Present:

Mr. Justice Md. Shohrowardi

Criminal Revision No. 695 of 2007

Md. Khokon Mia

...Convict-petitioner

-Versus-

The State and another

...Opposite party Mr. Biplob Goswami, Advocate

...For the convict-petitioner

Mr. S.M. Golam Mostofa Tara, D.A.G with

Mr. A. Monnan, A.A.G

...For the State

Heard on 22.02.2024 and 14.03.2024

Judgment delivered on 18.03.2024

This Rule under Section 439 read with Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was issued calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 19.04.2007 passed by Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Tribunal, Faridpur in Criminal Appeal No. 123 of 2006 affirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 17.08.2006 passed by Magistrate, First Class, Faridpur in C.R. Case No. 156 of 2005 (Banga) corresponding T.R. No. 143 of 2006 convicting the petitioner under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1980 and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3(three) years 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 prosecution case, in short, is that the complainant opposite party No. 2 is the wife of the accused No. 1. The accused No. 2 is the father of the accused No. 1 and the accused No. 3 is the sister of the accused No. 1. The complainant and accused No. 1 married on 25.12.2004 by registered kabinnama. Before their marriage, Abu Jafor, the elder brother of accused No. 1, married the complainant and she gave birth to two children. Her first husband Abu Jafor went out of Bangladesh and he did not take care of the complainant. In the meantime, a relationship developed between the complainant and accused No. 1. At One point in time, her husband divorced her. Thereafter, the complainant came back to the house of her father. After a few days, the accused Nos. 2 and 3 considering the welfare of the children came to the house of the father of the complainant and gave a proposal for marriage of the accused No. 1 with the complainant. Under the above circumstances, the accused No. 1 married the complainant by registered kabinnama and they enjoyed their conjugal life. Later on, the accused demanded a dowry of taka one lakh and used to beat her for the dowry. After fifteen days of the marriage, the accused No. 1 rented a house at Bogura town and he resides along with his wife and two children of his wife. After a few days, he rented a new house at Bhanga and again demanded dowry. When she refused to pay the dowry, the accused No. 1 beat her on 05.02.2005 and the complainant took shelter at the house of her brother. Lastly, a salish was held on 04.07.2005 in the house of the brother of the complainant and in that salish he also demanded taka one lakh failing which he refused to live with her. After that, she filed the case.

The Magistrate, First Class, Cognizance Court, Faridpur took cognizance of the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1980 against the convict-petitioner and by order dated 29.05.2006 framed charge against the accused in absentia under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1980. The prosecution examined 6(six) witnesses to prove the charge against the accused. Since the accused was absconding, the defence did not cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. The trial Court by judgment and order dated 17.08.2006 convicted the petitioner under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1980 and sentenced him thereunder to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3(three) years against which the convict-petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 123 of 2006 before the Sessions Judge, Faridpur and the appellate Court after hearing the parties by impugned judgment and

order dated 19.04.2007 affirmed the judgment and order passed by the trial Court against which the convict-petitioner obtained the instant Rule