Present:

Mr. Justice Md. Shohrowardi

Criminal Revision No. 491 of 2009

Md. Rana Hamid

... Convict-petitioner

with

Criminal Revision No. 865 of 2009

Md. Al Amin

...Convict-petitioner -Versus-

The State

...Opposite party (In both criminal revisions) No one appears.  

...For the convict-petitioners

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

Mr. A. Monnan, A.A.G  

...For the State

Heard on 28.05.2024 and 30.05.2024

 Judgment delivered on 09.06.2024

On an application filed under Section 439 read with Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 Rule was issued calling upon the opposite party to show cause as to why the judgment and order dated 04.03.2009 passed by Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Chattogram in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2009 affirming those dated 13.11.2008 passed by the Court of Druta Bichar, Chattogram Metropolitan, Chattogram in Patenga Police Station Case No. 15(9)2008 corresponding G.R. No. 424 of 2008 convicting the petitioners under Section 4(1) of the    -                    (       )   ,     and sentencing them thereunder to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2(two) years and fine of Tk. 2000 each, in default, to suffer imprisonment for 2(two) months 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 on 26.09.2008 at about 8.05 pm the informant  P.W. 1 Md. Abul Kalam along with his cousin P.W.2 Sharmin Akter were returning from Patenga sea beach by rickshaw. When they reached in front of Madrasa gate of South Patenga  3/4  miscreants  with  arms  stopped  their  rickshaw  and snatched away mobile phone and Tk. 800 from his pocket. When the informant resisted the accused, he sustained a bleeding injury below his knee by the accused. The accused persons also snatched away one mobile phone and Tk. 2,500 kept in the vanity bag and tried to flee away by a CNG auto rickshaw. At that time, hearing the hue and cry of P.Ws. 1 and 2, the locals and the police detained three accused persons and the other two accused persons fled away. The accused persons disclosed their names as Rana Hamid, Al Amin and Mintu and a dagger was recovered from the place of occurrence.

P.W. 13 S.I Md. Arshed Ali Mondal took up the investigation of the case. During the investigation, he seized the alamat, recorded the statement of witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, visited the place of occurrence and prepared the sketch map and index. After completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer found the prima facie truth of the allegation made against the convict-petitioner and two others and submitted charge sheet against them under Section 4(1) of the    -                    (       )   ,    .

During the trial, charge was framed against the convict- petitioners under Section 4(1) of the   -                   (       )

  ,      which was read over and explained to them and they pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried following the law. The prosecution examined 13(thirteen) witnesses to prove the charge against the accused persons. After examination of the prosecution witnesses, the accused persons present in the Court were examined under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and they declined to adduce any D.W.

After concluding the trial, Druta Bichar Adalat, Chattogram Metropolitan, Chattogram by judgment and order dated 13.11.2008 convicted the petitioners under Section 4(1) of the   -            

      (       )   ,      and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2(two) years and fine of Tk. 2,000, in default, to suffer imprisonment for 2(two) months against which the convict- petitioners filed Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2009. The appeal was heard by Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Chattogram and the appellate Court below by impugned judgment and order affirmed the judgment and order passed by the trial Court against which the convict-petitioners obtained the instant Rules.

P.W. 1 Md. Abul Kalam is the informant. He stated that on 26.09.2008  at  about  8.05  pm  he  along  with  his  cousin  P.W.  2 Sharmin  Akter  were  returning  from  Patenga  Sea  Beach  by  a rickshaw. When they reached in front of the gate of Zainul Ulum Dakhil Madarasa, Patenga, 4/5 accused persons armed with daggers stopped their rickshaw and snatched away mobile phone and Tk. 800  from  him.  When  he  resisted,  the  accused  caused  bleeding injured on his knee. Other two accused persons pointing daggers at the throat of P.W. 2 Sharmin Akter snatched away her mobile phone and Tk. 2,500. The accused persons tried to flee away by a CNG Taxi. At that time, hearing hue and cry, the locals and the police came to the place of occurrence and detained  accused Rana, Al Amin  and  Mintu.  The  detained  accused  persons  disclosed  their names. He identified the accused persons in the dock. He proved the FIR as exhibit 1 and his signature as exhibit 1/1. He proved the steel-made dagger as material exhibit I. During cross-examination, he stated that the accused persons stopped their rickshaw on the road.  His  house  was  situated  on  the  south  side  of  the  river Karnophuly. He affirmed that there were shops at the place where from the accused persons were detained. He denied the suggestion that  he  misbehaved  with  his  cousin  and  the  accused  persons protested  against  his  behaviour  for  which  they  were  falsely implicated in the case. He affirmed that he took treatment from Doctor Harunur Rashid.

P.W. 2 Sharmin Akter stated that on 26.09.2008 at about 8.00 pm she along with P.W. 1 informant Md. Abul Kalam was returning from the beach, the occurrence took place on the road in front of the Patenga Zainul Madrasa. The accused person pointing a dagger snatched away his mobile and money from the informant and he was injured on his left leg. The accused persons also snatched away Tk. 2,500 and a mobile phone from her. Both of them raised hue and cry. Hearing hue and cry, the locals came to the place of occurrence, detained three accused persons and recovered a dagger. The  dagger  which  has  been  used  in  the  alleged  occurrence  is produced before the Court. She disclosed the names of the accused persons as Al Amin, Rana and Mintu. During cross-examination, she stated that she is a garment worker. At the time of occurrence, the locals were not present there. There was a silent environment. There  were  no  shops  adjacent  to  the  place  of  occurrence.  The accused persons were detained about 15/20 hands away from the place of occurrence. Within 10 minutes, the accused persons were detained. While they were trying to flee away by running, there was no light. There was no shop at the place where from the accused persons were detained. She denied the suggestion that no mobile and money were snatched away and that the informant was not injured. She  denied  the  suggestion  that  she  was  engaged  in  unsocial activities  with  the  informant  and  that  the  accused  persons  were falsely implicated in the case.

P.W. 3 Md. Elias stated that on 26.09.2008 at 8.15 pm the occurrence took place on the road situated in front of the Zainul Madrasa  gate.  He  along  with  Abdul  Nur  Soudagor  were  going through  the  place  of  occurrence  by  rickshaw  and  saw  that  two accused persons were sitting in the CNG and many locals assembled there. Two of them were detained for extortion. After that, the locals also detained another person. In their presence, the CNG was seized and he signed the seizure list. He proved the seizure list as exhibit 2 and his signature as exhibit 2/1. He stated that he did not witness the occurrence. He identified the accused Rana, Mintu and Al Amin in the  dock.  He  affirmed  that  initially  Mintu  and  Al  Amin  were detained and they were sitting in the CNG. Rana was detained from the locality. He denied the suggestion that he was falsely implicated in the case. 

P.W. 4 Abdul Nur stated that he was present along with Elias in a rickshaw. At that time, he was tendered. He signed the seizure list. The defence declined to cross-examine P.W. 4.

P.W. 5 Md. Alamgir stated that on 26.9.2008 at 8.00 pm the occurrence took place on VIP road situated in front of Madrasa. He along with 5/6 other friends were gossiping. A rickshaw puller told them that a dacoity was committed in the CNG. They detained the CNG. Two persons fled away and two other persons were detained. They  detained  Al  Amin  and  Mintu.  Subsequently,  Rana  was detained.  The  CNG  driver  said  that  forcibly  he  was  taken. Subsequently, police arrested the accused persons. A dagger was recovered. He denied the suggestion that no occurrence took place at the time and place of occurrence.

P.W. 6 Md. Iqbal stated that he along with Alamgir and other friends were gossiping. At that time, he was tendered. The defence declined to cross-examine P.W. 6.

P.W. 7 Md. Shah Jahan (Saju) stated that the occurrence took place on 26.09.2008 at 8.00 pm on VIP road situated in front of the gate of Zainul Ulum Madrasa. At that time, they were gossiping on the VIP road after iftar. At 8.00 pm a rickshaw puller told them that an extortion took place and the accused-persons tried to flee away by a rickshaw. Subsequently, they were handed over to the police. The police also seized the dagger. He proved the jimmanama dated 26.09.2008 as exhibit 3 and his signature as exhibit 3/1. The seized white steel-made dagger is produced before the Court. He identified the accused Rana and Mintu in Court. During cross-examination, he stated that the place of gossiping was situated 20 feet far from the place of occurrence. At that time, there was no electricity. He could not  say  the  name  of  the  rickshaw  puller  who  disclosed  the occurrence to him. Hearing about the occurrence from the rickshaw puller, they detained the CNG. He denied the suggestion that the rickshaw puller did not disclose the occurrence correctly. Within 8/10 minutes of detaining the accused persons, police came to the place of occurrence. He signed the seizure list but did not read the seizure list. He read up to class eight. He denied the suggestion that the accused persons were falsely implicated in the case.

P.W. 8 Ali Nur stated that he signed the seizure list. He proved the seizure list as exhibit 3/2. The defence declined to cross- examine P.W. 8.

P.W.  9  Mostafizur  Rahman  stated  that  on  26.09.2008  at 20.45 he signed the seizure list. He proved his signature as exhibit 3/3. The defence declined to cross-examine P.W. 9.

P.W. 10 Md. Shahedul Islam stated that on 26.09.2008 at 8.00 pm he received information through radio that the extortion took place at the VIP road and at that time, he reached the place of occurrence and saw that the locals detained three persons. At that time, he arrested them. The locals handed over a knife and said that the knife was recovered from the accused persons. He seized the dagger and prepared the seizure list. He along with the accused and alamat came to the Thana. He stated that he detained accused Rana, Mintu and Al Amin. Now they are present in Court. During cross- examination, he stated that he reached at the place of occurrence at 8.10/8.15 pm. He could not disclose the names of the persons who handed over the dagger and the accused persons to them. He denied the suggestion that the accused persons were falsely implicated in the case.

P.W. 11 Constable Md. Tanvir Ahammed was tendered by the prosecution and declined by the defence.

P.W. 12 Constable No. 4250 Saiful Islam was tendered by the prosecution and declined by the defence.

P.W. 13 Md. Arshed Ali Mondal is the Investigating Officer. He stated that on 26.09.2008 at 8.45 pm he arrested the accused Rana, Al Amin and Mintu from in front of the Zainul Madrasa gate who were detained by the people. He seized a dagger, prepared the seizure list and took the signatures of the locals. He proved the seizure list and his signature on the seizure list as exhibit 3/4. He along with the dagger brought three accused at Thana. The detained accused  persons  are  present  in  the  Court.  He  took  up  the investigation of the case on 26.09.2008 and visited the place of occurrence  twice,  recorded  the  statement  of  11  persons  under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. At 10.30 pm he seized the CNG No. A-11-4405 and took the signatures of the witnesses. He proved the seizure list and his signature as exhibit 2/3. He prepared the sketch map and index and signed the same. He proved the sketch map and index as exhibit 4 and his signature as exhibit  4/1.  During  the  investigation,  he  found  the  truth  of  the allegation against the accused persons and accordingly, he submitted charge sheet against them. During cross-examination, he stated that the FIR was lodged at 10.15 pm. Two seizure lists were prepared at the place of occurrence. The CNG was seized at 22.30 pm. He could not  remember  whether  the  detained  accused  persons  and  the informant were taken to Thana by rickshaw of Monir. Subsequently, he stated that the CNG was taken by the informant to Thana which was subsequently taken to the place of occurrence and seized. The place of occurrence is situated about 8 kilometres away from Thana. He denied the suggestion that the accused Al Amin was falsely implicated in the case. He denied the suggestion that the seizure list was not read over to the witnesses. He denied the suggestion that the accused persons were falsely implicated in the case. He took up investigation of the case on 26.09.2008 at 8.15 pm. On 27.09.2008 at 10.00 am, he visited the place of occurrence as  Investigating Officer  and  recorded  the  statement  of  witnesses  after  10.40.  He forwarded  the  accused  persons  on  27.09.2008.  He  recorded  the statement of the informant and the victim under Section 161 of the Code  of  Criminal  Procedure,  1898.  The  place  of  occurrence  is situated  200  yards  away  from  the  Madrasa.  The  dagger  was recovered from the place of occurrence. He denied the suggestion that no occurrence took place as stated by him.

No one appears on behalf of the convict petitioners. 

Learned Deputy Attorney General Mr. S.M. Golam Mostofa Tara appearing on behalf of the State along with learned Assistant Attorney General Mr. A. Monnan submits that P.Ws. 1 and 2 are the victims and they were returning from the Patenga Sea Beach and the accused persons snatched away one mobile phone and Tk. 800 from P.W. 1 and Tk. 2,500 and mobile phone from P.W. 2. P.Ws. 3, 5, 7, 10 and 13 corroborated the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2. He further submits  that  the  convict  petitioners  were  detained  by  the  locals along  with  the  dagger  used  for  committing  the  offence  and  the prosecution  proved  the  charge  against  the  accused  persons  by adducing direct witnesses beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, he prayed for discharging the Rules.

I  have  considered  the  submission  of  the  learned  Deputy Attorney General Mr. S.M. Golam Mostofa Tara who appeared on behalf of the State, perused the evidence, impugned judgments and orders passed by the Courts below and the records.

On perusal of the records, it appears that P.W. 1 Md. Abul Kalam and P.W. 2 Sharmin Akter are the victims of the occurrence. P.W. 1 Md. Abul Kalam stated that on 26.09.2008 at 8.05 pm he was returning from the Pagenga sea beach along with his cousin P.W.  2  Sharmin  Akter  and  when  they  reached  the  place  of occurrence situated in front of the gate of the Zainul Ulum Dakhil Madrasa,  Patenga,  4/5  persons  pointing  dagger  stopped  their

rickshaw. They snatched away one mobile phone and Tk. 800 from him  and  caused  bleeding  injury  below  his  knee  and  other  two accused persons pointing a dagger at the throat of P.W. 2 Sharmin Akter snatched away mobile phone and Tk. 2500 from her and the accused-persons fled away. Hearing their hue and cry, the locals and the members of the police came to the place of occurrence and detained accused Rana, Al Amin and Mintu and they disclosed their name.  He  claimed  that  the  accused-persons  were  detained  along with the dagger. The evidence of P.W. 1 is corroborated by P.W. 2 who is also a direct witness of the occurrence. The evidence of P.W. 1  is  also  corroborated  by  P.Ws.  3,  5,  7,  10  and  13.  By  cross- examining the prosecution witnesses, the defence could not bring any contradiction in the evidence of those witnesses. The dagger used at the time of occurrence for committing the offence was also proved as material exhibit I.

Because of the above facts and circumstances of the case, evidence, findings and discussion made hereinabove, I am of the view that the prosecution proved the charge to the hilt against the convict-petitioners beyond all reasonable doubt and both the Courts below on proper assessment and evaluation of the evidence legally passed  the  impugned  judgments  and  orders  convicting  the petitioners.

There is no merit in the Rules.

In the result, the Rules are discharged.

The trial Court is directed to do the needful. 

Send down the lower Court’s records at once.