e‡P wbt¯^| gv Uv cvMjcÖvq| ÁvwZ m¤ú‡K©i fvjevmv
†_‡K AvR ewÂZ Avwg| UvKv Afv‡e gvgjv nvB‡Kv‡U© Rvwgb ai‡Z cvwi bvB| AvR GB¸‡jv
wjLwQ ïay gvÎ m¨vi GKUv †Q‡ji Rxeb wKfv‡e bó w`j GUv Rvbv‡bvi Rb¨| Avgvi Rxeb
b‡ói Rb¨ `vqx †K? mgvR e¨ve¯’v, myôz Z`‡šÍi Afve, A_©‡jvfx wKQz Kg©KZ©v| c~e©
kÎæZvi †Ri, ivR‰bwZK n¯Í‡ÿc| Avi Avgvi wb‡Ri evev gv, bv †KvbUv? Avwg DËi Ly‡R
cvB bv| m¨vi Avcwb †`‡ki cÖ_g †kÖbxi bvMwiK, GKRb wePviK, AvcwbB wePvi Kiæb|
AvR Avgvi ev`x mg¯Í wKQz Rv‡b| Avwg wb‡`©vl GUvI Rv‡b| wKš‘ †m abx, A_©
AvwfRv‡Z¨i †Kvb KgwZ bvB| cÿvšÍ‡i Avgiv Mixe, wbt¯^| ZvB AvR Avwg ewÂZ wbcxwoZ,
Ryjy‡gi wkKvi| n¨vu Avgvi me †_‡K eo Aciva, Bgivb Avgvi eÜz wQj ZvB| Bgivb †Zv
g‡i †e‡P‡Q| wKš‘ m¨vi Avwg ay‡K ay‡K GB AÜ cÖ‡Kv‡ô giwQ| AvR hw` Bgivb Gi
gvW©vi Gi wel‡q Avwg wKQz RvbZvg wKsev ¯ú‡U _vKZvg| Zvn‡j ILv‡b `yBUv jvk c‡o
_vK‡Zv| GKUv Avgvi Avi GKUv Bgiv‡bi| wKsev `yBR‡bB †e‡P _vKZvg| m¨vi Avcbvi Kv‡Q
Aby‡iva N‡i Avgvi e„× gvZv wcZv Av‡Q| Rxe‡b hv‡Z Zv‡`i †L`gZ Ki‡Z cvwi, GB
my‡hvM UzKz w`‡qb|Ó
54. The accused namely Piru Mithin
also wrote a letter from the jail as retraction petition and he has been in custody from the date of arrest
20-03-2020 A.D. to onward and the accused made a confession before the Senior
Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code and after end
of trial the accused was taken for examination under section 342 of the
Criminal Procedure Code accordingly and on the date of examination of the
accused Md. Piru Mithun desired to give retraction petition and a letter
written in jail is given in the following-
webxZ wb‡e`b GB †h, wciæ
wgVzb, wcZv- Avt gvbœvb, MÖvg- `wo‡Kvgicyi, _vbv- KzgviLvjx, †Rjv- Kzwóqv| Avwg
Abvm© PZz_© e‡l© Aa¨qbiZ _vKvKvjxb Avgvi bv‡g gvgjv nq| gvgjvi wR. Avi bs-
60/2018| eZ©gv‡b †mkb- 1070/2020| AZtci Avwg AvB‡bi cÖwZ m¤§vb cÖ`k©b Kwiqv
Av`vj‡Zi Kv‡Q AvZ¥mgc©Y Kwi 09/9/2019 wLªt Zvwi‡L|
AZtci
Z`šÍKvix Kg©KZ©v Av`vj‡Zi Kv‡Q Avgvi wigvÛ `vex K‡i| c‡i Av`vjZ Avgvi 03 (wZb)
w`b wigvÛ gÄyi K‡i| Gi †cÖwÿ‡Z Avgvi AvBbRxex D”P Av`vj‡Z Avgvic‡ÿ wgm †KBm
K‡i| `xN© 05 (cuvP) gvm D”P Av`vj‡Z wgm †KBm Pjvi c‡i D”P Av`vjZ wgm †KBm LviwR
K‡i 03 (wZb) w`b wigvÛ envj iv‡L| c‡i 21/3/2020 wLªt ZvwiL Z`šÍKvix Kg©KZ©v
Avgv‡K wigv‡Ûi Rb¨ Zvi †ndvR‡Z †bq| cywjk †ndvR‡Z †bIqvi c‡i Avgvi Dci cvlweK
wbh©vZb ïiæ K‡i| Z`šÍ Awdmv‡ii wjwLZ e³e¨ Abyhvqx Avgv‡K Revbew›` w`‡Z e‡j|
Avwg bv ej‡Z B‡jKUªwbK kK †_‡K ïiæ K‡i Zv‡`i Kv‡Q kvixwiK wbh©vZb Gi gZ †KŠkj
Avgvi Dc‡i cÖ‡qvM K‡i GK ch©v‡q Avwg Ávb nvwi‡q †dwj|
GBfv‡e
wbh©vZb Pvjv‡bvi c‡i Avgv‡K ejv nq Avwg Zvi wjwLZ e³e¨ Revbew›` wnmv‡e ej‡ev
wK-bv| Avwg ivRx bv n‡j Avgvi Dc‡i wbh©vZb Gi gvÎ evwo‡q †`q| GK ch©v‡q Avwg
A‡PZb n‡q cwo| Ávb †divi c‡i Avgv‡K µmdvqv‡ii fq †`q Ges IB iv‡Z wkjvB`n Nv‡U
wb‡q hvq| wb‡q hvIqvi c‡i Avgv‡K e‡j †Zv‡K GLv‡K †g‡i †dj‡ev ¸wj K‡i| e‡j Avgvi
K_vq hw` ivwR nm Zvn‡j †Zv‡K cÖvY wfÿv w`‡ev|
IB
iv‡Z Avgv‡K Avevi _vbvq wb‡q hvB| c‡ii w`b mKv‡j Z`šÍ Awdmvi Avgvi eo fvB‡K
_vbvq Wv‡K I Avgvi mvg‡b nvwRi K‡i|
Zvic‡i
Avgv‡K ejv nq Avwg hw` Zvi K_vgZ Revbew›` bv †`B Zvn‡j †m Avgvi eo fvB‡K A¯¿
gvgjv w`‡q Pvjvb †`‡e e‡j Avgvi fvB‡K Zvi wR¤§vq AvU‡K iv‡L Ges Avgvi eo fvB Gi
Dc‡i kvixwiK wbh©vZb ïiæ K‡i|
c‡i
Avwg Avgvi cwievi I eo fvB Gi K_v wPšÍv K‡i Z`šÍ Awdmvi Gi wjwLZ e³e¨ Av`vj‡Zi
Kv‡Q w`‡Z eva¨ nB Ges c‡i Rvb‡Z cvwi Z`šÍ Awdmvi Avgv‡K w`‡q †h Revbew›` †ck
KivB‡Q Zvnv Kvh©wewai 164 aviv †gvZv‡eK MY¨ n‡q‡Q|
AZGe,
Rbve Avcbvi wbKU Avgvi AvKzj Av‡e`b GB †h, Avgv‡K w`‡q †h Revbew&›`
Av`vj‡Zi Kv‡Q †ck Kiv‡bv n‡q‡Q Zvnv m¤ú~Y© Avgvi B”Qvi weiæ‡× I Avgv‡K kvixwiK
wbh©vZb I µmdvqv‡ii ûgwK I Avgvi cwievi Gi m`m¨‡K wRw¤§ K‡i Z`šÍ Awdmvi Gi
wjwLZ K_v Avgv‡K Av`vj‡Zi Kv‡Q ejv‡bv n‡q‡Q|
m¨vi, Avcbvi Kv‡Q GKUvB cÖv_©bx †h †`vlxi wePvi
†nvK, webv Aciv‡a †hb †KD mvRv bv cvq|
55. I find that the accused persons namely 01.
Md. Mehedi Hasan and 02. Md. Shahidur Rahman @ Piru Mithun is and was very
clever and behaved like a habitual offender and a killer. That the above noted
confessional statements made by the accused appeared true, voluantary,
elaborate, live, corroborative with facts, circumstances and evidence on record
(as discussed earlier). That accused namely 01. Md. Mehedi Hasan confessed to the Judicial Magistrate dated 21-03-2018
A.D. and submitted retraction petition of the confessional statement on 26-01-2022
A.D. and
02. Md. Shahidur Rahman @ Piru Mithun made confessional statement on 25-03-2020
A.D. submitted retraction petition of the confessional statement which
the accused signed dated 26-01-2022 AD. AD at the date of examination of the
accused under section 342 of Cr.P.C. and that is no legal effect of such retraction in
the eye of law where confessional statement appeared true and voluntary and
that maker (accused Md. Mehedi Hasan and Piru Mithun) signed in the
confessional statement admitting the same true and voluntary and that the same
was heard and read over after recording and where confessional statement
recorded once voluntary and true and makers signed after recording statement
admitting the same as true, voluntary, without fear and compulsion so, the rest
retraction have also no legal leg to
stand and that therefore, considering all these retraction by accused person
caused baseless and unlawful and that all these retractions bear no improtance
in the eye of law. It
was held in the case of Lutfun
Nahar VS- State cited
in [27 DLR (SC), 29]. The Hon'ble Court remarked that,
“Confession
if found to be true and voluntary alone is sufficient for convicting the
confession accused. Retraction is immaterial if found voluntary and true”
56. Now let us see whether the confessional statement of the accused
(Confessional Statement) is how much voluntary and true. Besides, Ld. Magistrate Md. Enamul
Haque (P.W.4) and Md. Mizanur Rahman (P.W.19) has recorded all kinds of
formalities and according to the rules; the accused Md. Mehedi Hasan son
Faridul Islam Latif has recorded the confessional statements of two accused
under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. That the Ld. Advocate argued during the
hearing that the accused had been tortured by the police and had given a
confessional statement for this reason, the confessional statement of the
accused is not voluntary and true and not properly recorded and cited a case of
State vs Babul Miah reported in 63 DLR (AD) 10-11. so lets scrutinize the
confessional statement whether it was recorded properly or not? It is the definite case of the prosecution
that victim Imran was killed by accused persons namely 01. Mehedi Hasan 02. Md.
Shahidur Rahman @ Piru Mithun, 03. Md. Mehedi Hasan Joj 04. Nahid Hasan, 05.
Anik Hasan & 06. Md. Wadud Islam @ Razu while they all went in the P.O. in
furtherance of common intention. Now it is necessary to scrutinize the
confessional Statement Form (M-84). The review of the confessional statement of
the accused shows that the accused person made in his confessional statement and
said that they killed the victim Imran by cutting throat to the victim. Accused
Md. Shahidur Rahman @ Piru Mithun has given a statement involving himself-
“RR, AwbK, †g‡n`x Bgivb‡K gvi‡Q ZLb Avgvi mv‡_ _vKv bvwn`I
I‡`i mv‡_ hy³ n‡q Bgivb‡K gvi‡Z _v‡K| GiB g‡a¨ RR wKQz GKUv w`‡q Bgiv‡bi gv_vq
AvNvZ K‡i Avwg †VKv‡bvi †Póv Kwi ZLb RR Avgv‡KI GKUv AvNvZ K‡i| Gici †g‡n`x
nvmvb RR Zvi c‡KU n‡Z PvKz †ei K‡i Bgiv‡bi Mjvq †cvR †`q ZLb Avwg RR‡K ewj ZzB
GUv wK Kiwj| ZLb †m Avgv‡K e‡j GKUv K_v ej‡j †Zv‡K gvi‡ev| Bgiv‡bi Mjvq †cvR †`evi ci †m
gvwU‡Z c‡o hvq| ZLb RR Avgv‡K G wel‡q KvD‡K Rvbv‡j Avgvi bvg Av‡M w`‡e e‡j ûgwK
†`q| Zvici RR Zvi c‡KU n‡Z GKwU wc¯‘j †ei K‡i Avgv‡K ûgwK †`q| R‡Ri K_v I wc¯‘j
†`‡L Avwg fq †c‡q hvB|”
The
Ld. Judicial Magistrate Md. Enamul Haque (P.W.4) and Md. Mizaur Rahman (P.W.19)
appears to have recorded the guilty confessional statement of the accused in
compliance with all the provisions of sections 364 and 164 of the Criminal
Procedure Code. It is mentioned in the original form of Confessional Statement of
Piru Mithun (Exbt. No.4 & 9) it clearly shows that- the Magistrate asked
the six questions as mentioned in the Column No.5 to Column No.6-
(1) Avwg cywjk bvB, g¨vwR‡÷ªU; ey‡S‡Qb?- wR|
(2) Avcwb †`vl ¯^xKv‡ivw³ Ki‡Z eva¨ bb; Rv‡bb?- wR,|
3)
Avcwb ¯^xKv‡ivw³ Ki‡j Zv Avcbvi weiæ‡× mvÿ¨ wnmv‡e e¨eüZ n‡Z cv‡i; ey‡S‡Qb?-
wR, ey‡SwQ|
(4) ¯^wKv‡ivw³ Kivi Rb¨ Avcbv‡K †KD gviai ev fqfxwZ
ev cÖ‡jvfb ‡`wL‡q‡Q wK? eySwQ|
(5) ¯^xKv‡ivw³ K‡ib ev bv K‡ib Avcbv‡K Avi cywj‡ki
†ndvR‡Z †`Iqv n‡e bv ey‡S‡Qb? – wR eySwQ|
(6)
Avcwb mZ¨ ej‡eb †Zv? wR|
57.
The review of the original Form No. M-84 of the said confessional statement of
record does not show any deviation from the existing law regarding the record
of confessional statement. Moreover, there was no suggestion from the defendant
that there was any legal problem with the record of the statement or that it
was not in accordance with the rules. In the overall review, i.e. the testimony
and interrogation of Md. Enamul Haque and Md. Mizanur Rahman (P.W.4 &
P.W.19) and the confessional statement of the accused 01. Md. Mehedi Hasan 02.
Md. Shahidur Rahman @ Piru Mithun attached to the record, it is seen that the
confessional statement is true and voluntarily motivated. In this context [45 DLR (HCD) page: 260, 38 DLR, 374. 12 DLR
(SC) 156] A similar decision of the High Court is seen in the case of
Jaygun Bibi. It is by now well settled that an accused can be found guilty and
convicted solely banking upon his confessional statement, if on scrutiny, it is
found to be true, voluntary and inculpatory in nature and properly recorded by
the Ld. Magistrate. In this connection, we may profitably refer to the case of Md. Islam Uddin @ Din Islam Vs. The Sate
reported in 27 BLD (AD) 37 wherein our Appellate Division has observed as
under:
“7. It is now the settled principle of Law that judicial confession if it
is found to be true and voluntary can form the sole basis of conviction as
against the maker of the same. The HighCourt Division as noticed earlier found
the judicial confession of the condemned prisoner true and voluntary and
considering the same, the extra judicial confession and circumstances of the
case found the condemned prisoner guilty and accordingly imposed thesentence of
death upon him.”
The
well-established principle of the law is that the confessional statement is
given to the Judicial Magistrate in the circumstances in which the confessional
statement has been given before the Magistrate for verification of the
confessional statement and the person has to submit the statement to the Magistrate
along with the other evidences in the document. This support does not always
have to be particularly material. Support by general evidences or medical
evidence will be considered sufficient. [Abdur
Rahman Syed v. State, Hon'ble High Court Division in the case [44 DLR (1992)
558]. Victim Imran was killed by the accused persons namely 01. Mehedi
Hasan son of Faridul Islam, 02. Md. Shahidur Rahman @ Piru Mithun 3. Mehedy
Hasan Joj 04. Nahid Hasan, 05. Anik Hasan & 06. Md. Wadud @ Razu on the
date and time of the incident by cut the victim’s throat and beheaded with
sharp knief. The statement of these P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.8, P.W.13 and
other witnesses coincide with the confessional statements of the accused 01.
Mehedi Hasan son of Faridul Islam, 02. Md. Shahidur Rahman @ Piru Mithun about
the death of victim Imran in the place of occurrence. Regarding the
confessional statement of 01. Mehedi Hasan son of Faridul Islam, 02. Md.
Shahidur Rahman @ Piru Mithun, it has already been decided that the
confessional statements are true and voluntarily in nature. Moreover, in the
case of State v. Md. Shukur Ali, [68 DLR (2016) (HCD) 155] the High Court
has decided that,
“Whenever it is seen that the confessional
statement has been recorded in compliance with all the legal binding rules and
the confession has been voluntarily and the magistrate has been satisfied to
the extent that it is free from all kinds of defects, then the confessional
statement can be the only basis for convicting the accused.”
58. That the accused persons namely 01. Md. Mehedi
Hasan & 02. Md. Shahidur Rahman @ Piru Mithun’s confessions and the application of Section 30 of the Evidence Act,
1872 are to be considered. According to the confessions of the accused, it
appears that the day before the incident the accused met with each other and
pre-planned to snatch the motobike of the victim Imran. And the accused Mehedi
Hasan & Piru Mithun as main culprit/mastermind executed the plan and killed
the victim on 16-03-2018 A.D. to 18-03-2018 A.D. at 9.30 PM and within any time
that dates.
59. From the above mentioned confessional statement
of the earlier mentioned accused 01. Md. Mehedi Hasan & 02.
Md. Shahidur Rahman @ Piru Mithun recorded
by P.W. 4 & P.W.19 by Ld. First Class Senior Judicial Magistrate, Kushtia
(prescribed form of confessional statement Exbt. No.4 & 9) and the above
confessional statement are very much pertinent to this case and involvement of
the accused named in charge sheet. It is settled principle of Law on analyzing
the evidence i.e. the confessional statement clearly proves that the accused persons
namely 01. Mehedi Hasan son of Faridul Islam, 02. Md. Shahidur Rahman @
Piru Mithun 3. Mehedy Hasan Joj 04. Nahid Hasan, 05. Anik Hasan & 06. Md.
Wadud @ Razu altogether co-operate
in the committing offence of murder to the victims and these statement is
corroborated by the evidence of P.W.1-3, P.W.5-8, P.W.10-11 P.W.13 and by
the several circumstances as depicted in the planning and development of
finality of commiting murder to the victim Imran on 16-03-2018 A.D. at about 7.00
PM at night to 18-03-2018 A.D. in the P.O. All the accused in committing the
offence and their execution of murder had been done in furtherance of common
intention. That the persons namely 01. Mehedi Hasan son of Faridul
Islam, 02. Md. Shahidur Rahman @ Piru Mithun the main accused in the case, in turn, refers to the identity and
cooperation of the main accused, which clearly took him to the same level as
the other accomplices. Following the interpretation of this definition given in
the Biplabi Barindrakumar Ghosh case (AIR 1925 PC.1), State v. Ershad
Sikder, 56 DLR (2004) Page-310, the Hon'ble High Court Division has shed
light on the same principle of reality analysis which may be applicable in the
present case.
“The
words of section 34 are not be eviscerated by reading them in this eceddingly
limited sense. By section 33 states criminal act in section 34 includes a
series of acts and further acts includes omission to act for example, an
omission of act to interfere in order to prevent a murder being done before one
very eyes. By section 37 when any offence is committed by means of several acts
whoever intentionally cooperates in the commission of that offence by doing any
act one those acts either by singly or jointly with any other person, commits
the offence. Even if the appellant did nothing as he stood outside the door, it
is to be remebered that in crimes as in other things they also serve who only
stand and wait. (Para;21)”
60. So let's postpone the discussion on whether the
confession of 01. Mehedi Hasan son of Faridul Islam, 02. Md.
Shahidur Rahman @ Piru Mithun was
voluntary and let us first determines its veracity in the light of the
course of events to be considered. According to the statements of Mehedi
Hasan and Piru Mithun, the occurrence took place on 16-03-2018 A.D. at about
7.00 PM at night to 18-03-2018 A.D. in the P.O. after arrest the accused
produced to the Ld. Magistrate for recording confessional statement within the
legal framework and presecribed within 24 hours. Both the accused made similar
statements in their confessional statements about the time, date & place of
the incident which coincides with the statements of witnesses Nos.1-3, 5-8,
10-11 and 13 and the statements of witnesses Nos. 4, 9, 14, 15-18, 20-22,
others. Then the acknowledged statements of other witnesses about the P.O. and
possible time of the incident are in fact very consistent and credible with the
confessional statements of accused Mehedi Hasan son of Faridul Islam,
02. Md. Shahidur Rahman @ Piru Mithun.
In other words, the confessions of accused Md. Shahidur Rahman @ Piru Mithun (Exhibit
Nos. 4) and Md. Mehedi Hasan (Exhibit No. 9) were both qualitatively
consistent and true. If the accused Mehedi Hasan son of Faridul Islam,
02. Md. Shahidur Rahman @ Piru Mithun were
not present there, such a consistent statement should not have been made. Then
lets see how the confessional statements were corroborated with the medical
evidence i.e. the inquest report & post-mortem report?
61. Let us see & scrutinize the
evidence of Dr. Taposh Kumer Sarker, Residential Medical Officer of
Kushtia, 250 beds General Hospital and now working in Kushtia Medical College, (P.W.9)
who completed the Post-Mortem and prepared an inquest of victim Imran (22) where
the Doctor gave (Exbt. No.5) his final opinion after getting viscera
report,
“Cause of death is due to haemorrhage
and shock as a result of above mentioned injury which is ante-mortem and
homicidal in nature.”.
This Post
mortem report of dead body (gv_v wew”Qbœ) was done
on dated 18-03-2018 A.D. as dead body of victim Imran and that dead body was
taken to Kushtia 250 Bed General Hospital by Constable No.94 Asraful and the on
duty Doctor (P.W.9) Dr. Taposh Kumer Sarker has been deposed by the Prosecution
side who clearly reported about the dead body ((gv_v
wew”Qbœ)) in question. It is apparent that the accused side did not raise any
question about the opinion of the Doctor in inquest Report. It was also found in the inquest
report that the nature of Injuries are;
1. Cut throat wound in middle of neck
with complete scperation of head from body measuring about 10 inch x 10 inch
with injury of vessels, nerves, bones and about 48 hours old.
2. A bruise in left leg measuring
about 1 inch x 1 inch.
On dissection: The vertebral column
and spinal cord and injured. The great vesselse of neck are injured.
Opinion: Cause of death is due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of above
mentioned injury which is ante-mortem and homicidal in nature.
The Same
Doctor Dr. Taposh Kumer Sarker deposed as P.W.9 and he further completed
another post mortem report of victim Imran Sheikh (22) only ‘gv_v wew”Qbœ’ on 26-03-2018 A.D. as identifed the Constable No.
471/Nirmal where the doctor found one sign of injury which as follows;
1. Cut throat wound involving whole neck
with detachment from body measurng about 15 cm x 15 cm and about 72 hours old.
On dissection: Antemortem blood clot,
tissue laceration with congestion is present associated with above said
viscera. The great vessels of neck and spinal cord are injured. The brain
matter is partially decomposed.
Opinion:
“The death is due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of above
mentioned injuries which are ante-mortem and homicidal in nature.”
62. It is on record that S.I. Md. Ferdous Alam
(P.W.20) held inquest of the dead body of the victim. For
better view of the matter, we took judicial notice of the inquest report since
no objection, whatsoever, has been raised by the defence about the authenticity
of the same. The relevant portion of the Inquest reprot (Exbt
No.2) of the deceased Imran Sheikh reads as under;
“18/3/2018 Zvwi‡Li myiZnvj- jvk c~e© wkqix g¯ÍK wenxb wPr Ae¯’vq Lvwj Mvu , j¾v ¯’v‡bi
Dci GKUv Kv‡jv †Zvqv‡j †gvt Rwni, wcZv- g„Z ....Avjx, mvs- g‡qicyi Gi fzÆv †ÿ‡Z
cvBjvg| evg Kv‡ai Dci †Kv‡ci `vM Av‡Q| `yB nvZ cvkvcvwk| gjØv‡i gj Ges cyiælv‡½
exh© †`L‡Z cvIqv hvq| GQvov jvkwU IjU cvjU Kwiqv †Kv_vI †Kvb wKQz cvIqv hvq
bvB| jv‡kj myiZnvj wi‡cvU© †k‡l wbKU AvZ¥xq‡`i wRÁvmvev‡` Rvbvq †h MZ ïµevi g„Z
`vIqvZ LvIqvi D‡Ï‡k¨ †ei nq ci Avi †Kvb †LvR cvIqv hvq bvB| A`¨B mKvj †ejv fzÆv
†ÿ‡Z g„Zvi jvk †`L‡Z cvIqv hvq| †K ev Kvnviv Zv‡K RevB K‡i nZ¨v K‡i jvk †d‡j †i‡L
hvq| D³ jv‡ki g„Zz¨i wel‡q mwVK KviY wbY©‡qi Rb¨ DaŸ©Zb KZ…©c‡ÿi mwnZ Av‡jvPbv
Kwiqv Kb‡÷ej 276 †gvt Avkivdz‡ji gva¨‡g ...........bs 01/18, Zvs 18/3/2018 wLªt
gy‡j g„‡Zi †`‡ni gqbvZ`‡šÍi Rb¨ A‡Uv f¨vb Mvox †hv‡M Kzwóqv m`i nvmcvZv‡j
(AvevwmK) †gwW‡Kj Awdmvi Kzwóqv eivei jv‡ki Pvjvb I cÖ‡qvRbxq KvMRcÎ †cÖiY
Kijvg|
20/3/2018 Zvwi‡Li wRwW g~‡j 25/03/2018 wLªt Zvwi‡L cvIqv ï
†`n wenxb Õgv_vÕ Gi myiZnvj wi‡cvU©-
†ÿ‡Zi g‡a¨ cvIqv gv_vi Lywj‡Z †Kvb AvNv‡Zi wPý bvB& †es
gv_vi Lywj‡Z †Kvb Pzj Ges Pvgovi Aw¯ÍZ¡ cvIqv †Mj| Lywji mv‡_ gy‡Li Dc‡ii cvwUi
`uvZ †`Lv hvq| gv_vi Lywji mv‡_ Mjvi †Kvb Ask mshy³ bvB| Mjvi gvsm Ges gv_vi
Pvgov c‡P gvwUi mv‡_ wg‡k †M‡Q e‡j g‡b nq| wb‡Pi cvwUi `vZ, Mjvi nvo, gv_vi
wKQz Pzj wew”Qbœ Ae¯’vq gv_vi Lywji cv‡k cvIqv hvq| gvgjvi NUbvi cÖv_wgK Z`‡šÍ
Rvbv hvq 16/3/2018 Zvwi‡L wfKwUg Bgivb wb‡LvR nq Ges cieZ©x‡Z 18/3/2018 Zvwi‡L
wb‡LvR Bgiv‡bi Mjv KvUv gv_vwenxb jvk m`icyi MÖvg¯’ fzÆvi †ÿ‡Zi g‡a¨ cvIqv hvq|
wKš‘ A‡bK †LvRvLywRi c‡iI g„Z Bgiv‡bi gv_v cvIqv hvq bv| cieZ©x‡Z A`¨ 25/3/2018
ZvwiL GB gv_vi Lywj D×vi n‡j g„Z Bgiv‡b PvPv Ges AvZ¥xq ¯^Rb gv_vi Lywj Ges `vZ
†`‡L gv_vi LywjwU g„Z Bgiv‡bi e‡j mbv³ K‡i| Z_vwc gvgjvi mwVK Z`‡šÍi ¯^v‡_© Ges
jv‡ki Ges gv_vi Lywji cwiPq mwVKfv‡e mbv³ Kivi Rb¨ I jv‡ki wWGbG cixÿvi AvjvgZ
msMÖ‡ni Rb¨ Lywj, `vZ, Mjvi nvo, 250 kh¨v wewkó †Rbv‡ij nvmcvZvj Kzwóqv g‡M©
†cÖiY Kiv n‡jv| D‡jøL¨ †h, jv‡ki wWGbG cixÿvi Rb¨ we‡klfv‡e Aby‡iva Kiv n‡jv| ”
63. There was a final opinion about the death of the victim P.W.9 Dr. Taposh Kumer Sarker “Death in my opinion was due to
septicaemic shock resulting from burn wound which was ante-mortem.” He
(P.W.9) identified the autopsy report and his signature which have been marked
as Exbt. Nos.7, 8 and his signature marked as Exbt. Nos. 7/1 & 8/1.” As
a result it would very plausible that the victim has been killed on 16-03-18 to
18-03-2018 A.D at 7.00 PM to 9.30 PM bu cutting his thraot and beheaded by the
accused which was also corroborated by the evidence of confessional statement
of Accused 1.Md. Mehedi Hasan and 02. Md. Shahidur Rahman @ Piru Mithun and
other two important winesses P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.5, P.W.6, P.W.7-8 &
P.W.10-11 & P.W.4 & 19 ( Two confessinoal statements as Exbt. No. 4
& 9) and with the statement of Surothal Report/ Inquest report (Exbt. No. 2
& 3).
Who
is the mastermind and stricker (active participant) accused?
64. Then the question is-how the miscreants killed
the victim Imran?. According to the statements of accused 01. Mehedi
Hasan son of Faridul Islam, 02. Md. Shahidur Rahman @ Piru Mithun, they called on over mobile phone while the
victim were taking lunch at Raidanga village at noon and Piru Mithun phoned the
victim and P.W.13 Shisir recieved that phone call as the avictim went out with
a motorbike and reached the P.O. by motorbike from the at around 2 pm on the
day of the incident on 16-03-2018 AD,. Both the accused Md. Mehedi Hasan (Confessional
statement prescribe form as Exbt. No.9) and Md. Shahidur Rahman @ Piru Mithun (Exbt.
No.9) confessed to the details of who slaughtered Imran with a knife and who
holding the victim by the arms, legs and mouth. If we see the major part of
confessional statement (Exbt. No.4) of Piru Mithun where he stated, “RR Bgiv‡bi Mjv †`n †_‡K Avjv`v Kivi Rb¨ PvKz w`‡q KvU‡Z _v‡K
wKš‘ e¨_© nq| Gici AwbK R‡Ri KvQ †_‡K PvKz wb‡q gv_v wew”Qbœ Kivi cÖ¯‘Z †bq|
AwbK wKQzUv KvUvi ci Awb‡Ki KvQ †_‡K PvKz wb‡q †g‡n`x gv_v wew”Qbœ K‡i|” The same statement was given about the participation
of the accused role in commititng murder of victim Imran at the PO. The accused
Md. Mehedi Hasan also stated in his confessional statement in this way; “wciæ wgVzb Avevi H evk w`‡q Bgiv‡bi gv_v AvNvZ Ki‡j Bgivb
†m݇jm n‡q imy‡bi †ÿ‡Zi g‡a¨ c‡o hvq| †h evkUv w`‡q Bgivb‡K AvNvZ Kiv nq wciæ
wgVzb H euvkUv Bgiv‡bi Nv‡oi wb‡P w`‡q Bgiv‡bi MjvUv DPz K‡i| wciæ wgVz‡bi 2
mn‡hvwMi GKRb Bgiv‡bi 2 Uv cv a‡i| Av‡iKRb Bgiv‡bi 2 Uv nvZ GKmv‡_ K‡i ey‡Ki
Dci †P‡c a‡i| wciæ wgVzb ZLb H ÿzi w`‡q Bgiv‡bi Mjv †K‡U kixi †_‡K gv_v Avjv`v
K‡i †d‡j|” Both the accused Md. Mehedi Hasan and Md. Shahidur
Rahman @ Piru Mithun in thier confessional statement stated the vice-versa
regarding the point who actually slaughtered and cut throat to the victim as
Mehedi Hasan said that “wciæ wgVzb
ZLb H ÿzi w`‡q Bgiv‡bi Mjv †K‡U kixi †_‡K gv_v Avjv`v K‡i †d‡j|” as well as Piru Mithun stated “RR
Bgiv‡bi Mjv †`n †_‡K Avjv`v Kivi Rb¨ PvKz w`‡q KvU‡Z _v‡K wKš‘ e¨_© nq| Gici
AwbK R‡Ri KvQ †_‡K PvKz wb‡q gv_v wew”Qbœ Kivi cÖ¯‘Z †bq| AwbK wKQzUv KvUvi ci
Awb‡Ki KvQ †_‡K PvKz wb‡q †g‡n`x gv_v wew”Qbœ K‡i|” That the informant also stated the same in the
Ezahar (Exbt. No.1), the investigation officer (P.W.20 (Surothal prpeared
Sub-Inspector S.I. Ferdous Alam, P.W.21 & 22) described the same in the
body of the Charge sheet. The accused Md. Shafi Khan said in his confessional
statement that “bvwn‡`i K_vgZ Avwg
I bvwn` Zv‡`i Kv‡Q †h‡Z †h‡ZB GKUz `~i †_‡K M¨vÄv‡gi kã ïwb Ges Kv‡Q †h‡q †`wL
RR, AwbK, †g‡n`x Bgivb‡K gvi‡Q ZLb Avgvi mv‡_ _vKv bvwn`I I‡`i mv‡_ hy³ n‡q
Bgivb‡K gvi‡Z _v‡K|” accused Mehedi
Hasan also sated the same in his confessions “Avwg
Bgiv‡bi 2Uv cv awi I wciæ wgVz‡bi 1Rb mn‡hvwM Bgiv‡bi jv‡k `yB eM‡ji wb‡P a‡i|” The above statement in their confessions was not
denied in cross-examination by the accused side defence case. It is well
asserted & proved in the Ezahar version, Charge sheet, confessional
statement, witnesses statement under section 161 of Cr.P.C. on the alleged
date, time & place of occurrence the accused persons brutally killed the
victim Imran in furtherance of common intention for stealing the Motorbike of
the victim Imram.
65. Later on, the best witness to what happened then
was Imran (victim) himself, who was not allowed to live. As a result, we have
to rely on the confessional statements of Md. Mehedi Hasan and Md. Shahidur
Rahman @ Piru Mithun (Exbt. Nos. 4 & 9) in this regard and it is legal.
There is no denying and it is also proved that Imran was killed by more than
one person, which is mentioned in the autopsy (Exhibit No. 2 & 3). Then,
apart from the 02 accused named in the statement of Ezahar (Exbt. No.1), most
of them have also participated in that work. This fact has been proved by the
confessional statement and other corroborating evidences. In this connection it
is pertinent to mention a case of Shahid Ullah @ Shahid and Others Vs The
State cited in 6 XP (AD) 77 where it
was held as under;
“The
accuseds with cool brain to hijack the transport and preplan they hired the
same and killed passengers along with driver and after proving the same by
evidence this type of murder should not get any mercy from the Court of law.” “It is necessary to find out the confessinal
statement which recorded voluntary or not when other witness supported the
allegation of offence have been proved beyond all reasonable doubt.”
67. That the allegation was brought against the
accused person namely (1) Mehedi Hasan, 02. Piru Mithun, 03. Mehedi Hasan Joj, 04.
Nahid Hasan, 05. Anik Hasan & 06. Md. Wadud Islam @ Razu that on 16-03-2018
A.D. at 19.00 hours to 18-03-2018 A.D. at 9.30 clock the victim Imran was
killed by the accused persons in furtherance of common intention for stealing
the motorbike. At that time, the accused person Md. Mehedi Hasan and Piru
Mithun called on mobile phone and took the victim to the P.O. and killed the
victim. The accused Mehedi Hasan and Piru Mithun confessed the facts how they
slaughter the victim Imran and cut his throat on the PO by knief and killed the
victim which was for better understanding need to explain the Inquest report (Exbt.
No.3) and Post Mortem report (Exbt. No.7).
68. Having gone through the entire gamut of
evidences, I am of the view regarding the accused persons namely 1. Md. Mehedi
Hasan son of LAtif (under section-164), 2. Shahidur Rahman @ Piru Mithun (under
section-164) and through their confession came all accused persons name and
their participation and how they participated in the offence of murder to the
victim and if we see the confessional statements of Mehedi (Exbt. 9)
that “GK ch©v‡q wciæ wgVzb cv‡k
_vKv wZb wd‡Ui gZ j¤^v GKLvbv evk G‡b Bgiv‡bi gv_vi Dci †Rv‡i AvNvZ Kij| Avwg wciæ wgVzb‡K ejjvg GUv wK
n‡”Q| GUv‡Zv nevi K_v wQj bv| wciæ wgVz‡bi mn‡hvwM GKUv Lyi †ei K‡i Avgv‡K e‡j
†h Avi GKUv K_v ej‡j MjvUv bvgv‡q w`‡ev| 1g AvNvZ Lvevi ci civB Bgivb nvUz †M‡o
imy‡bi †ÿ‡Z e‡m c‡o| wciæ wgVzb Avevi H evk w`‡q Bgiv‡bi gv_v AvNvZ Ki‡j Bgivb
†m݇jm n‡q imy‡bi †ÿ‡Zi g‡a¨ c‡o hvq| †h evkUv w`‡q Bgivb‡K AvNvZ Kiv nq wciæ
wgVzb H euvkUv Bgiv‡bi Nv‡oi wb‡P w`‡q Bgiv‡bi MjvUv DPz K‡i| wciæ wgVz‡bi 2
mn‡hvwMi GKRb Bgiv‡bi 2 Uv cv a‡i| Av‡iKRb Bgiv‡bi 2 Uv nvZ GKmv‡_ K‡i ey‡Ki
Dci †P‡c a‡i| wciæ wgVzb ZLb H ÿzi w`‡q Bgiv‡bi Mjv †K‡U kixi †_‡K gv_v Avjv`v
K‡i †d‡j|” from the confessional
statement of Mehedi Hasan, he (Piru Mithun and his two alliance) was in action
at the time of execution of murder on the alleged offence. P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.5,
P.W.6, P.W.7, P.W.8, P.W.10, and P.W.11 & P.W.13 also stated the name of
the accused of 01. Mehedi Hasan Joj, 02. Wadud @ Razu, 03. Nahid Hasan & 04.
Anik Hasan in the same tune about the involvement of the accused in offence in
question. Moreover, all the witnesses have said under section 161 of Cr.P.C the
similar about the accused person’s nmaely Mehedi Hasan Joj, Wadud Razu Nahid
Hasan & Anik Hasan. Apart from this accused Mehedi Hasan Joj, Nahid Hasan,
and Anik Hasan involvement in the offence is found in the confession of Shahidur
Rahman @ Piru Mithun also.
About the confessional statement of co-accused
it was held in the Higher Court decision in India in the case of Bhuboni
Sahu Vs- The King cited in AIR 1949 (PC) 257 (259), 67 DLR (AD) Pages-8 it
was deicded that
“But
a confession of a co-accused is obviously evidence of a very weak type. It does
not come indeed within the definition of “evidence’ contained in section 3 of
the evidence Act. It is not required to be given on oath nor in the presence of
the accused and it can not be tasted by cross-examination.”
Any confession given under section 164 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure cannot be used against the accused who are being tried
with the accused. Section 30 of the Evidence Act states that such
confessions can be considered, but many High Court decisions have stated that
co-accused cannot be punished on the basis of such confessions if there is no
separate credible evidence against them. The same contention is found in the
case cited in 44 DLR (AD) 175, 13 BLC (AD) 17, 55 DLR (HCD) 382.
69.
That Mehedi Hasan and Piru Mithun's confessions and the application of Section
30 of the Evidence Act 1872 are to be considered. According to the confessions of both the accused,
the accused Mehedi Hasan Joj, Nahid, Anik & Wadud @ Razu actively
particiaped in the offence of kidnapped, murder, concealing evidence and
stealing the motorbike on at any time between 19.00 hrs on 16/03/2018 A.D. to
9.30 hrs on 18/3/2018 A.D. and killed victim in furtherance of common intention.
The accused Mehedi Hasan son of Fardul Islam Latif and accused Shahidur Rahman
@ Piru Mithun played a key role in the whole process. There is a similar statement
in the statement of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.5-8, P.W. 10-11 & P.W.13. The
other accused Mehedi Hasan Joj, Nahid Hasan, Anik Hasan, and Md. Wadud Islam @
Raju were all present at the time of the incident which came up in the
confession of accused Mehedi Hasan son of Rafidul Islam Latif and Piru Mithun.
So the accused Mehedi Hasan son and Piru Mithun should know who was present or
not present at the scene at the time of the incident and at least deny it
through cross-examination. The Hon'ble Court has also taken a similar decision
in the case of rape and murder of a deaf and dumb Champa cited in BCR 2004, HCD
page:393. Where the victim's mother conceals the truth but is able to confess
to one of the accused. The statement of the absent witness has been taken as
evidence.
70. The discussion so far has shown that the
confession of Mehedi Hasan son and Piru Mithun was qualitatively true when the
facts and allegations considered, the evidence obtained, the real surroundings,
the commentary of Mehedi Hasan son and Piru Mithun, the conduct of the accused,
the undisputed issues were analyzed as a whole. However, the confessional
statements of Mehedi Hasan and Piru Mithun were later withdrawn. It is also
seen that in the confession of Mehedi Hasan and Piru Mithun, besides them, 04
more people have been implicated, that part and truth which the accused did not
deny. It was held in the case State vs Mir Hossain reported in 10 MLR 2005
(HCD) Page: 96 Accused Mir Hossain confessed in that case and the main accused
was Ferrari. However, while upholding the sentence of the fugitive accused,
while discussing section 30 of the Evidence Act, the Hon'ble Court remarked
that,
“Under
section 30 of the Evidence Act confession of a co-accused can be taken into
consideration on the strenght of that confession another co-accused can be
convinced provided tha said confession is corroborated by evidence direct or
direct or circumstantial.”
The same principle was followed in the case of
Nuruddin Vs State, BCR 2005(HCD) page:98.
Now, only in the context of the confession of the
accused Mehedi Hasan and Piru Mithun Conviction can be made if the confession
is proved directly or by any other circumstantial evidences. In this context,
it can be seen that the State vs. Mir Hossain alias Meera and others [56 DLR (AD) (2004), 124] in the case, the Supreme Court has observed that-
"The
confession of the co-accused may be taken into consideration and the other
co-accused may be convicted on the basis of that confession if the stated
confession is proved by direct or any other circumstantial evidence. If the
court believes that it is true and voluntary, then it cannot be said to be
illegal even if it is not supported. ”
It is seen that the confession of the accused Mehedi
Hasan and Piru Mithun (Exbt. No. 4 & 9), the victim Imran (P/W-3) who was
in the house of Raydanga village with Shishir (P.W.13) as guest and after lunch
the victim went away after mobile call with motorbike. Its testimony and
interrogation, circumstantial evidences in the whole incident, including the
conduct of the accused, has proveed the involvement of the present other accused
Mehedi Hasan Joj, Anik, Nahid and Wadud Islam @ Razu in this incident. It is
seen that P.W.22 S.I. Miton Debnath the Investigation officer stated the
accused Wadud Islam Razu was arrested from Alauddin Nagar dated 22-03-2018 A.D.
he (P.W.22) stated in cross-examination that
“Iqv`y`‡K †mv‡m©i †`qv Z_¨ I †gvevBj Kj wj‡ói wfwˇZ
†MÖdZvi Kwi| Iqv`y` ivRyi ‡bUIqvK© AvjvDwÏb bM‡i wQ‡jv| Iqv`y‡`i †gvevBj b¤^i
01954-590772 †_‡K wciæ wgVz‡bi mv‡_ K_v nq 173/2018 1.25 †_‡K K_v ïiæ nq| evi
evi †dvb Avmv hvIqv nq| `yB w`K †_‡KB Kj Avmv hvIqv n‡q‡Q| mswÿß K_v nq|”
Apart from this the accused Razu who showed the only
skull (body less head) of the victim and reocvered it on 25-03-2018 and
accordingly police prepared Inquest report for this reason the accused Md.
Wadud Islam Razu is also guilty as co-accused and that Wadud Islam Razu knew
all the facts of the incident and be awarded punishment. In this connection I
can refer a case Khorshed Vs The State reported in 73 DLR (AD) 83 where
Honorable Supreme Court observed as under-
“Recovery
of severed head of the deceased on the pointing out of the appellant khorshed
and convict Tipu and Shahid is a relevant fact and is admissible under section
27 of the Act this piece of evidence also supports the confessinoal statements
of the appellant Khoeshed and convit Tipu and Shahid.”
71. Chronologically from the foregoing discussions, the incriminating circumstances
appearing against the accused may be summarized as under:
(1) That the
informant eldest son Imran Sheikh had eaten at Mizan's house in Raydanga
village on 18/3/2018 A.D. at around 3.10 pm after eating at 01756055033 From
the number, his son's phone number is 01710343967.
(2) That in
fact, he kept his own mobile phone from that place with the informant's younger
brother's son Md. Shishir. That Imran left for Manoharpur village with his own
used red and black 150cc Pulsar motorcycle (engine No. DHYWHH18539, chassis No.
MD2-A11-CY7-HWH-86751). Shishir, the son of his younger brother, received the
call again on his son's mobile from 01722-599121 and said, "My brother
left the mobile with me and left."
(3) That As the
son of the informant did not return home even after evening, he called the
number and asked about his son. After much searching, she could not find her
son and continued searching. Later on 18/3/2018 A.D. at around 9.30 am, Md.
Sayem from Manoharpur village called him and informed him that Mehedi had
informed Sayem that there was a decapitated headless corpse lying in Sadarpur
maize field.
(4) That the
accused Mehedi identified the decapitated body as that of Imran. The informant
quickly went to the spot and saw a headless decapitated body lying naked in the
corn field of Mohammad Zaheer of Sadarpur village. He identified the body as
that of his son. Witnesses Badal, Md. Nur Alam, Md. Naib Ali and many others
were present at his shout.
(5) That the
informant thought according to the statement of the petitioner, at any time
between 19.00 hrs on 16/03/2018 A.D. to 9.30 hrs on 18/3/2018 A.D., the accused
1. Mehedi Hasan, 2. Md. Piru Mithun and other unidentified persons abducted his
son in a pre-planned manner and at that place they took him, cut his throat and
killed him and stole her son's used motorcycle.
(6) That the informant Badsha sheikh as
his son the victim was missing he lodged Ezahar in the local police stattion.
(7) That during investigation the accused
Md. Mehedi Hasan and the accused Piru Mithun made a confessional statement
about the murder to the victim and offence in question and other 04 accused
were identified during investigation through mobile call list and CDR and those
accused persons are namely Md. Nahid hasan, Mehedi Hasan Joj, Anik Hasan and
Md. Wadud Islam @ Razu.
72. In addition, after the murder, the headless
dead body was found in the Zahir’s Maize filed on 18-03-18 AD “GKwU gv_v wenxb MjvKvUv jvk m`icyi MÖvg¯’ †gvt
Rwn‡ii fzÆv †ÿ‡Zi g‡a¨ Dj½ Ae¯’vq c‡o Av‡Q” and only head/skull/ wew”Qbœ
gv_vÓ was found as per the accused Razu Shown in the
Fanik’s Ulu forest/filed on 25-03-2018 A.D. and that headless dead body and only
skull/head after murder the accused person all-together tried to hiding the
evidence which is punishable under Section 201 of the Penal Code and read with
section 34 of the Penal Code. However, the application of Section 201 of the
Penal Code and the connection of accused Mehedi Hasan, Piru Mithun, Mehedi
Hasan Joj, Nahid, Anik Hasan & Wadud Islam @ Razu need to be discussed
separately. The accused perosns killed victim Imran along with the 06 (six)
people i.e. Mehedi Hasan, Piru Mithun, Mehedi Hasan Joj, Nahid, Anik Hasan
& Wadud Islam @ Razu. They were no other than these six. After the death
was confirmed, they carried the body and head on their shoulders to maize field
and Fanik’s Ulu foresrt for disappearance. They threw the victim's body on the
ground. They come back home. Apart from the confessions of the accused Mehedi
and Md. Shahidur Rahman & Piru Mithun, it is clear from the
cross-examination and testimony of the witnesses that the incidents of the
accused after the incident were alleged by Section 201 of the Penal Code. In
this connection I can refer a case of State v. Zillul Bari Khandaker reported
in [10 MLR (AD) Page-175] where Supreme Court of Bangladesh observed as
under;
“That
the housewife of a rich family was brutally killed in her bedroom at night. In
the morning, some of his close relatives took him to the hospital without
informing the police and knowing his death. In that case, it was argued, it was
natural for him to be taken to hospital without informing the police. But The
Honorable Appellate Division did not accept this explanation and considered
taking the body to the hospital without informing the police as concealment of
evidence and gave the maximum imprisonment as per Section 201 of the Penal
Code.”
That is why it is safe to be decided that the 06
(Six) accused namely Mehedi Hasan, Piru Mithun, Mehedi Hasan Joj, Nahid, Anik
Hasan & Wadud Islam @ Razu killed victim Imran in furthernace of common
intention on the date, time and place of the incident and removed his body and
buried it elsewhere and punishable separately under Section 201 of the Penal
Code.
73. I have discussed and seen already that in this
case accused numbers are 06 persons and from these numbers 02 (two) persons
have confessional statement and 02 (two) accused mentioned the name of Mehedi
Hasan Joj, Anik Hasan, Nahid Hasan @ Md. Wadud Islam @ Raju in thier
confessional statement (Exbt. Nos. 4 & 9) and the accused persons namely
01. Mehedi Hasan Joj, 02. Anik Hasan, 02. Nahid Hasan 05. Md. Wadud Islam @
Raju, from confession appears to be an
active participant in the offence of murder to the victim on the allged date,
time of offence in question. It may be mentioned that the prosecution has also
able to prove the charge against accused 01.Md. Mehedi Hasan, 02. Piru Mithun,
03. Mehedi Hasan Joj 04. Anik Hasan, 05 Nahid Hasan and 06. Md. Wadud Islam @
Raju and they are also liable to be punished in the charge brought against
them. In view of my discussion made above considering facts, evidence and cited
case laws, I am of the view that the prosecution has successfully proved the
charge of murder against 01.Md. Mehedi Hasan, 02. Piru Mithun, 03. Mehedi Hasan
Joj 04. Anik Hasan, 05 Nahid Hasan and 06. Md. Wadud Islam @ Raju beyond any
resonable doubt and they are guilty under section 302 read with section 34 of
the Penal Code 1860 and is liable to be punished thereunder.
74.
The accused in this case are namely, 01) Mehedi Hasan son of Faridul Islam, 02)
Md. Shahidur Rahman @ Piru Mithun, 03) Mehedi Hasan Joj, 04) Nahid Hasan 05) Anik
Hasan 08) Md. Wadud Islam @ Raju. Being able to do so, one of the most
important issues in the case is what can be the appropriate punishment for the
convicted accused? The Honorable Supreme Court of Bangladesh is also a landmark
Appellate Division case in determining the appropriate punishment. In this
conncetion I can refer a case of Ataur Mridha alias Ataur Vs. The State, 15
SCOB [2021] (AD) 1, Guidelines must
be followed by all judicial courts in the case. The Supreme Coure observed that
ÒThere is no guidance to the Judge in regard to selecting the most
appropriate sentence of the cases. The absence of sentencing guidelines is
resulting in wide discretion which ultimately leads to uncertainty in awarding
sentences.Ó
Another
case supporting the above notion which was held in the case of Nausher Ali
Sarder Vs- The State, reported in 39 DLR (AD) (1987) page 200 Para-11) where it was observed that “”
“That section 302 which punishes murder does
not specify in which case death sentence should be given and in which case life
imprisonment to be awarded but leaves the matter to the discretion of the court
and every case sholud be considered in the facts and circumstances of that case
only.”
So it is crystal clear from the Ezahar with adduced
evidences both and documentary that the accused persons altogether being
pre-planned in furtherance of common intention in roder to snatch /steal the
Pulser Motorbike of the victim by calling on mobile phone and killed the Imran
with cool brain and took away the Motorbike. In this connection it is pertinent
to mention a case of Shahid Ullah @ Shahid and Others Vs The State cited in
6 XP (AD) 77 where it was held as
under;
“The
accuseds with cool brain to hijack the transport and pre-plan they hired the
same and killed passengers along with driver and after proving the same by
evidence this type of murder should not get any mercy from the Court of law.”
On the basis of the decision, considering the facts
and relationship between the deceased and the accused person 01. Md. Mehedi
Hasan, 02. Piru Mithun, I am of the opinion that justice wiould be met if the
accused namely 01.Md. Mehedi Hasan, 02. Md. Shahidur Rahman @Piru Mithun is
sentenced to the Capital punishment as well as accused namely 03. Mehedi Hasan
Joj 04. Anik Hasan, 05. Nahid Hasan & 06. Md. Wadud Islam @ Raju is
sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine also respectively under section 302
read with section 34 of the Penal Code 1860.
75. In the light of the above discussion made above and so also on perusal of evidence oral and documentary as discussed above and submission of ld. P. P. for prosecution and ld. Advocates for defence, the irresistible finding of this Court is that on the alleged date, time, period and place accused persons (as discussed) conjointly with all prepense killed victims (deceased Imran) and that by killing such with all sound knowledge under accused custody killed said victims in the instant Case and that dead bodies of said victims kept concealed for disappearing the evidence of an offence causing murder in the instant case and that the manners applied by accused persons for killing victims in the instant case it appeared well that accused persons all the time held criminal mentality and that said offence as perpetrated by the accused persons is a crime against humanity. That in this case no other sentence can be awarded except capital. As the allegations of murder to victim Imran by the accused persons all with in furtherance of common intention was proved beyond doubt as such though against the acused person chrage was framed under section 364/379/411 of the Penal Code was proved so, but this court decided not to award separate punishment to the accused under section 364/379/411 of the Penal Code.
76. Having given active consideration to the facts,
circumstances, evidence on record and the submission of Ld. P. P. for
prosecution and Ld. advocate for defence I am constrained to hold view that
prosecution has proved the case against the accused persons namely 01. Md.
Mehedi Hasan, 02. Piru Mithun charged with under section 302 read with section
34 of the Penal Code and they are guilty for the murder and this court is
decided to award maximum punisment i.e. the death penalty to them and the other
four accused namely 03. Mehedi Hasan Joj 04. Anik Hasan, 05. Nahid Hasan &
06. Md. Wadud Islam @ Raju beyond all reasonable doubt and this court is
decided to award life imprisonment (R.I.) and with fine also. Hence, accused
persons are guilty for the offence charged with under section 302 read with
section 34 and section 201 of the Penal Code and therefore, prosecution Case
succeeds fully and consequently it is,
ORDERED
That the accused namely 1. Md. Mehedi Hasan (25) son of Md. Faridul Islam @ Latif, Village-Monohorpur, Police Station-Kumerkhali, District-Kushtia is found guilty under section 302 read with section 34 of the Penal Code and therefore the accused is sentenced to death and that the accused be hanged by the neck till he is dead subject to the confirmation of the sentence of death by the Honourable High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh.
That the accused namely 2. Md. Shahidur Rahman @
Piru Mithun (26) son of Md. Abdul Mannan, village-Dori Komorpur, Police Station-Kumerkhali,
District Kushtia is found guilty under section 302 read
with section 34 of the Penal Code and therefore the accused is sentenced to
death and that the accused be hanged by the neck till he is dead subject to the
confirmation of the sentence of death by the Honourable High Court Division of
the Supreme Court of Bangladesh.
That the accused namely 3. Md. Mehedi Hasan Joj
(25) son of Md. Fazlul Biswas, village-Housing Estate A/99, Police
Station-Kushtia Model, District-Kushtia is found guilty under
section 302 read with section 34 of the Penal Code and therefore the accused is
sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life
and also to pay fine TK. 20,000/- (Twenty thousands) only and that failing to
pay said amount of fine money an another period of 01(one) year rigorous
imprisonment would take place. The period during which the convict was in jail
custody in this case prior to this conviction shall be deducted from the above
period of sentence of imprisionment.
That the accused namely 4. Md. Nahid Hasan (23)
son of Md. Sahid Biswas, village- Sondah, Police Station-Kumerkhali,
District-Kushtia is found guilty under section 302 read
with section 34 of the Penal Code and therefore the accused is sentenced to to rigorous imprisonment for life and also to
pay fine TK. 20,000/- (Twenty thousands) only and that failing to pay said
amount of fine money an another period of 01(one) year rigorous imprisonment would
take place. The period during which the convict was in jail custody in this
case prior to this conviction shall be deducted from the above period of
sentence of imprisionment.
That the accused namely 6. Munshi Anik Hasan @ Imran
(22) Son of Munshi Nisiruddin, village-Chalk Horipur, Khoksa Police station,
District-Kushtia are found guilty under section 302 read with section 34 of the
Penal Code 1860 and that therefore said accused person is sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment for life and also to pay fine TK. 20,000/- (Twenty thousands) only
and that failing to pay said amount of fine money an another period of 01(one) year
rigorous imprisonment would take place. The period during which the convict was
in jail custody in this case prior to this conviction shall be deducted from
the above period of sentence of imprisionment.
That the accused namely 6. Md. Wadud @ Razu (24) Son
of Md. Afazuddin, village-Baniapara Kumarkhali Police station, District-Kushtia
are found guilty under section 302 read with section 34 of the Penal Code 1860
and that therefore said accused person is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment
for life and also to pay fine TK. 20,000/- (Twenty thousands) only and that failing to pay said amount of
fine money an another period of 01(one) year rigorous imprisonment would take
place. The period during which the convict was in jail custody in this case
prior to this conviction shall be deducted from the above period of sentence of
imprisionment.
That the accused 1. Md. Mehedi Hasan, 2. Md.
Shahidur Rahman @ Piru Mithun 3. Md. Mehedi Hasan Joj, 04. Md. Nahid Hasan, 05)
Minshi Anik Hasan @ Imran & 06. Md. Wadud Islam @ Raju are also found
guilty under section 201 of the Penal Code 1860 and that therefore said accused
persons are also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for 10 (Ten) years
each and also to pay fine TK. 5,000/- (five thousand) only each and that
failing to pay said amount of fine money an another period of 03 (three) months
rigorous imprisonment would take place. The entire sentence passed in this
connection of this case shall run concurrently.
That the seized Alamats be confiscated to the state
and be disposed of as per law.
Let the conviction warrant be issued upon said
convicts and warrants for levy of fine under section 386(1) (a) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure Code accordingly.
Let the proceedings of the case, as per sectrion 374
of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, be submitted to the Honorable High
Court Division in confirmation of the Sentence of death.
The convicts, if they wish to appeal, should prefer
the same within 07 (seven) days from this date.
Let a copy of the Judgement be forwarded to Ld.
Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police,
Kushtia for nformation and necessary action.
Judgement in writting consisting of .........sheets
of paper is kept in the record.
Dictated and corrected by me.
Md. Tajul
Islam Additional
Sessions judge, Additional
Sessions Judge 1st Court Kushtia |
Md. Tajul
Islam Additional
Sessions judge, Additional
Sessions Judge 1st Court Kushtia |
দায়বর্জন বিবৃতি (DISCLAIMER)
এই ওয়েবসাইটে প্রকাশিত অধস্তন আদালতের রায় বা আদেশের অনুলিপি কেবল মামলার সকল পক্ষ, বিজ্ঞ আইনজীবী এবং জনসাধারণের বিচার-প্রক্রিয়ায় সহজ অভিগম্যতা নিশ্চিতকরণের অভিপ্রায়ে অনলাইনে প্রকাশ করা হয়েছে; রায় বা আদেশের অনুলিপি সইমোহরী/জাবেদা নকলের (certified copy) বিকল্প হিসেবে ব্যবহার করা যাবে না। অধস্তন আদালতের রায় ও আদেশ বাস্তবায়নের ক্ষেত্রে মামলার নথিতে বিধৃত মূল অংশ (রায় বা আদেশ) প্রণিধানযোগ্য।