Get Example of Deeds

5.5

As the formed allegation is read and heard before the present defendants they claiming themselves as not guilty sought justice.

               The prosecution aiming to proof case is verifying a total 5 witnesses in court. This is an old case. According to 339(Ga)(1) rule of criminal proceedings the magistrate will have to complete trial within 180 days. In the case on 16/04/2015 from forming charge after passing about 23 months the prosecution is failed to present all witnesses.

               According to 171 and 244 rules of criminal proceedings the prosecution is to appear witnesses in court. It is said in 35(3) article of holy constitution, “Every person accused of criminal offence shall have the right to a speedy and public trial by an independent and impartial court or tribunal established by law”. But prosecution and informer are failed to give assistance in speedy trial settlement appearing witnesses in court due time.

6-6

It is in 171(2) rule of criminal proceedings that, “Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), it shall be the responsibility of the police-officer to ensure that the complainant or the witness appears before the Court at the time of hearing of the case”. But the important of part of prosecution police department is failed to appear witnesses on behalf of prosecution.

               It is said in 51 DLR (AD) of honorable Appeal Division, page 38, “It is duty of the prosecution to ensure witnesses as per section 244 of the code. From the order sheet it appears the case remained pending for quite a long time and several adjournments were taken by the prosecution to produce witnesses but ultimately other than pw-1, no witness was examined by the prosecution. From the order dated 21/01/89 it also does not appear that they made any prayer for

7-7

It is said in 171(2) of criminal proceedings, “Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), it shall be the responsibility of the police-officer to ensure that the complainant or the witness appears before the court at the time of hearing of the case”. But the important part police of department of prosecution is failed to produce witness before the court.

               It is said in 51 DLR (AD) of honorable appeal division, page 38, “It is duty of the prosecution to adduce witnesses as per section 244 of the code. From the order sheet it appears the case remained pending for quite a long time and several adjournments were taken by the prosecution to produce witnesses but ultimately other than pw-1, no witness was examined by the prosecution. From the order dated 21/01/89 it also does not appear that they made any prayer for

8-8

Adjournment of the case for examining any further witness on a subsequent date. The prosecution as a matter of fact failed to produce any prosecution witnesses and in such circumstances the learned Magistrate rightly acquitted the accused respondents under section 245 (1) of the code since subsection 2 of section 171 of the code provides that it shall be the responsibility of the police officer to ensure that the complainant and the witnesses appear before the court at the time of hearing of the case. It is preliminary responsibility of the conducting police prosecutor or the public prosecutor to produce the witness in a case. The is nothing on record to show that any step was taken by the prosecution through

9-9

The police officer of secure the attendance of any witness in the case.”

In International Universal Humanitarian Declaration, I.C.C.P.R. or I.C.E.S.C.R. Bangladesh as member of United Nation and in another two certificate as rectifier country is bound to follow its rules and regulation. There is rule to get speedy trial in these certificates. In our constitution also contains the matter of speedy trial. According to witness law the court can give punishment on basis of faith to only a witness. It is found through reviewing documents of this case that, all important witnesses of the case have already been given all possess. It is said in 134 rule of witness law- “No particular number of witness shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact”.

 It is contained in 29 D.L.R. (S.C) 211 of honorable Supreme Court that, No particular number of witnesses should in any case be required for the proof of any fact. If believed, conviction can be based on the solitary evidence”.

15-15

In rules have been failed to proof the all guilty out of the succession. On the other hand against defendant 1) Kafil Uddin, 2) Tajul Islam, 3) Kala Mia @Kailla the court assume in statement of witnesses due to having inconsistency the prosecution failed to proof allegation against them. The defendants said around all witnesses in prosecution are the relative witness. In this regard it is contained in honorable justice Mohammad Hamidul Haque’s Trial of Civil Suits And Criminal Cases (Ed-2011) 2^nd para, page 372,

“But now the uniform view of the Appellate Division is that evidence of a witness should not be discarded or disbelieved only on the ground of relationship or enmity. The Appellate Division is of the view that if the evidence of the witness is believable and if there is no reason to disbelieve his evidence, then only on the ground of relationship or enmity, evidence of such witness cannot be discarded and conviction may be given relying on the evidence

16-16

Of such a witness see. 13 BLC (AD) 1, 9 BLC (AD) 122, 5 BLC (AD) 41, 1 BLD (AD) 200, 58 BLR (Ad) 73, 28 BLD (Ad) 1, 26 BCR (AD) 267, 15 MLR (AD) 454, 25 BCR (AD) 58, 19 BLT (AD) 38”.

               The defendant could wait until being settled the case not denying order of honorable Supreme Court.

               The learned advocate on behalf of statement said in written argument that, “In the charge sheet although there is no mention regarding land possession of plaintiff and defendants the investigation officer being influenced illegally by defendants being present in honorable court stated in questioning, it is found in my investigation that it is on possession of defendants for 30-35 years. The complainant party in 2010 in political perspective the means of possess is alleged land in on possession of plaintiff from 2010 that means the incident has been happened in shop house possessed by complainant. Besides, if the statement was true that means the defendant for 30-35 year during on possession in 2010 the plaintiff took possession from defendants. The defendants must would file case seeking Khas possession evicting the plaintiff”.