Present:

Mr. Justice Shahidul Karim

 and

Mr. Justice Md. Mostafizur Rahman Death Reference No.123 of 2017

The State.

...………….. Petitioner. -Versus-

Md. Riajul Islam alias Ranju

                        ....……. Condemned-Convict.

Mr. Bashir Ahmed, D.A.G with

Mr. Nirmal Kumar Das, A.A.G. with

Ms. Syeda Shobnum Mustary, A.A.G with

Mr. Md. Tariqul Islam (Hira), A.A.G.

    ……. For the State. Ms. Hasna Begum, Advocate 

     ……For the State Defence Lawyer.

Heard on 15-01-2024, 16-01-2024, 17- 01-2024, 18-01-2024 and Judgment on 29-02-2024.

ShahidulKarim, J.

This Death Reference under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (briefly, the Code) has been submitted by the learned  Additional  Sessions  Judge,  2nd  Court,  Gazipur  for confirmation of sentence of death awarded to accused Md. Riajul Islam alias Ranju (absconding). Accused Md. Riajul Islam alias Ranju was put on trial before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge,  2nd  Court,  Gazipur  to  answer  charge  under  sections 302/201  of  the  Penal  Code.  The  learned  Additional  Sessions Judge found the accused guilty under the aforesaid sections of

law and sentenced him to death under section 302 of the Penal Code along with a fine of Tk.10,000/-and also convicted him under section 201 of the Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3(three) years along with a fine of Tk.5000/-  with  a  default  clause  vide his  judgment and order dated  10-09-2017  recorded  in  Sessions  Case  No.87  of  2015, arising  out  of  Joydebpur  P.S.  Case  No.67  dated  21-01-2014, corresponding to G.R. No. 67 of 2014, and thereafter, submitted

the enter proceedings of the case to this Court for confirmation

of the death sentence imposed upon the condemned accused vide

his Office Memo No.A¢ax/­Sm¡SS 2u/Bc¡xN¡S£-739 a¡¢lMx 10/09/2017z

No  Jail  or  Criminal  Appeal  has  been  filed  by  the condemned accused as because he went into hiding in the midst

of trial of the case.

The prosecution case arose out of an horrendous incident in which an ill-stared woman named Mst. Chaina Begum (27) was done to death by strangulation, and thereafter, her dead body

was cut into 6(six) pieces in order to conceal the evidence of crime.

The prosecution case as projected in the FIR as well as unfurled during trial is that, 10(ten) years prior to the incident, deceased victim Chaina Begum was married off to accused Md. Riajul  Islam  alias  Ranju  and  during  the  wed-lock  they  were blessed  with  2(two)  daughters  named  Asha  Akhter  (4)  and Farjana Akhter (2). Accused Ranju was a licentious person as well as a man of bad repute. Since marriage, the accused used to perpetrate  torture  to  the  deceased  victim  both  physically  and mentally. About 4(four) years back, the accused negotiated 2nd marriage  with  one  Rojina  Begum.  Deceased  victim  Chaina Begum went to Dubai in connection with a job and she returned back home after serving there for about 3(three) years. After returning to the country, the deceased victim purchased 2(two) kathas of land with her own earnings. Accused Md. Riajul Islam alias Ranju put pressure upon his deceased wife to transfer the land in his name to which she expressed her reluctance as a result the former held out threat of dire consequences. In the night following 19-01-2014 during the period from 10.00 pm till 3.00 am of 21-01-2014, accused Md. Riajul Islam alias Ranju killed

his wife victim Chaina Begum by throttling at his rented house, and thereafter, cut her dead body into 6(six) pieces and stuffed those in 3(three) bags including a trolley bag in order to conceal the  alamats  of  the  offence.  Thereupon,  the  accused  rented another house of the neighbouring area of one Jashim Uddin, whereupon the co-tenants of the said house named Joshna and Shirin  Akhter  having  smelt  bad  odour  of  human  dead  body brought the matter to the notice of the caretaker of the house, Md. Biplob Hossain as well as to the police, whereupon S.I. Akram Hossain from Joydebpur P.S. appeared at the spot and apprehended accused Md. Riajul Islam alias Ranju along with 2(two) plastic bags and a trolley bag which were filled with the dead body of the victim. The relevant S.I. of police also seized some  alamats  like  the  wearing  apparels  of  the  victim,  the concerned bags where the pieces of dead body were kept and a sharp cutting dao and sent the dead body to morgue for post- mortem examination. Thereafter, being informant, the elder sister of deceased victim, Ferdousi Begum (P.W.1) lodged the FIR which gave rise to Joydebpur P.S. Case No. 67 dated 21-01- 2014.

After lodgment of the case, police took up investigation of the same and having found prima facie incriminating materials, submitted  police  report  against  the  accused  under  sections 302/201 of the Penal Code.

At the commencement of trial, charge was framed against the accused under sections 302/201 of the Penal Code and the charge so framed was read over and explained to the accused who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried as per law.

In order to prove the charge, the prosecution had adduced as many as 8(eight) witnesses out of 27 witnesses cited in the charge sheet who were aptly cross-examined by the defence.

After closure of the prosecution  witnesses,  the accused could not be examined under section 342 of the Code since after getting enlarged on bail he went into hiding in the midst of trial.

The defence case, that could be gathered from the trend of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, is of complete innocence and false implication.

Thereafter, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, upon taking  hearing  from  both  sides  and  on  an  appraisal  of  the evidences and materials on record, came to the conclusion that the  prosecution  had  been  able  to  prove  the  charge  brought against the accused to the core and accordingly convicted and sentenced him  thereunder in  the manner  as  mentioned  at the outset.

Eventually,  the  learned  Additional  Sessions  Judge  has submitted the entire proceedings of the case for confirmation of the death sentence imposed upon the accused.

Mr. Bashir Ahmed, the learned Deputy Attorney General with Mr. Md. Tariqul Islam (Hira), the learned Assistant Attorney General appearing on behalf of the state and in support of the death  reference  having  placed  the  FIR,  charge  sheet,  charge, post-mortem  examination  report  of  the  deceased  victim, confession of the accused, evidences of the witnesses, impugned judgment  and  order  of  conviction  and  sentence  and  other connected materials available in the paper book submits that the prosecution has been able to  bring  home the  charge levelled against the accused by adducing some clinching circumstantial evidences.  He  submits  that  since  the  occurrence  took  place during  the  night  and  that  too  inside  the  rented  house  of  the accused, it was not possible on the part of the prosecution to adduce any ocular evidence and for that reason the prosecution had to rely on circumstantial evidences. Moreover, accused Md.

Riajul Islam alias Ranju admitted his guilt in the killing incident of his wife, Chaina Begum by making confessional statement which  was  duly  proved  by  the  concerned  Magistrate  Abul Hasanat who gave evidence in the court as P.W.4, Mr. Ahmed further  added.  The  learned  Deputy  Attorney  General  lastly submits  that  the  learned  Additional  Sessions  Judge,  upon  a thread-bare discussion of the evidences and materials on record, found the accused guilty of the charge mounted against him and sentenced him thereunder by the impugned judgment and order which,  being  well  founded  both  in  law  and  facts,  does  not warrant  any  interference  by  this  Court.   In  support  of  his submission,  Mr. Ahmed has  placed reliance on  the decisions reported in 40 DLR (AD) (1988), 83 and 73 DLR (AD)(2021) 365.

On  the  flip-side,  Ms.  Hasna  Begum,  the  learned  State Defence Advocate appearing for absconding accused Md. Riajul Islam  alias  Ranju  has  assailed  the  veracity  of  the  impugned judgment  and  order  submitting  that  the  prosecution  has miserably failed to prove the charge brought against the accused by  adducing  some  cogent  and  reliable  witnesses.  She  next submits that there is no eye witness of the occurrence leading to the  incident  of  murder,  rather  it  has  come  to  light  from  the confession  of  the  accused  that  just  before  the  occurrence  an altercation  broke  out  between  the  accused  husband  and  his deceased wife and further that the incident had occurred in the heat of passion and there was no premeditation or preplan on the part of the accused to kill his victim wife. Moreover, as per confession, the accused killed his wife in order to save his soul as because the deceased victim put pressure on his scrotum. She further  submits  that  some  important  witnesses  like  the  land owners  wherein  the  accused  used  to  reside  along  with  his deceased wife as well as witness Joshna and Shirin including the witnesses of the inquest report were not examined in the case which creates doubt about the veracity of the prosecution story. Ms.  Hasna  Begum  lastly  submits that  the  alleged  offence,  if proved, would not come under the mischief of section 302 of the Penal Code, rather it will fall under section 302 part II of the Penal Code.

In order to bolster up her submission, Ms. Hasna Begum has referred to the decisions reported in 73 DLR(AD), 91 and 73 DLR (HCD), 190.

Heard the learned Advocates of both sides and perused the impugned  judgment  and  order  along  with  other  connected materials available in the paper book and also considered the facts and circumstances of the case exhaustively.

With a view to arriving at a correct decision in the death reference as well as about the rival submissions put forward by the learned Advocates of both the parties, we are now called upon to scrutinize and weigh the relevant evidences available in the  paper  book  along  with  the  surrounding  facts  and circumstances of the case.

P.W.1 Ferdousi Begum is the informant of the case as well as  the elder sister of deceased victim  Chaina Begum.  In  her evidence this witness gives out that accused Md. Riajul Islam alias Ranju is the husband of her younger sister, China Begum. The occurrence took place at the residence of the accused. Her sister had died about 3(three) years and 2(two) months ago. On information,  she came to the house  of her sister in  Gazipur. Thereafter, she saw the dead body of her sister at the hospital. The dead body of her sister was cut into pieces. Later, she filed FIR against the accused. P.W.1 proves the FIR including her

signature appearing thereon as Exhibit Nos.1 & 1/1 respectively and also identifies accused Riajul Islam alias Ranju in the dock. 

In reply to cross-examination P.W.1 says that she could not recollect the exact date of the occurrence and at the material time she was also not present at the spot. Deceased victim China Begum is her younger sister. She got information from police station about the death of her sister. She could not know whether the accused is concerned in the incident or not.

In his testimony P.W.2 Md. Bacchu Miah discloses that both  the  informant  and  the  accused  are  known  to  him.  The occurrence came to pass in a nearby place of his house. He heard from  local  people  that  the  accused  had  killed  his  wife.  The accused was hailed from different area.

In reply to cross-examination P.W.2 states that he heard that the accused had killed his wife, but he could not recollect the exact date thereof. He could not say whether the wife of the accused was killed in an accident or not. 

In  his  evidence  P.W.3  Hazi  A.  Hamid  claims  that  the occurrence took place in their village about 2/3 years ago. He came to learn that the accused killed his wife. The local people

of the concerned area disclosed that the accused killed his wife. The accused was hailed from different area.

In  reply  to  cross-examination  P.W.3  says  that  the informant  and  the  accused  did  not  belong  to  their  (P.W.3) locality.  This  witness  reiterates  in  his  cross-examination  that every one of their locality disclosed that the accused killed his wife.

P.W.4 Abul Hasnat is the relevant Magistrate who jotted down the confessional statement of accused Md. Riajul Islam alias Ranju. In his evidence this witness avers that on 22-01- 2014, S.I. Akram Hossain produced the accused before him for recording his confessional statement, whereupon he recorded the confessional  statement  of the accused  in  compliance with all legal formalities and thereafter, he read it over to the accused who put his signature thereto admitting the contents thereof to be true.  P.W.4  proves  the  confessional  statement  including  his 4(four) signatures appearing thereon as Exhibit Nos.2 & 2/1 to 2/4 respectively.

In  reply  to  cross-examination  P.W.4  discloses  that  he afforded 2.30 hours time to the accused during which he was kept  in  his  (P.W.4)  chamber.  P.W.4  denied  the  defence suggestions that the accused was not in normal position or that he (P.W.4) did not comply with all legal formalities.

P.W.5 Dr. Tapos Kanti Sarker is one of the member of a 3(three) Members Medical Board which, on 21-01-2014, held autopsy of the corpse of deceased victim China Begum, at the identification  of  Constable  No.330  Poresh  Chandra  Das  and found the following injuries:

1. One  continuous  circular  ligature  mark  around  upper

neck 12 " breath.

2. One cut throat (lower throat) injury resulting complete

separation  of  neck  and  head  from  rest  of  the  body  (neck circumference 18" (post mortem injury).

3. Incised wound over both hip joints resulting complete

amputation of both thigh from abdomen and pelvis (both sides) (thigh circumference 28") each post mortem injury.

4. Incised wound over both knee joint resulting complete

separation of both legs from both thigh (leg circumference 17") each post mortem injury.

On deep dissection: Throat muscles were found congested at the line of ligature mark. Clotted blood present in the injured sites which does not resist washing (post-mortem clot).

According  to  their  opinion,  the  cause  of  death  of  the deceased  victim  was  due  to  asphyxia  resulting  from  ligature strangulation which was ante-mortem and homicidal in nature.

P.W.5  proves  the  post-mortem  report  including  his signature appearing thereon as Exhibit Nos.3 & 3/1 respectively.

In reply to cross-examination P.W.5 says that the post- mortem examination was done in the afternoon of 21-10-2014 at around 2.30 pm. This witness denied the defence suggestions that they did not carry out post-mortem examination properly or that the post-mortem examination report is not true.

P.W.6 Jahangir Alam is an inhabitant of the neighbouring area of the place of occurrence building. In his testimony this witness unfurls that the occurrence passed off on 21-01-2014 and the place of occurrence is the house of one Jashim Uddin located at  Chandona  North  Para.  The  dead  body  of  a  woman  was recovered from the 2nd floor of the P.O. building which was cut into 6(six) pieces as well as stuffed in a gunny bag. Police then appeared at the spot and held inquest (Exhibit No.4) of the dead body to which he put his signature (Exhibit No.4/1). He came to learn that the husband of the deceased victim cut the dead body

into 6(six) pieces. The accused and the deceased victim were new tenants of the P.O. building.

P.W.6 further states in his evidence that the accused was detained at his rented flat wherefrom police took him away.

In reply to cross-examination P.W.6 says that he did not witness the incident of killing, rather he saw the dead body. He did not know the accused from before.

In his testimony P.W.7 Md. Asaduzzaman divulges that the  occurrence  took  place  in  the  year  2014  at  the  2nd  floor tenanted flat of one Jashim Uddin. The accused along with his deceased wife rented the P.O. flat. The accused cut his wife into 6(six) pieces and stuffed those in a bag. On information, people appeared there. He (P.W.7) got information at around 1.00 pm in the night and thereafter, he went to the P.O. spot. Local people detained the accused inside the P.O. room. Police then recovered the dead body and held inquest of the same to which he put his signature (4/2). Police, thereafter, took away the accused under custody and sent the dead body to the hospital.

In reply to cross-examination P.W.7 states that he did not witness the incident of killing, rather he saw the dead body. This

witness  further  states  that  the  accused  used  to  live  in  the concerned locality as tenant.

P.W.8  Inspector  Muhammad  A.  Rahim  is  the  final investigating officer of the case. In his deposition this witness reveals  that  during  investigation,  he  visited  the  place  of occurrence and consulted the sketch map (Exhibit No.5) as well as  index  (Exhibit  No.6)  thereof  prepared  by  the  earlier investigating officer  and found them to  be  correct,  examined witnesses under section 161 of the Code and made attempt to arrest the absconding accused. However, having found prima- facie incriminating materials, he submitted police report against the FIR named accused Md. Riajul Islam under sections 302/201 of the Penal Code.

In reply to cross-examination P.W.8 avers that he took the charge  of  the  investigation  of  the  case  on  04-09-2014. Thereafter,  he  recorded  statement  of  10  (ten)  witnesses.  The accused and the deceased victim are respectively husband and wife. The accused was found sitting in his rented P.O. flat after killing as well as cutting the dead body of his wife into 6(six) pieces and those were stuffed in a briefcase. P.W.8 denied the

defence suggestion that he did not carry out the investigation

properly.

These are all about the evidences that had been adduced by

the  prosecution  in  order  to  bring  home  the  charge  levelled

against the accused.    

Having dwelt upon the evidences and materials on record,

it appears that there is no dispute about the unnatural death of

deceased  victim  Chaina  Begum  (27).  Nevertheless,  since  the

matter involves capital punishment in the form of death penalty,

we feel it necessary to have a close look at the inquest report in

order to see for ourselves what injury or injuries were found on

the person of the deceased victim at the initial stage of the case

and what was the apparent cause of death.

It is on record that one S.I. of Joydebpur P.S. named Md.

Akram Hossain held inquest of the cadaver of deceased victim

Chaina Begum vide G.D. No. 1404 dated 21-01-2014 which has

been marked as Exhibit No.4. The relevant portion of Exhibit

No.4 is quoted below in verbatim:-

“Q¡¾ce¡ Ešl f¡s¡ lJne psL S¢pj E¢Ÿ­el h¡s£l ¢ae am¡ a¡¢lM 21-

01-14 Cw l¡œ 03.00 O¢VL¡z 06 V¥Ll¡ hÙ¹¡, hÉ¡N J VÊ¢ml ¢ialz lJ²j¡M¡ L¡fsà¡l¡ ®fyQ¡­e¡ hÙ¹¡u i¢aÑ J VÊ¢ml ¢ia­l ®QCe à¡l¡ BVL¡­e¡z k¡q¡ c§l Nå h¡¢ql qC­a­Rz Nm¡ L¡Y~¡, ®L¡js (l¡e) L¡V¡, f¡ L¡V¡, (q¡V¥), f¡ c¤C¢V 04 V¥Ll¡, k¡q¡ q¡yV¥ qC­a e£­Ql Awn, ®L¡jl qC­a qy¡V¥ fkÑ¿¹ ®cq 01 Awn k¡q¡ 2¢V q¡a pq ®cq qC­a j¡b¡ ¢h¢µRæ, k¡q¡ Nm¡ LaÑe Ll¡ qCu¡­Rz fË­aÉL¢V Awn qC­a lJ² ¢eNÑa qCu¡ c§lNå qCu¡­Rz f¡­ul 4¢V Y~¤Ll¡l j­dÉ ¢ae¢V V¥Ll¡ p¡c¡ f¢m¢be à¡l¡ ®j¡s¡­e¡ HL¢V V¥Ll¡ qm¤c f¢m¢be à¡l¡ ®j¡s¡­e¡z e¡L, L¡e ü¡i¡¢hL ¢Sî¡ p¡j¡eÉ h¡¢qlz c¡­al 2¢V f¡¢V à¡l¡ L¡js ®cJu¡z”

  (Emphasis added)

From the aforesaid narration, it reveals that the dead body

of the deceased victim was cut into 6(six) pieces and those were

stuffed in bosta ( , bags and trolley bag and the same were

found from the house of one Jashim Uddin located at Chandona

North Para Rowsan Sarak.

Regarding cause of death, it has been stated in Exhibit

No.4 that:

“f¡¢lh¡¢lL Lm­ql L¡l­e Na Cw 19/01/14 a¡¢lM ¢ch¡Na l¡¢œ 22.00

O¢VL¡ qC­a 21/01/14 a¡¢lM l¡a 03.00 O¢VL¡l j­dÉ ®k ®L¡e pju Bp¡j£

¢iL¢Vj ®L fËb­j Nm¡ Q¡¢fu¡ nÄ¡p­l¡d L­l qaÉ¡ Llax m¡n …j Ll¡l E­Ÿ­nÉ

m¡­nl ®cq qC­a j¡b¡, f¡ L¡¢Vu¡ 06 V¥Ll¡ L­lz”

(Emphasis put).

Thus, on preliminary investigation, it was found that the

accused killed the victim by throttling and thereafter cut her dead

body into 6(six) pieces in order to conceal the alamats of the crime.

Materials  on  record  further  go  to  show  that  a  medical board comprising of 3(three) members was formed to hold post- mortem examination of the corpse of deceased victim Chaina Begum. P.W.5 Dr. Tapon Kanti Sarkar was a member of the Medical Board which, on 21-01-2014, at the identification of Constable No. 330 Poresh Chandra Das, carried out autopsy of the  cadaver of  deceased  victim  Chaina Begum  and  found  as many as 4(four) injuries which were noticed earlier.

P.W.5 further states that on deep dissection: throat muscles were found congested at the line of ligature mark and clotted blood  was  found  in  the  injured  sites  which  does  not  resist washing.

According  to  their  opinion:  Death  was  due  to  asphyxia resulting from ligature strangulation which was ante-mortem and homicidal in nature.

    P.W.5  proves  the  post-mortem  report  and  his  signature appearing thereon as Exhibit Nos. 3 and 3/1 respectively.

From  the  medico-legal  evidence,  it  transpires  that deceased  victim  Chaina  Begum  was  done  to  death  due  to asphyxia resulting from ligature strangulation which was ante- mortem and homicidal in nature. We find nothing tangible on record either to deny or to hold a different view with that of the medico-legal evidence furnished by P.W.5 so far the cause of death of the deceased victim is concerned which also comes in agreement with the inquest-report. Even, the defence did not try to dispute the post-mortem report while cross-examining P.W. 5. In such a backdrop, we have no other option but to hold that the prosecution has been able to prove that deceased victim Chaina Begum was brutally murdered by ligature strangulation.

Now,  the  paramount  question  that  calls  for  our determination is, who is or are responsible for the murder of deceased victim Chaina Begum.

It  is  indisputable  that  there  is  no  eye  witnesses  of  the occurrence leading to the incident of killing of deceased victim Chaina Begum. Since the occurrence took place in the dark of night and that too inside the rented house of accused Md. Riajul Islam  alias  Ranju,  it  was  not  possible  on  the  part  of  the prosecution  to  adduce  any  eye  witness  of  the  occurrence  as because at the relevant time none was present at the P.O. flat except the accused and his deceased wife including their 2(two)

minor children. In such a posture of things; we are required to

have a close look at the facts and surrounding circumstances of

the instant case to find out who was the actual assailant of the

deceased victim.

Having devoted our anxious consideration to the evidences

on record, it manifestly appears that accused Md. Riajul Islam

alias Ranju was detained along with 6(six) cut pieces of the dead

body of his wife at his rented house as Chandona North Para.

The defence did not try to brushed aside or dispute the aforesaid

factual  event  by  making  cross-examination  of  the  relevant

witnesses. We may profitably have a look at the evidences of

P.W. 6 and P.W.7 who, in our view, are the 2(two) most vital

witnesses to prove the prosecution story.

The exact text of the evidence of P.W.6 Jahangir Alam is

quoted below in verbatim:

“OVe¡ 21/01/2014Cw a¡¢lMz Q¡¾ce¡ Ešl f¡s¡ Sp£j E¢Ÿ­el i¡s¡¢Vu¡l

h¡p¡uz Bj¡l h¡s£ f¡­nz HLSe j¢qm¡l m¡n Nm¡ L¡V¡ AhÙÛ¡u ¢aeam¡ ®b­L

EÜ¡l L­lz m¡n 06 V¥L­l¡, m¡n hÙ¹¡ Hhw hÉ¡­Nl ¢ial l¡M¡ ¢Rmz f¤¢mn OVe¡ÙÛ­m B­pz f¤¢mn m¡­nl p¤laq¡m ¢l­f¡VÑ fËÙ¹¤a L­lz Bj¡l ü¡rl ®euz HC ®pC p¤laq¡m ¢l­f¡VÑ (fËcnÑe£-4), ü¡rl(fËcnÑe£-4/1) ¢qp¡­h ¢Q¢q²a quz S¡e­a f¡lm¡j ¢eq­al ü¡j£ ®L¡f¡Cu¡ ®j­l m¡n 06 V¥L­l¡ L­l ®l­M­Rz Bp¡j£ Hhw

¢eqa I h¡s£­a ea¥e i¡s¡ ­euz f¤¢mn ¢S‘¡p¡h¡c L­l¢Rmz Bp¡j£ h¡p¡u BVL¡­e¡ ¢Rmz f¤¢mn a¡­L d­l ¢e­u k¡uz ”

(Underlings is ours)

On  the  other  hand,  in  his  evidence  P.W.7  Md.

Asaduzzaman testifies that:

“OVe¡ 2014Cw p­ez OVe¡ Sp£jE¢Ÿ­el i¡s¡¢Vu¡ Hl ¢ae am¡ h¡p¡l ¢ialz Bp¡j£ Hhw a¡l Ù»£ ¢eqa h¡p¡ i¡s¡ ¢e­u b¡L­a¡z Bp¡j£ a¡l Ù»£­L ®L¡f¡Cu¡ m¡n 06 V¥L­l¡ L­l hÙ¹¡l ¢ial i­l l¡­Mz ®m¡LSe S­s¡ quz l¡a 1|00

V¡l ¢c­L Mhl ®f­u k¡Cz f¤¢mn Mhl ®f­u OVe¡ÙÛ­m B­pz Bp¡j£ O­ll ¢ial ¢Rmz ®m¡LSe a¡­L BVL L­l l¡­Mz f¤¢mn m¡n EÜ¡l L­lz p¤laq¡m ¢l­f¡VÑ fˤa Ù º L­lz Bj¡l ü¡rl ­euz HC Bj¡l ü¡rl (fËcnÑe£-4/2) ¢qp¡­h ¢Q¢q²a qCmz

f¤¢mn Bp¡j£­L d­l ¢e­u k¡uz m¡n q¡pf¡a¡m j­NÑ ®fËle L­l” z

   (Emphasis put)

From the aforesaid evidences of the witnesses, it palpably

appears that accused Md. Riajul Islam alias Ranju took abode at

the  second  floor  of  the  rented  house  of  one  Jashim  Uddin,

wherefrom he was detained along with 6(six) cut pieces of the

dead body of his wife, Chaina Begum.

No explanation has come forward from the side of the

defence about the cause of death of the deceased victim Chaina

Begum though law casts a duty upon the accused to explain as to

how his wife met with her death since at the material time none was present at the P.O. rented house except the accused and his deceased wife. Therefore, it can easily be presumed that it is none  but  accused  Md.  Riajul  Islam  alias  Ranju  who  was responsible for the killing of his wife. 

There is another important piece of evidence available on record in order to rope in the accused in the killing incident of his wife regarding which we will ponder over now.

Materials  on  record  further  go  to  show  that  during investigation, accused Md. Riajul Islam alias Ranju admitted his guilt by making confessional statement under section 164 of the Code which was jotted down by Magistrate P.W.4 Abul Hasanat.

It is by now well settled that an accused can be found guilty and convicted solely banking upon his confession if, on scrutiny,  it  is  found  to  be  true,  voluntary  and  inculpatory  in nature. 

In this context, we may profitably refer the case of Md. Islam Uddin @ Din Islam Vs. The State reported in 27 BLD (AD) 37 wherein our Appellate Division has observed as under:

“7. It  is  now  the  settled  principle  of  Law  that judicial confession if it is found to be true and voluntary can form the sole basis of conviction as against the maker of the same. The High Court Division as noticed earlier found the judicial confession of the condemned prisoner true and voluntary and considering the same, the extra judicial confession and circumstances of the case found the condemned prisoner guilty and accordingly imposed the sentence of death upon him.”

In the case of Aziz vs. State reported in 73 DLR (AD) (2021) 365 it has been observed as under:

 “When the voluntary character of the confession and truth are accepted it is safe to rely on it. Indeed a confession, if it is voluntary and true and not made under any inducement or threat or  promise,  is  the  most  patent  piece  of  evidence  against  the maker. A confession may form the legal basis of conviction if the court is satisfied that it is true and was voluntarily made.”

Let us now have a peep at the relevant confession (Exhibit No.2) of the accused to find out whether it has satisfied all the aforesaid criterion or not with a searching eye.

The confession of accused Md. Riajul Islam alias Ranju (Exhibit No.2) is cited below in vernacular:

“Bj¡l Ù»£ Q¡ue¡ ®hNj­L ¢h­u L¢l ®N¡f­ez fË¡u 4 hvpl ®N¡fe b¡­L ¢h­u¢Vz HlC j­dÉ f¢lh¡­ll Q¡­f Bh¡l ¢àa£u ¢h­u L¢lz ¢àa£u Ù»£l p¡­b Hhw

Bj¡l p¡­b ®p M¡l¡f BQle Llaz c¤C Ù»£ c¤C h¡p¡u b¡Laz fËbj Ù»£ Q¡ue¡ ®hNj ®j¡h¡Cm ®g¡­e AeÉ hÉ¢š²l p¡­b Lb¡ hmaz ¢S‘¡p¡ Ll­m ®p hma, “®a¡j¡l

S¡e¡l clL¡l ¢L?” B¢j h¤T­a f¡la¡j ®p fl f¤l¦­ol p¡­b A®~hd pÇf­LÑ S¢s­u

f­s­Rz Na 19/01/14Cw l¢hh¡l a¡l h¡p¡u (hsh¡s£, Q¡¾cl¡ ®l¡X) k¡C l¡­al

®hm¡uz l¡­al ®hm¡u A¢gp ®b­L B¢j a¡l h¡p¡u k¡Cz M¡Ju¡ c¡Ju¡l fl l¡a 9.30 f­l ®p Bj¡­L N¡¢m N¡m¡S öl¦ L­lz aMe a¡l ®j¡h¡Cm ®g¡­e Lm B­pz aMe ¢S‘¡p¡ L¢l, L¡l Lm H­p­Rz aMe ­p N¡m¡N¡¢m h¡s¡Cu¡ ®cuz aMe a¡l

p¡­b q¡a¡q¡¢a quz HL fkÑ¡­u ®p Bj¡l X¡e q¡­al Le¤C­ul ¢e­Q L¡js ®cuz

aMe ®S¡l L­l Bj¡l q¡a ®R¡V¡Cz Bh¡l ®p Bj¡l Aä­L¡­ol h£¢Q­a Q¡f ¢c­u

d­lz aMe B¢j ¢e­S hy¡Q¡l SeÉ a¡l Nm¡l e¢m­a HLq¡­a Q¡f ¢c­u d¢lz ®p

Bj¡l Aä­L¡­ol e£­Q e¡ R¡s¡u Bj¡l c¤C q¡a ¢c­u a¡l Nm¡l e¢m­a Q¡f ¢c­u

d¢lz ¢LR¤re d­l l¡M¡l fl ®c¢M ®p Bj¡l h£¢Q ®R­s ¢c­R a¡l q¡a elj q­u

®N­Rz aMe B¢j a¡l Nm¡ ®b­L Bj¡l q¡a (®Rs¡)z aMe ®p M¡­Y~l Jfl f­s k¡u

c¡s¡­e¡ AhÙÛ¡ ®b­Lz aMe ®c¢M a¡l nÄ¡p fËnÄ¡p Qm­Re¡z aMe B¢j ¢L Llh h¤T­a f¡l¢Rm¡j e¡z h¡µQ¡ c¤¢V aMe O¤j¡­u­R fË¡u 2 O¾V¡ d­l Q¥f L­l h­p b¡¢Lz a¡lfl ¢Q¿¹¡ L¢l m¡nV¡ HC i¡s¡ h¡p¡ ®b­L pl¡­a q­hz aMe B¢j ¢Q¿¹¡ L¢l HV¡­L ®L­V Y¥~L­l¡ L­l m¡­N­S L­l pl¡h Hhw a¡q~ L¢lz V¥L­l¡…­m¡ m¡­N­S Y¥L¡q~u¡ HL¢ce l¡¢Mz Hl j­dÉ HLV¡ h¡p¡ My¤­S i¡s¡ ¢eCz Na 20/01/14Cw l¡a 9.30/10 ¢c­L

ea¥e h¡p¡u k¡ha£u ¢S¢epfœ, m¡­nl m¡­NS ¢e­u B¢pz ®pM¡­eC I h¡p¡l

®m¡LSe p­¾cq L­l A¡j¡­L m¡n pq BVL L­lz B¢j a¡­cl L¡­RJ OVe¡ M¤­m h¢mz f­l f¤¢mn­L Mhl ¢c­m f¤¢mn Bj¡­L BVL L­lz”

(Emphasis added).

From  a  plain  reading  of  the  aforesaid  confession,  it

appears manifestly that the accused admitted that he killed his

wife by throttling and thereafter, cut her dead body into pieces

and  stuffed  those  into  bags.  Thereupon,  the  accused  rented

another house and shifted those bags along with other furniture

from his old rented house to the new abode, wherein the other

tenants of the house, on suspicion, detained him along with the

dead body to whom he disclosed all the facts, and thereafter, on information, police appeared at the spot and arrested him.

Thus, it appears that the manner of occurrence as well as

the place thereof including the method of his arrest as has been

disclosed by the accused in his confessional statement comes in agreement  with  that  of  the  prosecution  story  in  material particulars.  In  that  view of  the  matter,  the  confession  of  the

accused can be regarded as voluntary and inculpatory in nature.

From  a  combined  reading  of  the  evidence  of  P.W.4

including the confession of the accused, it transpires that the

relevant  Magistrate  undertook  genuine  effort  to  find  out  the

truthfulness and voluntary character of the confession and being satisfied about the same, he penned down the confession of the accused, and thereafter, it was read over to the accused who admitted the contents thereof to be true and a correct account of the  incident  by  putting  his  signature  thereto.  Eventually,  the accused  was  sent  to  Gazipur  Jail  Hajot.  The  accused,  as  it appears, did not try to nullify the voluntary as well as truthful character of his confession by making any retraction application even after coming out of the clutches of police.

From  the  aforesaid  discussions,  the  incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused may be catalogued as under: 

1. that  accused  Md.  Riajul  alias  Ranju  and  deceased victim Mst. China Begum are respectively husband and wife;
2. that it is also an admitted fact that at the material time accused Md. Riajul alias Ranju along with his deceased wife China Beghum and 2(two) minor daughters used to reside in a rented house of one Korban Miah wherein according to the confession of accused, he killed his wife by strangulation;

3. that after killing his wife accused Riajul alias Ranju cut the dead body of deceased victim China Begum into 6(six) pieces and stuffed those in bags, and thereafter, he took rent in a nearby building of one Jashim Uddin and shifted their along with those bag;
4. that the neighbouring tenants of the house of Jashim Uddin having smelt bad odour apprehended accused Md. Riajul alias Ranju out of suspicion and thereafter, it was revealed that the accused killed his wife and chopped her dead body into pieces;
5. that on information, police appeared at the P.O. flat and arrested  accused  Md.  Riajul  alias  Ranju  therefrom along with 6(six) cut pieces of his deceased wife China Begum which were kept in bags;
6. that  as  per  medico-legal  evidence,  the  death  of deceased  victim  China  Begum  was  caused  due  to asphyxia as a result of ligature strangulation which was ante-mortem and homicidal in nature, and thereafter, the cadaver of the deceased victim was cut into pieces;
7. that  accused  Md.  Riajul  alias  Ranju  by  making confession admitted his guilt in the killing incident of

his wife China Begum which was found to be true, voluntary and inculpatory in nature; and

8. that  accused  Ranju  went  into  hiding  after  getting enlarged on bail and he is still on the run.

All  these incriminating circumstances, in  our view,  are undoubtedly incompatible with the innocence of the condemned- accused. The circumstances of the instant case do form rosary and there is no missing link between one bead and another bead. The chain of circumstances appearing against the accused is so complete  that  it  does  not  leave  any  reasonable  doubt  for  a conclusion consistent with his innocence, and on the other hand, it only  points  out  that  within  all  human  probability  it  is  the accused-appellant who is responsible for the killing of his wife, China Begum.

Contention has been raised on behalf of the defence that there is no eye witness of the occurrence leading to the incident of  killing  of  deceased  victim  China  Begum  which  entertains doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case. It is true that in the instant case the prosecution did not adduce any eye witness leading to the incident of killing of victim China Begum. But, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, that alone will not create any dent in the prosecution story inasmuch as there is no hard and fast rule that a criminal case must fail in the absence of any direct evidence. In such circumstances the prosecution had no other option but to rely on circumstantial evidences including the  attending  and surrounding  facts  and circumstances of the case. It is often said that circumstantial evidence may be and frequently is more cogent than the evidence of eye witnesses inasmuch as it is not difficult to produce false evidence of eye witnesses,  whereas  it  is  extremely  difficult  to  produce circumstantial  evidence of a convincing  nature and therefore, circumstantial evidence, if convincing, is more cogent than the evidence of eye witnesses.

In  the  instant  case  at  our  hand,  it  is  found  from  the evidence and materials on record that the occurrence took place during the night time and that too inside the rented house of accused Md. Riajul alias Ranju while none was present there except  the  accused  and  victim  China  Begum  including  their 2(two) minor daughters and as such, it was not possible on the part of the prosecution to adduce any ocular evidence of the incident. Rather, from the confessional statement of accused Md. Riajul alias Ranju it is found that he himself killed his wife, China  Begum  by  strangulation  as  well  as  throttling  and thereafter, cut her dead body into 6(six) pieces and stuffed those in trolley and gunny bags with intent to conceal the evidence of crime. The time, place and manner of occurrence as has been disclosed by the accused in his confessional statement comes in agreement  with  the  prosecution  story  in  material  particulars. Moreover,  we  have  already  observed  that  the  confessional statement of accused Md. Riajul alias Ranju was found to be true,  voluntary  and  inculpatory  in  nature.  In  the  aforesaid premises,  the  argument  advanced  by  the  learned  defence Advocate appears to be wide of the mark.

Contention has further been pressed into service on behalf of the defence that some important witnesses were not examined in  the  case  which  creates  doubt  about  the  veracity  of  the prosecution  story.  But,  in  the  facts  and  circumstances  of the instant case, we cannot see eye to eye with the aforesaid view expressed by the learned State Defence Advocate inasmuch as section 134 of the Evidence Act postulates that no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact. If believed, conviction may be based on the evidence of a  single  witness  provided  that  it  is  full,  complete  and  self- contained. Furthermore, it is up to the prosecution to determine as to how many witnesses it will examine to prove its case.

In the instant case at our hand, we found from the evidence of P.W. Nos.6 & 7 that accused Md. Riajul alias Ranju was a tenant of one Jashim Uddin, who was arrested from the rented 2nd floor of that building along with 6(six) pieces dead body of his  wife  and  thereafter,  he  was  handed  over  to  the  police. Moreover, accused Md. Riajul alias Ranju admitted his guilt in the killing incident of his wife by making judicial confession which was found to be true, voluntary and inculpatory in nature. In such a posture of things; the argument put forward on this count by the learned State Defence Advocate falls to the ground.

Regard  being  had  to  the  aforesaid  discussions  and  the observations made thereunder, we are of the dispassionate view that the prosecution had been able to bring the charge to the door of the accused to a nicety and the learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly and correctly adjudged the guilt of the accused by the impugned judgment and order which does not warrant any interference by this Court.

Now, we can turn our eyes to the quantum of sentence awarded to the accused.

Accused Md. Riajul Islam alias Ranju brutally killed his young wife Chaina Begum (27), the mother of 2(two) minor female child, and thereafter, inhumanly cut her dead body into 6(six) pieces without showing any sympathy whatsoever. The accused  deprived  of  his  2(two)  infants  from  the  love  and affection of their mother. Even, the accused did not feel any twinge in his conscience while killing his wife as well as cutting her dead body into pieces. The accused shows utmost cruelty in committing the murder as well as cutting the dead body of his wife  into  pieces.  The  offence  committed  by  the  accused  is heinous as well as shocking in nature. Moreover, the accused absconded in the midst of trial of the case after getting enlarged of  bail.  Having  considered  the  aggravating  and  mitigating circumstances,  we  are  of  the  dispassionate  view  that  death penalty  would  be  the  only  appropriate  punishment  for  the ruthless husband for killing his wife, Chaina Begum.

Since accused Md. Riajul Islam alias Ranju was found guilty under Section 302 of the Penal Code and he was awarded death penalty thereunder, a separate sentence under section 201 of the Penal Code appears to be uncalled for and unreasonable

and as such, the sentence awarded to the accused under Section 201 of the Penal Code is liable to be set aside.

In the result, the death reference is accepted.

The sentence of death imposed upon accused Md. Riajul Islam alias Ranju is hereby confirmed.

The sentence of 3(three) years imprisonment along with fine with a default clause as has been imposed upon the accused under section 201 of the Penal Code is set aside.

The  impugned  judgment  and  order  of  conviction  and sentence is maintained with the aforesaid modification. 

Send  down  the  L.C.  record  along  with  a  copy  of  the judgment to the Court concerned at once. 

Md. Mostafizur Rahman, J.

I agree.