Case Law

Alam Uddin alias Shapan vs State (2012) 62 DLR (AD) 281

Alam Uddin alias Shapan vs State Case in Brief

The case Alam Uddin alias Shapan vs State (2012) 62 DLR (AD) 281 involves the brutal murder of Khodeja Bibi alias Komola by her husband, Alam Uddin, following a history of marital abuse. Initially portrayed as a suicide, medical evidence later revealed that her death was caused by asphyxia due to deliberate strangulation. Both the trial court and the High Court Division found the act to be premeditated and without mitigating circumstances, leading to the confirmation of the death sentence.

Facts

Khodeja Bibi alias Komola, the victim, was married to the Petitioner Alam Uddin. After the marriage, the Petitioner maltreated her for money, and as a result, the relationship between them became strained. On 1.12.97, the father of the Petitioner (Sadhuuddin) came to the house of the victim’s father and told him that the condition of the victim was critical.

Then the victim’s father rushed to Sadhuudin’s home and found the victim dead. It was said that the victim committed suicide. But in the viscera examination, no poison was detected. The Medical Board opined that the death of the victim was due to asphyxia resulting from exerting pressure on the throat, neck, head, and facial region of the victim. It was Ante-mortem and homicidal in nature.

Issues

What was the actual reason behind the death of the victim, Khodeja Bibi alias Komola?
Did Khojeda Bibi alias tell her family about the maltreatment?
Was the object of the sentence appropriately seen?

Did any party fabricate any evidence?

Decision

After the investigation, the Police submitted a Charge Sheet under Section 302 of the Penal Code. At the end of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge Moulvibazar, by judgment and order dated 20-9-2003, convicted the petitioner U/S 302 of the Penal Code and sentenced him to death. The High Court Division also confirmed the sentence of death.

Judgement

Regarding the submission of the learned counsel of the petitioner that, given the tender age of the petitioner, the sentence of death imposed upon him may be commuted to imprisonment for life, as it appears a similar submission was made before the High Court Division. Still, the same was not accepted as the High Court Division found that the death of the victim was due to asphyxia resulting from exerting pressure on the throat, neck, head and facial region, which was ante-mortem and homicidal.

It is ex facie clear that the petitioner strangled the victim intending to cause her death. There are no circumstances that would impel the Court to take a lenient view in commuting the death sentence, as no mitigating or extenuating circumstances are on record for commutation; instead, all the circumstances are aggravating.