Case Reference
Case Name: Nurul Huda vs State
Reference: 67 DLR (AD) 231
Year: 2015
Court: Supreme Court of Bangladesh
Summary
Nurul Huda vs State case arose from the conviction of the appellant under Section 11(ka) of the Nari-o-Shishu Nirjaton Daman Ain, 2000. The appellant, along with his father, was accused of torturing his 8-month pregnant wife for dowry. Despite earlier payments, the accused assaulted her with a lathi, prompting her father to rescue her and file a case. The Tribunal convicted the appellant and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of Tk 50,000. The High Court Division upheld the conviction, confirming that such violence warranted punishment under Section 11(ka) of the Ain.
Facts
The Appeal is directed against an order dated the 4th day of October 2007, passed by the High Court Division in Criminal Appeal No. 158 of 2006. Fact disposal of this Appeal is that the appellant, along with his father, Amanath Ullah Fakir, was put on trial before Nari-o-Shishu Nirjaton Daman Tribunal No. 2, Lalmonirhat in Nari-o-Shishu Nirjaton Bishesh mamla No 147 of 2000 and was charged under Section 11 (ka) of Nari-o-Shishu Nirjaton Daman Ain 2000 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
In the case of the prosecution, as stated by PW1, the informant was the daughter of the accused, Sabina Yasmin Rumi, who was given in marriage to the accused two years before the occurrence. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded a dowry of taka 50000, but he gave 20,000.
After marriage, his daughter moved into her father-in-law’s house. After 6/7 months of her marriage, his daughter informed him that she was being tortured for the remaining dowry. Then the PW went to the accused’s house with member Mujibur Mozammel and Baten, and through a Salish sent his daughter to the home of the accused.
Sometime after that, the accused again tortured his daughter for dowry and sent her to his house. Thereafter, the PW, after arranging some money on 25-8-2000, had called for the accused through his sons, who came to his home on the morning of 26-8-2000. In the presence of Mujibur, Abdul Baten, and Wahidul, the PW gave the accused taka 10000. When the accused prayed for time to pay the remaining dowry, the father became agitated and angry, expressing his dissatisfaction with not receiving the full dowry.
However, he went away with the said money without taking his daughter. The further prosecution case was that the accused assaulted his daughter with a lathi at his house. At that time, his daughter was 8 months pregnant. He rescued the victim and then filed a case.
Issues
When can punishment under section 11(ka) be inflicted?
Decision
Md Abdul Wahab Miah J: A reading of section 11(ka) of the Nari-O-ShishuNirjatan Daman Ain,2000, A person shall be punishable with imprisonment for life for causing death or for attempting to cause death, and in both cases with a fine in addition to the said sentence.
In the instant case, the fact that the defense appeared from the trend of cross-examination of the prosecution witness was that the accused did not go to the house and he did not demand any dowry or assault the victim; in that case, the accused was implicated in the case falsely.
However, after times found the accused guilty under section 11(ka) of the Ain, 2000, and convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Tk 50,000 in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years.
Justification
- The learned Advocate on the record made on behalf of the appellant to the effect of the injury certificate issued by Dr. Md Sirajul Islam (Pw10), shows that all injuries are simple in nature.
- Mr. Biswajit Deb Nath, learned Deputy Attorney General, appearing for the state, has contended that PW1 (informer) has clearly stated in his evidence that the victim was 8 months pregnant at the time of the occurrence and the accused assaulted her with a lathi.
