Case Law

State vs Mustafizur Rahman 67 DLR (AD) 218

Facts of State vs Mustafizur Rahman Case

Shefali, a housemaid servant, worked under the accused, Mustafizur Rahman. The petitioner filed an appeal against the judgment given by the HCD and said that the HCD illegally acquitted the accused and claimed accusation under Section 6(1)/14 of the Nari-o-Shishu-Nirjatan-Daman (Bishesh Bidhan) Ain, 1995.

Issues

whether the HCD illegally acquitted the accused.
whether the HCD ought to have considered the fact that no eyewitness is supposed to remain present.

Decision

Md Imman Ali J

He makes his own decision in this case and opposes the other judge’s decision. He allowed the appeal and set aside the HCD judgment, and the order and sentence passed by the trial court were affirmed.

Mohammad Anawarul Huque J

In the majority views, they find that the case was preplanned and in order to harass the accused. So the appeal is dismissed and upheld the judgment of the High Court.

Justification

There is no eyewitness to the occurrence. FIR lodged by PW 1 Mrs. Shamsunnahar, who has not given any plausible explanation about the inordinate delay in lodging such an FIR. Despite getting this type of information from the victim, her parents did not take any steps but rather asked her to remain in the job in the house of the accused person.