14
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 submitter said in written argument in expanding 01(01)2015 No case
witness of pw-2 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”.
13
The
defendant party could not refute by any argument the matter that the defendants
did not vandalize and enter illegally. Due to having inconsistency in statement
of witnesses regarding any beating, intimidation demonstrating and stealing the
court thanks the prosecution failed to proof the crimes in this rule without
any doubt. The defendants said that All witnesses in prosecution are relative
witness. In this regard it is contained in honorable justice Mohammad Hamidul
Haque’s Trial of Civil Suits And Criminal Cases (Ed-2011) 2nd 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
9
Bound to obey. 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”.
Considering
10 witnesses enough following application of prosecution the witness of
prosecution is shut down and in the end of hearing of prosecution in 342 No
rule of criminal proceedings in case is taken for scrutinize, argument and
verdict.
Trial Matter
8
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 conducting police prosecutor or
the public prosecutor to produce the witness in a case. There is nothing on
record to show that any step was taken by the prosecution through 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.
7
To
ensure that the complainant or the witness appears before the court at the time
of hearing of the case”. But 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 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
6
The prosecution aiming to proof case is
verifying a total 10 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 21/09/2015 from forming charge after
passing about 17 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.
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
No comments:
Post a Comment