Case Law

ABUL KALAM AZAD VS THE STATE 58 DLR (AD) 26

Facts of Abul Kalam Azad vs The State Case

Mahmuda Sultana Mammi was married to Abul Kalam Azad and lived with him, his mother, and his sister in Narayanganj. On October 30th, 1999, Mammi’s brother was informed of her death. Her body was found with marks of injuries. The maid, Reshmi, told Mammi’s brother that the family had abused and tortured her and that Azad had caused her death by strangulation. Azad had demanded dowry from Mammi and had physically abused her when his demands were not met. One month before her death, he kicked her in the abdomen while she was pregnant. One week before the incident, Mammi informed her brother that Azad and his relatives had demanded Tk20,000 or she would face dire consequences.

Issues

Whether the victim asked to bring dowry and tortured for non-compliance with the demand?
Whether the alleged mentioning of the demand for dowry by the prosecution witnesses to the investigating officer make their evidence unreliable?
Whether the alleged non-mentioning of the demand for dowry in the victim’s personal diary disproves the allegation against the appellant?
Whether the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman (Bishesh Bidhan) Adalat had jurisdiction to try the case?
Whether the accused cause the death of the victim after losing self-control by grave and sudden provocation?

Decision

Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan (Bishesh Bidhan) Ain (XVIII of 1995) Section 10(1) Even if there is no specific mention of the demand for dowry in Material Exhibit I(c), as the trial court has observed on reading the writings in the diary in its entirety, it cannot be said that the fact of torturing the victim for not meeting the demand of dowry was an absent majority decision dictated by Md. Ruhul Amin J.

Judgment

The Court found evidence supporting the demand for dowry and torture by the appellant and his family members. The victim’s sister-in-law (PW-12) testified to the demand for dowry and subsequent torture when the victim refused to comply. This witness’s testimony was considered reliable.
The alleged non-mentioning of the demand for dowry by some prosecution witnesses to the investigating officer was argued as making their evidence unreliable. However, the Court held that the omission did not render the witnesses unreliable, especially when the cause of death by torture was already established.
The alleged non-mentioning of the demand for dowry in the victim’s personal diary did not disprove the allegation against the appellant. The diary indicated the victim’s distress due to dowry demands and torture.
The jurisdiction of the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman (Bishesh Bidhan) Adalat to try the case was not questioned, as the prosecution provided sufficient evidence of the appellant causing the victim’s death for dowry demands.
The defense of the accused losing self-control by grave and sudden provocation was rejected. The confessional statement and evidence indicated no such provocation from the victim, and the appellant caused the death without any provocation.

In conclusion, the Court found evidence supporting the appellant’s guilt in demanding dowry and causing the victim’s death through torture, and the defense’s arguments were not accepted. The accused was found guilty and sentenced accordingly.