LAW SCHOOL

Law Discipline
Khulna University

An Assignment on Two Cases Regarding Evidence Act, 1872

Course Title: Law of Evidence
Course Code: LJ- 3110

Submitted by:
Sujan Das
Student ID: 182810
Submitted to: 3rd Year, 1st Term
Mr. Ehshan Mazid Mustafa Khulna University
Lecturer,
Law Discipline
Khulna University

Date of Submission: 10 February, 2020

 ABDUL QUDDUS & ANOTHER V. THE STATE 35 DLR 373

Citation: 35 DLR 373

Related Sections: 114,133 &157 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
Fact:

Ferdousi Begum aged around 16 at that time, when went to her maternal grandparents house, on
27th April 1979 when she came out to answer the call of nature, accused-appellants Abul Hossain
and Abdul Quddus caught hold and carried her away, then they force her to marry accused
appellant Abdul Quddus but on the question of consent she refuses and Kazi left touring the paper.
Then they abduct her and kept her in several places where both of the accused raped her against
her will. She was kept confined about six days, then the said two accused took her to Bogra, there
they take advise from one advocate Bazle Mondol, took her to a doctor and paid the doctor to give
a medical certification as the to the age of the victim PW2 Ferdousi Begum as 17 years. After
obtaining such medical certificate they took her to another Kazi, before that they threaten the
victim with death and bound her to give consent. After two days she was brought back to Bogra
where accused-appellant Abdul Quddus showed a Court-marriage. A few days later she and
accused Abdul Quddus was arrested by police from Gaibandha as against the GD made by
Ferdousi Begum’s grandfather, When she was produced before the Magistrate 1st class she
disclosed all the matters before the magistrate.

Fact in Issue:

Whether uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice is admissible or not?

Judgment:

The appeal is dismissed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against accused appellants
Abdul Quddus @ Nausha and Abul Hossain under section 376 of the Penal Code is upheld. The
order of conviction passed against the said two accused appellants under Section 366 of the Penal
Code is also upheld.
Opinion:

If we consider all the evidence produced before the court it is already proved that the said victim
confessed against the accused appellant which would be unusual if she had have her consent during
marriage so she cannot be an accomplish even if she does so there were enough corroborating
circumstantial evidence to prove her truth.

-0-

State vs Md Bachchu Miah

Citation: 51 DLR 355

Related Sections: section 30 of Evidence Act, 1872 & Section 202 of Penal Code,
1860.
Fact:
Khairul Islam was the victim of this case. Bachchu Mia, Jahangir Alam, Shahajahan and Zakir
were the accused of this case. Abdur Razzak is the elder brother of Khairul Islam. Khairul Islam
had the illicit relationship with Abdur Razzak’s wife Rajada. For this reason accused Shahjahan
who was the maternal uncle of Rajada called a salish on 10 th June 1992. In the salish shahjahan
forced Abdur Razzak to divorce his wife. But he refused to divorce. At that moment Shahjahan
leave the place and threatened the opposition party. In 25 th June 1992 after the magrib prayer
accused Bachchu Miah came to the paternal house of victim Khairul islsm, called and took him
with him. Thereafter, khairul Islam did not return to his house. On the next day his dead body was
found in the nearer tank of his house. Abdul Kuddus Talukder who was the maternal uncle of the
victim and 9 th witnesses of this suit after returning home he noticed that Bacchu Miah, Jahangir
Alam, Shahjahan and Zakir along wuth khairul Islam stood at the northern side of the tank. During
the trial accused Bachchu Miah and Jahangir Alam provided the confession before the magistrate
Kiran Chandra Ray and told that Shahjahan told him to call Khairul Islam to the bank of the tank.
Bacchu Miah wanted to know the cause then Shahjahan replied that because of bad behavior of
khairul with rajada, he will teach a lesson khairul. For this he called khairul, but he didn’t know
about murder and he didn’t take any part of murder. Next Jahangir alam told that he was called by
shahjahan and went there but he didn’t take any part of murder.

Fact in Issues:
Will Bachchu Miah and Jahangir Alam accuse for murder? Are the confession of Bachchu Miah
and Jahangir Alam exculpatory?
Argument:
Mr Syed Abu Kowser, learned Assistant Attorney General for the state, submits that the evidence
of PW 9 together with the two confessionals statements are sufficient to establish the guilt of the
accused in the commission of murder.

Counter Argument:
Mr Sirajul Huq, learned Advocate for the condemned prisoners appellants, submits that the
evidence as adduced by the prosecutions are hopelessly insufficient to establish the charge of
murder as brought against the appellants and the learned additional Sessions Judge convicted the
appellant on mere suspicion. From the decision of Pakala Narayan Swami Case of Privy Council
that no statement that contains self-ex-collator matter can count to confessional statement if the
ex-collator statement is of some fact which if proved would negative the offence confessed. The
statement of Bachchu and Jahangir are not confession rather it is admission as confession involved
the voluntary acknowledgement of guilt.

Judgement:
Appeal of convicts Md Abdul Mannan alias Bachchu and Md Jahangir Alam is dismissed with the
modification both in the conviction and the sentence to the affect that their conviction and the
sentence to the affect that their conviction under sections 302/109 of the Penal Code is altered to
a conviction under section 202 of the Penal Code and their sentence of death is altered to a sentence
Of RI for 6 months which we find they have already served out. They must be set at liberty at once,
if not wanted in any other case.

Opinion:
From the confession of Md Bachchu Mia and Jahangir Alom it is proved that they are innocent.
But actually they made the crime being present on the spot and by helping shahjahan and not to
inform the magistrate about the murder. So, they may be also liable for this.