The Facts of Md Anwar Sheikh vs the State Case

The victim Nasima Begum Alias Bahana was married to the accused Anwar 10 years ago. They have two sons. After marriage, the accused, Anwar, often used to beat and torture her for dowry. Sometimes he sends the victim back to her father’s house. The victim’s father (informant of this case) gave cash of Tk.80,000 on several occasions to the accused Anwar.

Moreover, Bahana’s father, i.e., the informant of this case, arranged a job for Anwar as a guard in a company in Dhaka. But Anwar continuously tortures her wife. On May 1, 2006, at about 9.00 a.m., the accused, Anwar, along with his wife and kids, came to the house of the informant. After that, he demanded Tk.10000/- for dowry. But the father-in-law of Anwar, i.e., the informant, refused to fulfill the demand.

In consequence, the accused, Anwar, left his father-in-law’s house with his wife and sons. That night, at about 11.45 hours, the informant heard from an unknown van driver that the victim, Bahana, was missing. After 5 days of search, the dead body of the wife of the appellant was found in the septic tank of the house.

Issues

•  After the conclusion of the trial, the learned judge of the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Tribunal, considering the pieces of evidence and other materials submitted before it passed its judgment, convicted the accused-appellant, Md. Anwar Sheikh and Md. Awal Sheikh. Being aggrieved by the judgment, the condemned appellant, Md. Anwar Sheikh filed a criminal appeal before the High Court Division.
• After considering all the pieces of evidence and materials, the High Court Division dismissed the criminal appeal and accepted the death reference. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment, Md. Anwar Sheikh filed an appeal challenging the verdict of the High Court Division.

Decisions

After evaluation of the evidence on record and the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Division passed its judgment, reducing the death penalty to imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of tk. 10,000 in default of payment and additional rigorous imprisonment for six months.

Justifications

• Nasima Begum Bahana was a simple woman who did not have any enmity with others. He was missing from the night when her husband demanded dowry from her father. Consequently, all the suspicions of the alleged murder focused on the husband.
• The Appellate Division, after assessment of evidence, found that the appellant failed to discharge his obligation to explain how his wife had met with her death, as at the time of occurrence she was under his custody.
• Nasima’s corpse was recovered from the septic tank of her husband. Her husband, in his confessional statement, admitted such a recovery. He not only knows about recovery but also knows about killing. However, he searched for his missing wife along with others to mislead the facts. He is solely responsible and duty-bound to explain how his wife died. He failed to explain.
• After reading the judgment of the High Court Division and observation as mentioned earlier, the Appellate Division opines that the accused-appellant, Md. Anwar Sheikh has murdered his wife. After considering some mitigating facts, the Appellate Division commuted the death penalty to imprisonment for life. Those mitigating factors are as follows:
  1. The deceased left two kids. If the appellant, i.e., the father of the kids, is executed, they will become orphans.
  2. The present appellant was detained in condemned-sell for 14 years.
  3. There is no previous conviction of the offender.
  4. The impression of the offense is limited to the locality, and no such cross-country effect was recorded.
  5. Absence of any material that, if he is free, he possesses a grave and serious threat to society.

Case Law Referred

• Abdul Motaleb Howleder vs. The State (2000) 5 MLR (AD) 362
• Nalu vs. State (2012) 17 BLC (AD) 204
• Syed Sajjad Mainuddin Hasan vs. State (2018) 70 DLR (AD) 70
• Ataur Mridha alias Ataur Petitionar vs State (2021) 15 SCOB (AD) 1