IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH

HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

Present:

Mr. Justice Mamnoon Rahman

Criminal Revision No. 419 of 2019

Lutfur Rahman

........Convict-Appellant-Petitioner. -VERSUS-

The State

.…... Opposite Party.

Mr. Md. Mahbubur Rahman Kishore, Adv. with Mr. Md. Nurul Huda, Adv.

…… For the Petitioner Mr. Mohammad Taifoor Kabir, DAG with

Mr. Md. Lokman Hossain, AAG

Mr. Md. Hatem Ali, AAG

…… For the Opposite Party.

Heard on : 11.10.2023

And

Judgment on: The 12th October, 2023

Rule was issued calling upon the opposite party to show cause as to why the judgment and order dated 11.10.218 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lakshmipur in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2017 dismissing the appeal and modifying the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 10.01.2017 of G.R. No. 936 of 2008 arising out of Lakshmipur Police Station Case No. 7 dated 04.09.2008 convicting the accused petitioner under Section 324 of the Penal Code and sentence to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and thereby commuting the conviction and sentence to one

year, should not be set aside and/or pass such other or further order or orders as to this court may seem fit and proper.

The short facts relevant for the disposal of this rule, is that, the opposite party as complainant filed First Information Report (FIR) with Lakshmipur Police Station Case No. 7(9) of 2008 under section 143/323/324/506 of the Penal Code against several persons including the petitioner alleging inter alia that the accused petitioner are men of opposite side of the same home and they had been humiliating and torturing variously upon the informant for a long period for driving out from his homeland and consequently on the petitioner along with other accused of the instant case made a fence on the land of the informant and thereafter the informant informed the matter to the local people and the petitioner along with other accused of the instant case grew angry with the informant and uttered various flimsy language and then the informant protested against the said behavior and hence the petitioner along with other accused of the instant case and all on a sudden they attacked and variously beat the informant with deadly weapons and as such the informant was injured and got admission into Laksmipur Sadar Hospital and hence the case. After filling of the case the police started investigation and submitted charge sheet implicating the petitioner wherein the police in the police report, however, not sent up the F.I.R. named accused Sarmin Akter in the charge sheet and recommended for discharging her from the case. During trial the prosecution adduced as many as five witnesses and the defence adduced none. The court below proceeded with the trial and examined the petitioner under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thereafter, the trial court after hearing the parties and considering the facts and circumstances passed the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence convicted the petitioner under section 324 of the Penal Code and acquitted the other accused persons.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the trial court the petitioner moved before the learned Sessions Judge, Lakshmipur by way of appeal and the same was heard and disposed of by the said Judge who vide the impugned judgment and order dismissed the appeal by modification of the sentence.

Mr. Md. Mahbubur Rahman Kishore, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the court below without applying their judicial mind and without considering the facts and circumstances, most illegally and in an arbitrary manner passed the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence which requires interference by this court. He submits that in the present case in hand the prosecution miserably failed to prove the place, manner and time of occurrence as much as all the witnesses are highly i