To,
Officer in charge
Tangi police station, Gazipur
Subject: Azhar
Sir,
The sincere request with due respect is that, I am Shahadat Hossen,
Father- Late Karim Ullah, Dattapara, Hazi Market, Police station- Tangi,
District- Gazipur presenting in your police station the Azhar of the case is
making that, Shahidul Khan, Father- Abdul Latib Khan, Mother- Raba Begum,
Village- East Dattapara, Holding no- 129, Moulana Vasani Road, Islampur, Tangi,
Gazipur on dated 09/10/2011 AD at 12.00 AM in the morning coming in my home as
has involved with disputes with my son Md. Mehedi Hasan. At the time of making dispute
he has kicked and punched of my son Mehedi Hasan hitting him and made him
fallen from the veranda of four storied building to the ground. As was in the
ground the iron rods therefore two rods are interred in his chest therefore.
Immediately he has been taken to Tangi government hospital the doctor in duty
declared him as dead. After the investigation of post mortem the dead body at
present is preserved in the dead body preservation room of the hospital. There
is requested to take the subject as Azhar.
Date- 09/10/2011 AD
Sincerely,
Shahadat
Hossen, Father- Late Karim Ullah,
Dattapara,
Hazi Market (4th floor building),
Police
station- Tangi, District- Gazipur.
Page No- 2
Primary Information Desription
Police station: 45/433, District- Gazipur, Date and time of the
incident: 09/10/2011 AD
At around 12.00 AM in the morning.
Date and time to present- 09/10/2011 AD, 17.25 Mins, Place of the
incident- under the Tangi police station situated in Dattapara Hazi Market.
Away around- 2 KM, Mouza- dattapara, Tangi Municipal.
Date to send from the polcie station: 10/10/2011 AD, at around
11.00 AM in the morning.
Name and address of News provider and Complainent: Shahadat Hossen,
Father- Late Karim Ullah, Dattapara, Hazi Market, Police Station- Tangi,
District- Gazipur.
Crime with sections and brief description of looted materials:
Section- 302.
Crime of killing hitting by the iron rods.
Answer to record the information late and investigation activities.
The case is made as I am in duty officer in the police station receiving
the case as Azhar composed by the plaintiff. Officer in charge will manage to
investigate the case.
Signature: Md. Azizul Hauque, Designation- ASI, Tangi, Police
station.
Date: 09/10/2011 AD.
Page No- 3
Complain Letter
District- Gazipur Complain
Letter no- 25, Date:
03/02/2012 AD
Police station- Tangi, Date specified for justice: Learned court
will specify.
Primary information no- 34, Date:
09/10/2011 AD
Column no- 1
Nam, address and profession of information provider or complainent
Plaintiff: Shahadat Hossen, Father- Late Karim Ullah, Dattapara,
Hazi Market, Police station- Tangi, District- Gazipur.
Column no- 2
Name and address of those who have not handed over for justice the
person who is in complain whether arrested, non arrested or in fled (There has
to be marked in red color in case of those who are in fled)
Column no- 3/ 4
Name and address of the complainants who have handed over for
justice:
Responsible under whom Whether
in bail or in affidavit
Sent up in C/ S
Shahidul Khan (22), Father- Abdul Latib Khan, Village- Holding no-
129, Moulana Vasani Road, Dattapara, Police station- Tangi, District- Gazipur
Column no- 5
Description of signs of seized materials of its description
received materials where when and by whom
Page No- 4
1)
Iron rod mixed
with blood, 18” measurement in length of 4 pieces.
Column no- 6
Name and address of the witnesses:
1)
The plaintiff
himself
2)
Hanufa Begum,
3)
Manir Hossen,
4)
Hazrat Ali,
5)
Selim Mia,
6)
Lal Mia,
7)
Dr Delowar
Hossen, Residential Medical Officer, Tangi Government Hospital, Gazipur.
8)
Case
investigation officer.
There is to be in consideration to issue summoning regularly to all
witnesses.
Page No- 5
High Court Civil Arrest Warrent Form No- 32
A complain
Section 28 (1) no of 5 no law of 1898
(Sections 221, 222, 223 of civil activities)
Additional Daira Judge, 2nd Court, Gazipur.
Daira Case no- 75/12
Present: Mr Md. Iqubal Hossen
Additional Daira Judge
2nd Court, Gazipur.
The absent complaint Shahidul Khan (22), Father- Abdul Latib Khan,
Village- Holding no- 129, Moulana Vasani Road, Dattapara, Police station-
Tangi, District- Gazipur last dated 09/10/2011 AD at around 12.00 AM in the
morning at any time the victim of the case Mehedi Hasan under the police
station Tangi in Dattapara Hazi Market has killed hitting seriously by iron
rods. As the complaint is in fled therefore he has not been heard. Complain is
made against the complaint as per section 302 of Bangladesh Penalty Laws, which
is in justice in the court.
(Signature:/
Md. Iqubal Hossen)
Additional
Daira Judge,
2nd
Court, Gazipur.
Page No- 6
Title of the Decree
District: Gazipur
Mokam: Additional Daira Judge, 2nd Court, Gazipur.
Present: Md. Iqubal Hossen, Additional Daira Judge, 2nd
Court, Gazipur.
Daira Case no- 75/ 12
Date to declare the decree- 11/09/2013 AD
Reference- Tangi police station case no- 27 (10) 2011
Section- Section no 302 of penalty law
State ........................ Versus .......................
Complaint ................................. (1) Shahidul Khan
Mr Farida Yeasmin
Learned
APP
....................
In favor of the state
Mr Faizul Kader
.....................
Learned Lawyer
.....................
In favor of the complaint.
Page No- 7
The case is in favor of the prosecution from proving of the witness
is that, victim is lived in his own home of the incident place Hazi Market
Dattapara. In that situation the complaint as presenting in the home of the
victim the complaint Shahidul Khan made disputes regarding the transaction of
money. As was the dispute was going on the complaint Shahidul Khan has made
fallen from the varanda of four storied building to the ground by the force
kick to the victim Mehedi Hasan. His chest has been interred two rods as has
fallen on the rods which are in the ground floor. He has been taken immediately
to Tangi Government Hospital the doctor in duty declared him as dead. The
complaint for the purpose to kill kicking off Mehedi Hasan made crime to get
punished as per section 302 of penalty law.
The plaintiff has made the case on dated 09/10/2011 Ad in the
mentioned police station of case no- 27 (10) 2011, as is made the Azhar of the
case in the police station in written.
The case is after making S. I Shahabuddin of Tangi police station
has been appointed the investigation officer of the case. In his investigation
the complaint Shahidul Khan as is proved primarily Complain of killing Mehedi
Hasan against him mentioned complaint by the complain letter no- 25, date-
03/02/2012, section- is submitted as per section 302 penalty section.
Page No- 8
The case as prepared for justice magistrate court has sent in the
learned district and daira judge court, Gazipur for justice. The learned court
sent to this court for the resolve and justice receiving the case in the
learned district and daira judge court.
The court as received the case last dated 04/03/2012 AD complain is
made as per section 302 in penalty laws against the complaint. The constructed
complain to read and explain was not become possible to the complaint. Because
of the complaint is in fled from the very first. Charge is made in absent of
the complaint. The state party has become able to examine 8 witnesses of the
case in the court.
The defense case in favor of the complaint party from the
suggestion given by the witnesses is that, the complaint Shahidul Khan is a
rickshaw puller and his homes are burnt. He has received loan of one lakhs
(1,00,000/-) from a NGO for the purpose to repair his home. To seize away the
the mentioned taka the victim Mehedi Hasan taking the complaint Shahidul Khan
by force in his home has tried to take away the money. As the complaint is
tried to save him made force in that time the victim Md. Mehedi Hasan has been
fallen from the top. The complaint has not done anything for the purpose to
kill and has tried only to save him therefore.
At the time to hearing the dispute the learned APP in favor of the
state mentioned that, as complain against the complaint brought by the state
party he is able to get highest punishment. On the other hand the complaint
favor
Page No- 9
Learned lawyer has mentioned that, as per witness of the witnesses
in favor of the state party complain brought against the complaint Shahidul
Khan as not proved without doubt the complaint is able to get free without any
questions.
Subject to consider
1)
Whether the
victim Mehed Hasan is killed by pushing himself by the complaint Shahidul Khan
any time after 12.00 PM in the morning on dated 10/09/2011 AD?
2)
Whether the
complaint has made crime as per section 302 of penalty laws against the
complaint?
3)
Whether the
state party has become able to prove complain without any doubt brought against
the complaint?
Discussion and Decision
Discussion and decision 1/ 2/ 3 of the mentioned considerable
subjects as related mutually for the sake of discussion is received at a time.
Complain against the complaint by the state party is that, last
dated 10/09/2011 AD at around 12.00 after that time any time the complaint
Shahidul Khan has killed kicking off from the veranda of the four storied
building in Hazi Market situated in Dattapara under the Tangi police station
the victim Mehedi Hasan. The complaint Shahidul Khan as killing the victim
Mehedi Hasan has made punishable crime as per section 302 of penalty laws.
Page No- 10
As is seen observing the files that, 8 of the witnesses of the case
in favor of the state party have become able to provide the witness of the 8
witnesses in the court, among them the plaintiff P W- 1, P W- 2 Hanifa Begum,
is the house worker of the victim. P W- 3 of the incident place who is the guard
Manir Hossen of the 4 storied building of Hazi Market of the incident place, P
W- 4 Hazrat Ali, neighbour store keeper, P W- 5, Selim Mia, vegitable seller, P
W- 6 security worker of teh area Md. Lal Mia, P W- 7 Dr Delowar Hossen,
residential medical officer, Tangi Government Hospital, P W- 8 is the
investigation officer of the case. All of the signatures of the state party of
post mortem report, seized list, post mortem report and and seized documents
has been presented in the court which has been marked in the display.
Witness and documents presented by the state party as has been
observed is tha, the victim of the case Mehedi Hasan is killed last dated
10/09/2011 AD. P W SI Abdul Baten has prepared the post mortem report of the
victim Mehedi Hasan. Mentioned post mortem report has been marked in 2 and 3 no
report. Killed Mehedi Hasan dead body of the post mortem report shown- 2 as has
been seen that, there was existed the marks of iron rods seriously in the chest
of the dead person.
Victim Mehedi Hasan as has been seen in the post mortem report
shown- 1 as is observed is seen that, mentioned report post mortem investigator
doctor as examined is mentioned that he has got hit, the hit entering into the
chest of the killed Mehedi Hasan by the sharp iron rods hitting.
Page No- 11
As is seen the the marks of different hitting in the dead body of
the decessed after the post mortem investigation regarding the dead Mehedi
Hasan about post mortem the investigator doctor has given opinion. “Death was
due to shock srsultin from excessive haemorrhae from the above mentioned
injures which was antemortem and homicidal in nature.” meaning Mehedi Hasan is
killed as a result of too much bleeding by the mentioned hitting before the
death and mentioned hitting is the reason of killing. There is to be seen now
killed Mehedi Hasan as hitting as like the mentioned has been killed.
The plaintiff of the case Shahadat Hossen, P- W- 1 has mentioned in
his witness that, on the day of the incident he was in the home. At around
12.00 PM in the morning as coming to my home my son Md. Mehedi Hasan made
disputes mutually. At the time of the disputes he has kicked- punched to my son
forcely has made fallen from four storied building to the ground floor. As has
fallen on the two iron rods as were in the ground his chest has been intered.
Immediately he has been taken to Tangi Government Hospital the doctor in duty
declared him as dead. He has made the case as the plaintiff of the case. The
witness in favor of the state party P W- 2 Hanufa Begum told in his voice
record that, he was a house worker of the victim. On the date of the incident
09/10/2011 AD in the morning at around 12.00 he has heard the sound of the
disputes in the home. He has seen the complaint Shahidul Khan as kicked
forcedly to the victim has made fallen from four storied building to the ground
floor. As has been fallen in the ground floor the victim is killed.
Page No- 12
P W- 3 Manir Hossen told in his voice record that, he ahs heard
something has been fallen in the ground as was in duty and has seen as has run
away the blody of the victim as has been fallen on the iron rods. He was un
able to say how has been fallen.
P W- 4 Hazrat Ali told in his voice record that, he was beside the
incident place as was busy in the business work in his own store. He as coming
to the incident place has seen the blody body of the victim.
Mentioned witness told in his questioning that, he has not seen how
he has been fallen he has not seen the people jas told about the incident that,
the complaint is a rickshaw puller and he in that day as taking loan of
1,00,000/- at the time of going there was disputes with victim Mehedi Hasan.
P W- 5 Selim Mia told in his voice record that, he is at the time
of the incident was selling vegetables beside the roads. He is as went to
incident place has been seen the victim is fallen on the iron rods.
P W- 6 the security guard in the area md. Lal Mia told in his voice
record that, he knew the victim. After the incident he has seen the dead body
is blooded. Later police questioned him.
P W- 7 Dr Khalilur Rahman, residential medical officer Tangi
Goernment Hospital told in his voice record that, the killed Mehedi Hasan dead
body is sent for post mortem investigation in the hospital through dead body
chalan. In the post mortem investigation Mehedi Hasan has been killed by the
iron rods regarding that
Page No- 13
Display 8 and 9 has been marked. P W- 7 told in his questioning
that, the dead body post mortem investigation was appropriate.
P W- 8 the investigation officer told in his voice record that last
dated 09/10/2011 AD officer in charge of Tangi police station based on the
written application of the plaintiff the is recorded, the duty of the
investigation has been handed over on him. He is as receiving the duty of the
investigation the place opf the incident has been visited and as the dead body
as declared dead in the medical the post mortem report is prepared. He has
marked in the display 2/ 4 of his signature in post mortem report of the killed
Mehedi Hasan. He has recorded as per section 161 of the civil activities case
in the voice record of the witnesses. His investigation and prove and witness
the complain as brought against the complaint as proved primarily He has
submitted in the court for justice on dated 03/02/2012 AD in the complain
letter no- 25, in the Tangi police station.
P W- 10 told in his questioning that, hea hs heard the incident
after making the case of the investigation officer.
After the incident the complaint Shahidul Khan has been in fled.
There is understood that in the incident the complaint Shahidul Khan has been
involved.
After the incident the complaint Shahidul Khan of the case is fled
from the area which has been mentioned in the witness of the witnesses. After
the incident as the mentioned complaint is in fled and his behavior made it
understood regarding his involvement with the incident. Regarding that subject
the honorable high court has given the opinion as bellow.
Page No- 14
Regarding that subject in 48 no DLR page as mentioned Ashraf Ali
Munshi versus State in the case in the honorable high court division has given
the opinion as like that, “Though the fact that the accused abseconded sood
after the crime is not a evidence itself but it may landweight to other
evidence.” In teh case of the high court of Nizam Hazari has given the opinion
in the explanation as per section 9 The Evidence Act 1972 that, Abscondence of
accused it relevant fact under section 9 of the evidence act and unless accused
explains his conduct abscondence may indicate his guilt.” Therefore the
complaint favor learned lawyer as has not been presented as the complaint is in
fled regarding that no suggestion as has been given to the witnesses or no
defense case has been presented regarding the involvement with the incident of
the complaint is proved by the witness based on the situation.
The complaint Shahidul Khan as hitting for the purpose to kill the
victim Mehedi Hasan planning: as he has made the killing he has been made the
crime which is punishable as per section 302 of The Penal Code 1860. Age of the
complaint and overall prove and witness as explained there has been taken
decision to punish lifetime imprison instead of capital punishment with
50,000/- (Fifty Thousands) taka fine, if not paid 1 (one) more year of
imprisonment has been given without any labor.
Therefore, the order is that,
Page No- 15
The complaint of the case as per section 302 of Penal Code 1860 as
declaring punishable criminal punishing in lifetime imprisonment with 50,000/-
(Fifty Thousands) taka fine punishment, if not paid 1 (one) more year of
punishment without labor has been given.
The fled punishment received complaint Shahidul Khan may send the
punishment warrant.
The seized signs is seized in favor of the state party.
The duplicate of the decree is sent to the learned chief judicial
magistrate and learned district magistrate, Gazipur for the information.
Written and amended as per my speech.
Signature: Md. Iqubal Hossen
11/09/2012 AD
Additional Daira Judge,
2nd Court, Gazipur.
Signature:
Md. Iqubal Hossen
11/09/2012
AD
Additional
Daira Judge,
2nd
Court, Gazipur.
No comments:
Post a Comment