A Case of Ruthless Mugger

A case of mugging through creating terror

The description of government party in short, last dated 18/ 6/ 2001 at around 11.00 the petitioner and his maternal uncle as was going to New market waiting for the bus in front of Porbot Cinema Hall two people came by privet car and

Stood before them and introduced them as the people of S. b and his Rashedul Islam having hand cap on hand told to get on in the car. As they ask the reason to get on the car the defendants told to inform as reached to office. At that time there was argument between both sides one person beside them came and told they are the people of S. B. Then the petitioner as got on the car they took them to Shamoli. At the time to go they mugged 50,000 Taka from waist in lungi of his accompany maternal uncle. therefore as doubt become over the defendants the petitioner told to show identity card they told to show when reached at office. The petitioner as told to show the card beside traffic sergeant they did not as they reached Shamoli the petitioner tried to take the keys of car to stop the defendant took pistol and shot to blood the petitioner. The other person with the defendant mugged the mobile phone. Then the defendant fled with his accompany. Then cut the hand cap as they reached to Gabtoli Hat and the president of Hat committee took them to Dhaka Medical for treatment as they treated the case submitted.

As per the case, S. I Md Monirul Islam took the responsibility of the case, the officer in charge order. He visited the incident place during investigation. He drew the map of drift of the incident place. He took the witnesses. In the investigation the documents have been against the defendants so therefore he submitted the case 4 and 10 of 2000 in the case no- 416, dated 2/ 9/ 2001 of Muhammadpur Police Station.

As the suit came Junior Court to this court for the judgment last dated 26/ 8/ 2002 the case has been made against the defendants as per the section 4/ 10 of People Security (Special Law) of 2000. As the defendant is fled therefore it was not possible to make him him heard the hearing. The government party including the petitioner in total of 6 witnesses presented. As the witness taking got finished the fled defendant was not possible to examine under the section 342.

Consideration Subject:

A) As the defendant mugged as making terror?

B) The defendant of defendants weather get punishes under the section 4/ 10 of People Security Law of 2000?

 

Before the discussion it can be discussed about the witness of witnesses. Government party 1 no witness in inspector of S. B Md Mahbobur Rahman mentioned in his voice record that last dated 18/ 6/ 2001 he informed that the Daroga of City S. B and his accompany as abducted a public a businessman of Gabtoli Cow Market as the start got stopped of privet car they made hugging with them as people came. They at the time to flee keep car on street shot 2/ 3 round bullets. People rescued the abducted persons and as going informed the Gabtoli Hat Association and then made a case in Muhammadpur Police Station. As the sign of the case the Police of Muhammadpur Police Station came. He is the witness of the found. Found list 1- 6 has been signed in the show. As per the senior of S. B A. S. P Abdur Rashid took the founds. One pistol, 2 maxine and 20 round bullets rescued. The pistol was in the name of Daroga of S. B Humayon Kabir Mridha and signature as witness.

Government party the witnesses no 2- 6 tender the 1 no witness. 2- 6 no witnesses everyone supported the petitioner.As the defendant is fled no questioning has been made. As the examining the witness of witnesses and as observation of the paper it has been seen that the petitioner of this case is the businessman of Gabtoli Cow Market and the only one defendant of this case, A. K. M Rezaul karim, at the time of incident was the S. B Officer.

Date and time of the incident are 18/ 6/ 2001 at around 11.00 AM. The petitioner of this case Md Rafiqul Islam and his maternal brother Rashedul Islam Babu for having breakfast as they reached on the highway in front of Cow Hat a Grey Privet Car came before them, one of them in the car told to get the car as they introduced them the people of S. B. The petitioner and his accompany made hand cap. Then as the car was going towards Shamoli at that time the S. B introduced man took 50,000/- Taka as it was to my cousin and mugged a hand watch and mobile phone from the petitioner. Shamoli

Cinema Hall as reached therefore at the traffic signal as seen the sergeant the petitioner and his brother started to scream and started to hug with the defendants. At that time one mugger fled from the car. Screaming and the incident police and local people came to the spot. The petitioner having hand cap with his cousin went to the president of Gabtoli Cow Market. At first the president of Gabtoli Cow Market took steps to make free hand cap. Then the petitioner took to Dhaka Medical for treatment then as they went to Shamoli Cinema Hall and heard from the local people that the car is for the Daroga of S. B and mentioned Rezaul Karim made this incident. Then they submitted suit after the treatment in Muhammadpur Police Station. The petitioner himself the witness of this incident and acknowledged the incident. At the time of giving witness having been support the petitioner the full incident before

 

The court has been presented. He proved the case. The witness of the petitioner and the witness of the witnesses are indifferent. All of the witnesses of this case is the member of S. B and they gave witness relating the defendant. It has been shown in the witness that the defendant was not presented in duty in the evening. Date at 18/ 6/ 2001 a message has been found in the mobile that the people of S. B mugged. Then it has been minded about the Rezaul. The reputation of defendant Rezaul was not good. He mentioned there. S. P informed him that the car of Rezaul has been arrested. Then 5 no witness went to the incident place with team. It has been proved clearly that the defendant Rezaul made this incident. As the other members of S. B were his colleague however they gave witness making Rezaul Karim involved and supported to each other. The wife of defendant submitted the weapon to police station the government weapon. The car used for mugging made submission to police station. The witness has proved the blooded cloths of petitioner. Again and again as the process issued the investigation officer has been made as witness. The investigation case of the investigation officer and

It has been seen from the observation of the charge sheet that there is no mistake happened in the charge sheet. But as the witness given by the witnesses that for shooting the terror made, anything like this has not come in proves. The defendant Rezaul karim is a greedy member of police. As saver of law he is himself is mugger by using government weapon and using the power of his position he stained the whole police force, he did a serious crime, therefore the tribunal thinks that he should have been given exemplary punishment. The case of mugging has been proved undoubtedly against the defendant Rezaul Karim. So therefore the decision has been taken to give him punishement for mugging. The importance of the crime and considering others the punishment has been fixed.

 

Therefore,

It is ordered that

The defendant of this case A. K. M Rezaul karim (fled0 as the complain proved undoubtedly under the section 4 of People Security (Special Law) as got fixed of this case therefore 10 (Ten) years of imprisonment including 50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) Taka is fined if not paid another two years of imprisonment punished.

As the fled defendant surrender or get arrested the date will be effective as he sent to custody.

 

To arrest the fled defendant the necessary, may issue process.

 

Typed as my opinion and amended by me.

 

Judge,

Date: 18/ 9/ 2004

(A. S. M. Salah Uddin Khan)

Judge

People Security Breaking Crime

Suppression Tribunal- 1, Dhaka

Discover more about mugging here now!