IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 6821 OF 2009

IN THE MATTER OF: Md. Majedur Rahman

..... Appellant -Versus-

The State and another

........... Respondents

Mr. Md. Aminul Hoque with

Mr. Abdullah-Al-Mahmud Chowdhury  Mr. A. F. M. Saiful Karim

... For the appellant Mr. Md. Aminur Rahman Chowdhury Mrs. Monzu Naznin, A.A.G. 

... For the respondent No. 1 Mr. Mominuddin

... For the respondent No. 1

Heard on 01.06.2011, 05.06.2011 Judgment on 06 June 2011

Present:

Mr. Justice Shahidul Islam

1. This appeal has been preferred by convict appellant Md. Majedur Rahman, son of Mojir Uddin Ahmed of village-Dakkhin Nashratpur, Police Station-

Chirirbandar, District-Dinajpur against the judgment and order dated 14.10.2009 passed by the Nari-O- Shishu Nirjatan Daman Tribunal, Dinajpur in Nari-O- Shishu Case No. 276 of 2006 finding the accused appellant guilty punishable under section 10 of the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000 and convicting him thereunder to serve a sentence of 3 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Tk.5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months more.

2. The prosecution case, in short, was that the PW1 Selina Akter, Office Assistant of Ghontaghar Adarsha Girls School, Chirirbandar, Dinajpur lodged an FIR on 22.4.2006 at 16.30 hours with the Chirirbandar Police Station contending, inter alia, that she is serving as Office Assistant of that school

and the accused appellant is the Headmaster of that school. She has been serving since 3 years last. The accused appellant used to offer her to witness blue film and illicit proposal often and on. She disclosed the fact to the religious teacher of the school who instructed her not to disclose the matter to any body and also assured her that he would take initiative just to have a talk with the headmaster. Thereafter the accused appellant abstained from making any proposal for 2-3 weeks. Again he started proposing as before and on 6.4.2006 at about 10.30 am she attended the Chamber of Headmaster (accused appellant) and she was given sexual offer and at one stage the accused caught hold her by the hands. She raised cry and hearing cry Aya Shamsun Nahar entered into the room and saw the occurrence. She went outside the office and disclosed the matter to her husband at her home. Her husband instructed her to inform the matter to the school committee. On 9.4.2006 at 10.00 am she (informant) was sitting in the office room and was taking preparation for writing a complaint against the accused and at that time the accused again gave her an illicit offer and further requested her not to disclose the occurrence dated 6.4.2006 to others. There took place an altercation between the informant and the accused appellant and she raised hue and cry. On that day she submitted a complaint to the Managing Committee of the school. The Managing Committee took up investigation and took punitive action against the accused appellant, suspended him from service and instructed her to lodge an FIR with the Police Station.

3. The case was investigated by Sub-Inspector Siddiqur Rahman PW14 who submitted charge sheet against the accused appellant under section 10 of the Nari-O- Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2003.
4. That case was transmitted to the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Tribunal, Dinajpur and was registered as Nari-O-Shishu Case No. 276 of 2006.
5. The accused appellant was granted bail and he faced trial. The Tribunal framed charge against the accused appellant under section 10 of the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000. The charge was read over

to the accused appellant who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The prosecution examined 13 PWs and PW9 was tendered for cross-examination.
7. The prosecution evidence was closed. The accused appellant was examined under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he claimed himself to be innocent and refused to adduce any defence witness.
8. The Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Tribunal after considering the evidence on record found the accused appellant guilty punishable under section 10 of the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000 and convicted him thereunder to serve out a sentence of 3 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Tk.5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months more by the judgment and order dated 14.10.2009.

9. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction the accused appellant has preferred the instant appeal.
10. Mr. Md. Aminul Hoque with Mr. Abdullah-Al- Mahmud Chowdhury and Mr. A. F. M. Saiful Karim, the learned Advocates appeared for the accused appellant.
11. Mr. Md. Aminur Rahman Chowdhury, the learned Attorney General with Mrs. Monzu Naznin, the learned Assistant Attorney General appeared for the respondent.
12. The learned Advocate for the appellant taking me through the impugned judgment, FIR, evidence on record both oral and documentary submitted that the prosecution hopelessly failed to prove the case as against the accused appellant punishable under section 10 of the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2002. He further submitted that the prosecution witness No. 1, 2 and 3 are all inter related and interested witnesses and the PW13 is the husband of the informant. He further submitted that, admittedly a case was filed by the accused appellant against the informant, PW2, PW3, PW11 and others under section 143/447/342/ 323/307/385/386/506 part-I of the Penal Code prior to the filing of the instant case and as such their evidence are not enough to hold that the accused appellant is guilty of  the offence for which he has been charged. He submitted that the said case was being No. 6 dated 13.4.1986 of the Chirirbandar Police Station but the instant case was

till 9.4.2006 and would not have waited till 22.6.2006

for lodging FIR. He further submitted that as per the

FIR she sent the written FIR through her husband to

the Police Station but a typed FIR was produced

before the Court at the trail. He further submitted that

the exhibit-3 is an extra judicial confessional

statement made by the accused appellant which is not admissible in evidence as per law. The said written extrajudicial statement was not seized by the police

during investigation and as such no reliance could be

placed upon the said exhibit-3. Mr. Huq referred to

the case of State v- Mozammel and others, 9 BLC

163 and submitted that an extra judicial confession is

very week type of evidence for convicting an accused

unless by actual word of the accused persons making

statement is brought on record and such a                

case finds reliance corroboration. There is no corroboration as required by law and the case as made out is doubtful. He further submitted that the husband of informant PW13 was serving in shop of accused appellant and was dismissed and as such the PW3 is an inimical witness with the accused appellant. He further submitted that PW9 was an important witness but no evidence was taken from him. Had he been examined he would not have supported the prosecution case. He further submitted that out of 16 charge sheeted witness 2 (two) have been withhold. Had they been examined they would not have supported the prosecution case. He submitted that the Tribunal without discussing the prosecution evidence independently and without considering the vital evidence has awarded a moral punishment as against the accused appellant. He prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment and order prayed for and acquittal of the accused appellant.

13.            Mr. Md. Aminur Rahman Chowdhury, the learned Assistant Attorney General on the other hand submitted that the occurrence took place in broad day light in the office of the accused appellant who is the Headmaster of the Ghantaghar Adarsha Girls School and the victim Selina an the Office Assistant of the said School. He submitted that witness Shamsun Nahar came to the place of occurrence, saw the occurrence and deposed before the Court, supported the prosecution case and the informant is a lady who brought the case against the accused appellant who is the Headmaster of the school. The prosecution cae as

narrated in the FIR and the case made out from the lips of PWs proved it beyond boubt that the accused appellant committed an offence punishable under section 10 of the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2002. He submitted that the Tribunal after considering the evidence on record has rightly and lawfully found the accused appellant guilty of the offence punishable under section 10 of the Nari-O- Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000. The learned Assistant Attorney General referred to the decision in the case of Rokeya v- State, 5 BLC (AD) 86 and submitted that sole evidence of one eyewitness is enough for awarding conviction. He submitted that PW3 s evidence is very much vital evidence for upholding conviction. With these submissions he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

14. The FIR has been marked as exhibit-1. It is mentioned in the FIR that the occurrence took place from 6.4.2006 to 9.4.2006 continuously. The case as made out in the FIR was that the accused appellant being the Headmaster of the school used to offer immoral sexual offer to the informant who is the Office Assistant of the school and on 6.4.2006 at

10.30 A.M the accused appellant gave an offer to the informant PW1 for an immoral sexual offer and also caught hold her by the hands. She with a view to escape her from the hands of accused appellant raised hue and cry and Aya Shamsun Nahar being on duty entered into the office of headmaster and saw the occurrence. The informant went outside the office and kept the matter concealed but disclosed to her husband. Her husband instructed her to inform the fact to the President of the Managing Committee. Thereafter the second occurrence took place on 09.4.2006 at about 10.00 am while she was taking an attempt to write a complaint sitting in her chair and at that time the accused appellant again offered her for the second time an immoral offer and also requested her not to disclose the occurrence took place dated 06.4.2006. She raised cry, Shamsun Nahar and other teachers hearing her cry came to the office of the Headmaster and came to know about the occurrence. She made a complaint to the President of the Managing Committee on 9.4.2006 and thereafter the Managing Committee took a resolution and dismissed the accused appellant temporarily and also issued a show cause notice on him as to why he

should not be dismissed from service. Thereafter she

lodged the FIR.

15. To prove the prosecution the prosecution examined

the informant as PW1 who adduced evidence. In her examination-in-chief She supported the FIR case and

the FIR was marked as exhibit-1 and her signature

was marked as exhibit-1/1. During cross-examination

she admitted the following:-

OVe¡l 16 ¢ce fl HS¡q¡l L¢lu¡¢Rz HS¡q¡l Bj¡l q¡ al ¢mM¡z

HS¡q¡l ØL¥ m h¢pu¡ ¢m¢Mz 9/4/06Cw HS¡q¡l ¢m¢Mz B¢j ¢e S b¡e¡u k¡Cu¡ HS¡q¡l ¢cu¡¢Rz HS¡q¡l f l ¢cu¡¢Rz 22/4/06Cw b¡e¡u k¡Cu¡ HS¡q¡l ®cCz Bj¡ cl ØL¥ m ¢h¢ôw 6 L¡jl¡ ¢h¢nÖV f§hÑ-f¢ÕQ j mð¡z ØL¥ ml c¢rZ¢cL ¢cu¡ HL¢V V¡e¡ h¡l¡¾c¡ B Rz ØL¥ ml phÑ f¢ÕQ jl Lr¢V ®qXj¡ÖV¡ ll A¢gpz  nWgvóv !ii i g

nB !Z w¶bw !Ki K¶ ¸wj h_vµ !g 10g kªYx nB !Z 6ô kÖYx ch©a

kÖYxK¶| nWgvóv !ii i g ! Kw¤úDUvi Av !Q Ges GKRb

Kw¤úDUvi wk¶ K Av !Q| Kw¤úDUvi  nWgvóv !ii i g ! ewmqv Kw¤úDUvi KvR cwiPvjbv K !i| ¯Kz !j Avgvi Rb¨ Avjv v  Kvb i g

bvB| Avwg  nWgvóv !ii i g ! ewmqv KvR Kwi| Avgv ! i ¯Kz !j c ªvq 200/250 QvÎx Av !Q| 9.30 wgwb !Ui ci nB !Z QvÎxiv ¯Kz !j Avmv

ïi K !i Ges 10.00 Uvi c~ !e©B  nWgvóv !ii AwdmK¶ msjMSgv !V

RvZxq msMxZ  k !l wc,wU nq 10/15 wgwbU| Zvici QvÎxiv hvi hvi KSv !m hvq| 10.30 wgwb !U Kèvm ïi nq| Avgi m¦vgxi evox ¯Kzj

nB !Z 150/200 MR c~e© w¶b  Kv !b| Avwg GB ¯Kz !j PvKzixi

c~ !e© ivbxi e : !i eªvK Awd !m PvKzix KwiZvg|  mB mgq Avgvi m¦vgx N :UvNo ¯Kz !j Awdm mnKvix wnmv !e PvKzix KwiZ| mZ¨ b !n

h eªvK Awdm nB !Z Avgv !K PvKzixPy¨Z Kwiqv !Q| N :UvNo ¯Kz !ji

mn mfvcwZ Avãyj Mvdzi Avgvi Avcb k¦ïo| ¯Kz !ji mfvcwZ AvwRRyj Ges Zvi fvB !qi bvg nvwjg| nvwj !gi  g !q AvjKvi

mwnZ Avgvi   ei yjyi weevn nBqv !Q| Avgvi m¦vgx PvKzix Qvwoqv w !j Avwg H c ! XywK| Avgvi  ev !bi bvg bvwQgv| NUbvi mgq bvwQgv Gg, G, cvk Kwiqv evox !Z  eKvi ewmqvwQwj|  gvKÏgvi

Z a Kv !j AvB, I Gi mwnZ Avgvi   Lv nBqvQ| Avwg AvB, I  K

KvMRcΠ  B bvB| 6/4/06 Bs Zvwi !Li NUbv H w !bB Avwg Avqv mvgmyb bvnvi I ßwi dRjy !K ewjqvwQ Ges evox !ZI ewjqvwQ|

6/4/06 Bs Zvwi !Li c~ !e© Avmvgxi KzcÖ¯Zve w evi K_v wk¶K Rvwneyj !K ewjqvwQ| K !e ewjqvwQ Rvwneyj !K g !b bvB| NUbvi mgq

Avwg  eviLv cov wQjvg| Avmvgx Avgv !K RovBqv awiqvwQj|

Avmvgxi mv !_ ûovûwo nBqvwQj| Avmvgxi 2wU ma vb eo  Q !j beg

kÖYx !Z c !o|  QvU  Q !ji eqm 5ÐÐÐÐ ermi| Avmvgxi mv !_ Avgvi

i !³ i m¤cK© bvB| Avgvi v vi bvg  M : vB kvn| Avmvgxi v vi

bvg evei| evei I  M : vB Avcb PvPvÐ fvwZRv wK bv Rvwb bv| mZ¨ b !n  h Avmvgx Avgvi i !³ i PvPv| Avgvi evevi evox I Avmvgxi

evevi evox GKB cvovq| Avgvi PvPvi bvg BqvKze| Avgvi PvPx

dwÝqviv Avmvgxi  evb| evev  dÝx !K fvjevwmqv weevn Kwiqv !Q|

evev  dwÝqviv !K weevn Kwievi Rb¨ Avmvgxi evev bwRi ev x nBqv Avgvi PvPv BqvKze, evev Av°vm, PvPv Avwgi, beve Gi wei × !

Acni !bi gvgjv KwiqvwQj|  gvKÏgvq PvPv nvR !Z wQj|

dwÝqvivi evev weevn gvwbqv  bq bvB| mZ¨ b !n  h, Avwg Awdm nB !Z hLb ZLb evmvq hvBZvg| mZ¨ b !n  h GB wbqv Avmvgx Avgv !K A !bKevi mveavb KwiqvwQj| 9/4/06 Bs Awdm mgq evmvq hvB bvB| mZ¨ b !n  h, 9/4/06 Bs Avwg Awdm nB !Z evmvq wMqvwQjvg Ges Avgvi Dci ivMvivwM K !i| 9/4/06 Bs m¨v !Ûj

w qv Avwg mvmvgx !K gvwi| mZ¨ b !n  h Avmvgx Avgvi Dci ivM Kwi !j Avwg Zv !K m¨v !Ûj w qv gvwi| Avmvgx Avgvi m¦vgx I Avgv ! i  wei × !GKwU  gvKÏgv KwiqvwQj| Avmvgxi  g !q gygy NUbvi mgq N :UvNo ¯Kz !j 7g  kÖYx !Z cwoZ| 6/4/06 Bs Zvwi !Li

ci Avwg wbqwgZ Awdm KwiqvwQ| mZ¨ b !n  h, Avmvgx !K ¯Kzj

nB !Z ev  w evi  Rb¨ Avgv ! i mn !hvwMZvq Avwg AÎ gvgjv KwiqvwQ| mZ¨ b !n  h, Avgvi  evb !K H ¯Kz !j XyKvBevi Rb¨ Ges Avmvgx !K ev w evi Rb¨ wg_¨vfv !e gvgjv KwiqvwQ| mZ¨ b !n  h, GRvnv !i ewY©Z NUbv N !U bvB| mZ¨ b !n  h Avmvgxi  gvKÏgv wg_¨v| mZ¨ b !n  h, wg_¨ mv¶x w jvg|

16. The book binder of the school named Fazlul Haque

was examined as PW2 who in his examination-in-

chief added the following evidence:-

 6/4/06Cw OVe¡l a¡¢lMz I ¢ce ØL¥ ml L r fË¢ahå£ cl ¢j¢Vw Q¢m a¢Qj| mKvj 10.30 wgwb !U Avmvgx Avgv !K evw bx !K Zvi

K !¶ WvwKqv Avwb !Z e !j| Avwg evw bx !K WvwKqv Avwb| Avgvi mv !_ Avqv mvgmyb bvnvi Av !m| evw bx Avmvgxi i g ! XywK !j Avwg Pwjqv hvB I iRvq Avqv mvgmyb bvnvi _v !K| wgwXs  k !l Avmvgxi

K !¶i mvg !b hvB Ges   wL  h evw bx Kv !Z Kv !Z Avmvgxi i g

nB !Z evwni nBqv Avwm !Z !Q| evw bx Avgv !K e !j  h, Avmvgx Avgv !K al© !bi D !Ï !k¨ RovBqv awiqvwQj| evw bx Av !iv e !j  h Avmvgx A !bK c~e© nB !Z Avgv !K Lvivc cÖ¯ ve w qv AvwmZ| evw bx gb Lvivc Kwiqv evox Pwjqv hvq| 9/4/06 Bs evw bx ¯Kz !j Av !m

I Avmvgxi i g ! Xy !K| cÖavb wk¶K i g ! wQj| Avwg eviv : vq wQjvg| wKQy¶b ci evw bx wPrKvi   q| wPrKvi ïwbqv ¯Kz !ji

Kg©Pvix wk¶Kiv NUbv¯n !j Av !m Ges evw bxi wbKU NUbv ïwb|

evw bx NUbv g¨v !bwRs KwgwU !K e !j| a¡lfl Bp¡j£ L p¡j¢uL

hlM¡Ù¹ Ll¡ quz

17. During cross-examination PW2 added the following evidence:-

 B¢j 12 hvpl qC a ØL¥ m Q¡L¥l£ L¢lz fË¢aÖW¡ mNÀ qC a Bp¡j£ ØL¥ ml  ®qXj¡ÖV¡lz h¡¢ce£ 6/4/06Cw a¡¢l M ¢QvL¡l L l e¡Cz

B¢j c¡ l¡N¡l ¢eLV Sh¡eh¢¾c ¢cu¡¢Rz B¢j h¡¢ce£ L qX j¡ÖV¡ ll l¦j qC a L¡¢c a L¡¢c a h¡¢ql qCu¡ B¢p a c¢Mu¡¢R HC Lb¡ c¡ l¡N¡ L h¢mu¡¢R ¢Le¡ j e e¡Cz OVe¡l ¢ce Bu¡ Bp¡j£l l¦ jl

clS¡u ¢Rm HC Lb¡ c¡ l¡N¡ L h¢mu¡¢R ¢Le¡ j e e¡Cz 6/4/06Cw

a¡¢l Ml OVe¡ ¢ho u h¡¢ce£ Bj¡ L h¢mu¡¢Rmz EJ² OVe¡ c¡ l¡N¡ L h¢mu¡¢R ¢L e¡ j e e¡Cz h¡¢ce£ A¡j¡ L h m ®k, Bp¡j£ A eL ¢ce

d¢lu¡ a¡ L M¡l¡f fËÙ¹¡h ¢cu¡ B¢p a¢Rmz Ef l¡J² Lb¡ c¡ l¡N¡ L h¢mu¡¢R ¢Le¡ j e e¡Cz 9/4/06Cw h¡¢ce£ Bp¡j£l l¦ j ¢Nu¡¢Rm GB

K_v v !ivMv !K ewjqvwQ wKbv g !b bvB| 9/4/06 Bs evw bx Avgv !K

e !j  h, Avmvgx Zv !K wKQyw b c~e© nB !Z Lvivc cÖ¯ ve w qv

Avwm !ZwQj| NUbvi ci evw bx D³ K_v e !j| NUbvi mgq Avmvgxi

i g ! Avmvgx Qvov Ab¨  Kn wQj bv| Avmvgx GKwU gvgjv Kwiqv !Q Ges  mB gvgjvq Avwg Avmvgx AvwQ| Kw¤cDUvi wk¶K me mgq Avmvgxi i g ! _v !K bv| KvR _vK !j Kw¤cDUvi wk¶K Avmvgxi

i g ! Xy !K| 6/4/06 Bs NUbvi ci evw bx !K hLb eviv : vq   wL

ZLb Zvi Mv !q  eviLv cov wQj|

18. Aya Shamsun Nahar PW3 who added the following evidence in her examination-in-chief:-

 OVe¡l a¡¢lM 6/4/06Cwz pju Ae¤j¡e plaintiff¡m 10.30

¢jxz H w b Avgv ! i ¯Kz !j 6ô  kÖYxi K vmi g ! cÖwZeÜx ! i wbqv GKwU wgwUs PjwQj mKvj 10.30 wgwb !Ui w !K| wgwUs !q wfKwUg

mwjbv I Avwgmn A !b !K wQj| cÖavb wk¶K Zvi i g ! wQj Ges wcqb dRjyj n !Ki gva¨ !g wZwb wfKwUg !K Zvi i g ! wbqv hvb| wfKwU !gi wcQ !b wcQ !b Avwg Avwm| wfKwUg Avgv !K e !j  h,

QvÎx ! i nvwRiv LvZv Kgb i g nB !Z wbqv Avm| Avwg nvwRivLvZv wbqv Avmvgxi i g ! XyKvi c~ !e© wfKwU !gi wPrKvi ïwb| wPrKvi ïwbqv Av !iv ZvovZvwo XywKqv   wL  Avmvgx wfKwUg !K RovBqv awiqv UvbvUvwb Kwi !Z !Q Ges Avgv !K   wLqv Qvwoqv   q| wfKwUg  mwjbv Kuvw !Z Kuvw !Z Avmvgxi i g nB !Z evwni nBqv evox Pwjqv hvq| cieZ©x !Z 9/4/06Bs Avwg ¯Kz !j Avwm| wfKwUg  mwjbv H w b ¯Kz !j Av !m| wfKwUg  nWgvóv !ii i g ! g¨v !bwRs KwgwUi eivei NUbvi wel !q iLv¯ wjL !Z e !m|  nWgvóvi e !j  h, jLvi iKvi

bvB Ges wfKwUg wjL !Z Pvq| HC ¢eu¡ a¡ cl j dÉ h¡L ¢haä¡ qu

z pLm p¡r£l¡ l¦ j B p J OVe¡ ö ez

19. In cross-examination she added the following evidence:-

 A¡p¡j£l l¦j qC a ¢nrL cl l¦j 20 q¡a c¤ l ¢nrL cl q¡¢Sl¡ M¡a¡ B¢e a ¢Nu¡¢Rm¡jz EJ² pju 8/10 Se ¢nrL ¢Rmz j¡dh, ¢jS¤p, afe, a¥o¡lpq B l¡ 4/5 Se ¢nrL-¢nrLl¦ j Ef¢Øqa ¢Rmz B¢j ph LÓ¡ pl R¡S£ cl q¡¢Sl¡ M¡a¡ ¢cu¡ B¢pz ¢iL¢V~j L Bp¡j£ kMe Ss¡Cu¡ d¢lu¡ V¡e¡V¡¢e L l aMe ¢iL¢V jl fs el L¡fs ®Q¡fs ¢WL ¢Rmz ¢iL¢V jl fs e ®h¡lM¡ ¢Rmz h¡¢ce£

L¡¢c a L¡¢c a Bp¡j£l l¦j qC a Q¢mu¡ k¡Ch¡l fl Bp¡j£l l¦ j

Bl ®Lq B p e¡Cz ¢iL¢Vj L¡NS ¢eu¡¢Rm ¢L¿º clM¡Ù¹ ¢m M e¡Cz 

9/4/06 Cw a¡¢l Ml OVe¡i c !iI  Kn Avmvgxi i g ! Av !m bvB|

m¦vgxi bvg iwk | N :UvNo evRv !i Avmvgxi mv !ii   vKvb wQj| m¦vgx

Avmvgxi   vKv !b 9/10 ermi KvR Kwiqv !Q| mZ¨ b !n  h, m¦vgx

mv !ii   vKv !bi UvKv AvZ¥mvr KwiqvwQ| NUbvi 4/5 ermi c~e© nB !Z m¦vgx Avmvgxi mv !ii   vKv !b Avi KvR K !i bv| 2003 mv !j

Avmvgx Avgv ! i evox !Z 30 gb imyb µq Kwiqv ivwLqvwQj| mZ¨

b !n  h Avgvi m¦vgx 12 gb imyb AvZ¥mvr KwiqvwQ| mZ¨ b !n  h, Avgvi m¦vgxi mv !_ Avmvgxi we !iva wQj| Avmvgx GB NUbv !K  K : ª

Kwiqv  d`R vix gvgjv Kwiqv !Q Ges Avwg Avmvgx AvwQ| Avwg

 v !ivMvi wbKU mv¶x w qvwQ mZ¨ b !n  h, v !ivMvi wbKU NUbv ewj

bvB| 6/4/06, 9/4/06 Cw a¡¢l Ml OVe¡ ¢ho u L¢j¢Vl ¢eLV ¢LR¤ h¢m e¡Cz

20. Night Guard of the School named Hasimuddin was

examined as PW4 who added the following evidence

in his examination-in-chief:-

 6/4/06Cw ØL¥ m ¢j¢Vw qC a ¢Rmz B¢j ®N Vl h¡¢q l ¢Rm¡jz ¢j¢Vw Qm¡L¡ m cçl£ gSm¤m qL A¢gp pqL¡l£  ®p¢me¡ L X¡¢Lu¡ ®qXj¡ÖV¡ ll l¦ j ¢eu¡ k¡uz  ®qXj¡ÖV¡l  ®p¢me¡ L X¡¢Lu¡¢Rmz ®p¢me¡l p¡ b Bu¡ ¢Rmz A¢g p ¢QvL¡l ö¢eu¡ ®pM¡ e k¡Cz

®p¢me¡l ¢QvL¡l ö¢eu¡ ®qXj¡ÖV¡l ll l¦ j k¡Cz Bu¡ p¡jp¤ee¡q¡l

Bj¡ L h m ®k, ®qXj¡ÖV¡l p¡ qh ®p¢me¡ L Ss¡Cu¡ d¢lu¡¢Rmz ®p¢me¡ h¡p¡u Q¢mu¡ k¡uz 9/4/06Cw pL¡m 10.30 ¢j¢e V ØL¥ m

HÉ¡ pj h¢m Q¢m a¢Rmz ®qXj¡ÖV¡ ll l¦ j ¢QvL¡l ö¢eu¡ pM¡ e

k¡Cz ®p¢me¡ L ¢S ¡p¡ L¢l m p h m ®k, Bp¡j£ a¡ L Ss¡Cu¡ d¢lu¡¢Rm Bl ¢LR¤ S¡¢e e¡z

21. PW4 in his cross-examination added the following

evidence:-

 6/4/06Cw ¢QvL¡l ö¢eu¡ Bj¡l j a¡ Bl LE B p e¡Cz 6/4/06

J 9/4/06Cw c¤C¢c eC cç¢l gSm¤ J Bu¡ p¡jp¤ee¡q¡l R¡s¡ AeÉ L¡E L c¢M e¡Cz 6/4/06Cw B¢j OVe¡Øq m k¡Ch¡l fl AeÉ ®Lq OVe¡Øq m B p e¡Cz 9/4/06Cw B¢j OVe¡Øq m k¡Ch¡l fl q¡¢mj,

®qe¡, ¢fk¤n OVe¡Øq m B pz 9/4/06Cw h¡¢ce£ L  ®h¡lM¡ fs¡ AhØq¡u ®c¢Mz ------9/4/06Cw pL¡m 10.30 ¢j¢e V HÉ¡ pj h¢m

¢j¢Vw Qm¡L¡ m ¢QvL¡l ö¢eu¡  ®qX j¡ÖV¡ ll l¦ j k¡C HC Lb¡ BC.J. Hl ¢eLV h¢m e¡Cz HÉ¡ pj h¢m ®qX j¡ÖV¡ ll l¦ jl 10/15

q¡a c¤ l quz HÉ¡ pj h¢m ¢fk¤n Q¡m¡ a¢Rmz HÉ¡ pj h¢m a 200

R¡S¢Rmz HÉ¡ pj h¢m qC a ¢nrLl¡ B pz

22. PW5, Halim was the headmaster-in-charge on the

date of examination-in-chief in Court and he was examined as PW5 who added the following evidence

in his examination-in-chief:-

 9/4/06Cw OVe¡l a¡¢lMz I ¢ce ØL¥ ml HÉ¡ pj hm Q¢m a¢Rmz

pL¡m 10.00 V¡l ¢c L ®qXj¡ÖV¡l l¦ j ¢QvL¡l ö¢eu¡ a¡l l¦ jl

h¡l¡¾c¡u k¡Cz k¡Cu¡ ®c¢M ®p¢me¡ L¡c¡L¡¢V L¢l a R Hhw ®p fËd¡e ¢nrL L N¡m¡N¡¢m L¢l a Rz ®p¢me¡ L ¢S ¡p¡ L¢l m ®p

h m k 6/4/06Cw Bp¡j£ a¡ L L¥fËÙ¹¡h ®cu J S¡fV¡Cu d lz Hhw BS LJ Bp¡j£ a¡ L S¡fV¡Cu¡ d¢lu¡ Rz ®p¢me¡ ¢hou¢V jÉ¡ e¢Sw L¢j¢V L S¡e¡uz

23. He proved the seizure list and his signature in the

said seizure  list were  marked as exhibit-2 and 2/1 respectively. During cross-examination he added that

he heard the occurrence dated 06.4.2006 on 09.4.2006 for the first time by adducing the following evidence:-

 9/4/06Cw ¢QvL¡l ö¢eh¡l f§ hÑ B¢j pqL¡l£ ¢nr Ll l¦ j ¢Rm¡jz ----6/4/06Cw a¡¢l Ml OVe¡ 9/4/06Cw B¢j fËbj ö¢ez

24. One Assistant Teacher named Minati Bala was examined as PW6 who added the following evidence

in his examination-in-chief:-

 9/4/06Cw pL¡m 10.15 ¢j¢e Vl pju ú¥ m ¢f.¢V. Q¢m a¢Rmz I pju Bjl¡ h¡l¡¾c¡u ¢Rm¡jz ®qXj¡ÖV¡ ll A¢g p aMe ®n¡l N¡m ö¢ez Bjl¡ A¢g p k¡Cu¡ ! wL  mwjbv  nWgvóvi !K MvjvMvwj cvwi !Z !Q| evw bxi wbKU ïwb  h, Avmvgx Zv !K KzcÖ¯ ve w qv RovBqv awiqvwQj| 6/4/06Bs Zvwi !LI Avmvgx evw bx !K KzcÖ¯ ve

w qv RovBqv awiqvwQj ewjqv ïwb|

25. During cross-examination she added the following evidence:-

 6/4/06Cw Zvwi !Li NUbv Avwg ïwbqvwQ| 6/4/06Bs Zvwi !Li NUbv 9/4/06Bs ïwbqvwQ|  nWgvóv !ii iRvi mvg !b I wfZ !i   wL

evw bx Avmvgx !K MvjvMvwj cvwi !Z !Q|  nWgvóvi !ii Awdm msjMS

gv !V wc.wU. Pwj !ZwQj| wc.wUÐ !Z wk¶K QvÎmn 117 Rb wQj| Awg

nWgvóv !ii i g ! Avwmevi c~ !e© gave, Rwni j, iv¾vK, Zylvi, Avey

nbv AvwmqvwQj| evw bx  eviLv cov Ae¯nvq wQj|

26. One Assistant Teacher named Madhab Chandra was examined as PW7 who in his examination-in-chief

added the following evidence:-

 Avwg wk¶K Kgbi g nB !Z 6ô  kÖYxi i g ! hvBevi mgq cÖavb wk¶ !Ki K !¶  mwjbv  eMg !K Avmvgx  nWgvóv !ii cv !k¦© 1wU

Pqv !i ewmqv _vwK !Z   wL| Iwi !q ! :Ukb  kl nBevi ci ïwb !Z

cvB  h,  nWgvóv !ii evw bx !K KzcÖ¯ ve w qvwQ| 9/4/56Bs Avgiv 10.00 Uvi w !K wc.wU. K¬v !mi mvg !b vovBevi Rb¨ wk¶K i g nB !Z evwni nB| GB mgq wcqb nvwmgywÏb Bkvivq Avgv ! i !K WvK   q| Avgiv 2/3 Rb wk¶K  nW gvóv !ii i g !i mvg !b

eviv : vq Avwm| mLvb nB !Z Rvbvjv w qv   wL !Z cvB h,

evw bx mwjbv nWgvóvi !K MvjvMvwj cwi !Z !Q I Kvw !Z !Q| evw bx KZ© ‑K Avmvgx !K RyZv w qv Wvs   Iqv   wL| Zvici ïwb !Z cvB Avmvgx evw bx !K RovBqv awiqv PvwnqvwQj| 6 Zvwi !Li NUbv KwgwU !Z evw bx RvbvB !Z PvwnqvwQj  mB mgq Avmvgx evw bx !K

RovBqv awi !Z PvwnqvwQj|

27. In cross-examination PW7 added the following evidence:-

 11.00 Uv nB !Z 11.30 wgwb !Ui g !a¨ Iwi !q ! :Ukb K vm Avi¤¢ nq| Avwg Iwi !q ! :Ukb K v !m wMqvwQjvg| evw bx !K Awdm PjvKv !j

nWgvóv !ii i g ! KvR Kwi !Z nq| Kv !Ri Pvc  ekx _vwK !j QywU nBevi c !iI evw bx !K  nWgvóv !ii i g ! _vwK !Z nq| Iwi !q ! :Ukb

i g ! hvBqv dRjy, mvgmyb bvnvi dRjy !K   wL !Z cvB| Gb. wR.I. msMVb Iwi !q ! :Ukb welqwU PvjvBqvwQ| Iwi !q ! :Ukb K¬v !m 11.00

Uvq Avi¤¢ nq Ges 12.30 wgwb !U  kl nq|  nWgvóv !ii i g nB !Z

wk¶K K¬vmi g 20/25 MR ~ !I cwð !g| evw bxi iLv¯   wLqvwQ wKbv g !b bvB| evw bx e !j  h, Avwg hLb iLv¯ jwL !ZwQjvg

ZLb Avmvgx Avgv !K RovBqv a !i| Avmvgxi i g ! evw bx KZ© ‑K Avmvgx !K hLb RyZv gvwi !Z   wL ZLb i g ! evw bxi m¦vgx wQj| wk¶K Rwneyj mn Avgiv 2/3 Rb AvwmqvwQjvg| Avwg v !ivMvi wbKU Revbew : w qvwQ| Rvbvjv w qv   wL  h evw bx RyZv w qv  nW

gvóvi !K gvwi !Z !Q GB K_v v !ivMvi wbKU ewjqvwQ wKbv g !b bvB|

28. PW8 Mustafizur Rahman was the Assistant Teacher

who in his examination-in-chief added the following:-

 6/4/06Bs Zvwi !Li NUbv wel !q Avwg wKQy Rvwb bv| 9/4/06Bs Avwg ¯Kz !j Avwmqv wk¶K Kgbi g ! ewmqv wQjvg| G¨v !mg !ewji

mgq QvÎxiv j ¡C e vovq| BwZZg !a¨ ¯Kz !ji 0bk cÖnix nvwQgyÏxb Avgv ! i !K WvK   q| Avgiv cÖavb wk¶ !Ki i g ! Avwm| Avwmqv Rvbvjv w qv   wL  h  mwjbv, cÖavb wk¶K Avmvgx !K RyZv

w qv gvwi !Z !Q| cÖavb wk¶ !Ki i g ! XywK !Z hvBqv   wL  h, iRv

wfZi  nB !Z jvMv| iRvi wQUwKwb Lywjqv   q|  Avgiv cªavb

wk¶ !Ki i g ! cÖ !ek Kwi| evw bxi ¯evgx Avmvgx !K Uvwbqv Ab¨

Pqv !i emvBqv w qv e !j  h,  Zvgvi  nWgvóv !ii  Pqv !i ewmevi AwaKvi bvB| Zvici evw bxi ¯evgx Avgv ! i !K i g nB !Z evwni

nB !Z e !j | Avwg mn Ab¨iv i g !i evwn !i Pwjqv Avwm| 

He was declared hostile by the prosecution. During cross-examination from the side of prosecution the PW8 added the following evidence:-

 6/4/06 Bs Avmvgxi i g ! evw bx !K Avmvgx KZ© ‑K RovBqv awievi K_v ïwbqvwQ| mZ¨ b !n  h, Avwg NUbv   wLqvwQ| mZ¨ b !n  h, Avmvgx Avgvi AvZ¥xq|

And during cross-examination from the defence side

the PW8 added the following evidence:-

• 0bk¨ cÖnix nvwKgywÏb Avgv ! i Lei   q| cÖavb wk¶ !Ki i g !i

 iRvq wQUwKwb  K Lywjqv   q ewj !Z cvwie bv|  nWgvóv !ii i g ! XywKqv evw bx !K m¦vfvweK Kvco cwiwnZ Ae¯nvq   wL| evw bxi m¦vgx gviwcU K !i bvB| evw bxi  evb bvwQgv !K wPwb| NUbvi mgq evw bxi  evb Gg, G cvk Kwiqv evox !Z ewmqvwQj| H mgq bvwQgvi wk¶KZv Kwievi  iwRwóªkb wQj| ¯Kz !ji wk¶ K nB !Z nB !j

iwR !óªkb nB !Z nq|

29. PW9 Jahibul was tendered and he was declined to cross-examine by the defence side.
30. One member of the Managing Committee named Majid was examined as PW10 who added in his examination-in-chief that he was an employee under the ministry of works and also a member of the Managing Committee. He was informed through cell phone on 9.4.2006 that there took place chaos in the school. He went at 05.00 pm and saw many people in the room of headmaster. He heard that the Headmaster touched the body of the victim accordingly a meeting was held on 15.4.2006 and the Managing committee found the accused appellant guilty and dismissed him temporarily and also took a confessional statement from him. He proved the said exhibit-3 and his signature was marked as exhibit-3/1

and 3/2. In cross-examination he admitted that for the

first time on 9.4.2006 he heard the occurrence.

31. One Bhupen Mohan being a member of the Managing Committee was examined as PW11 who

added the following evidence in his examination-in-

chief:-

 wfKwUg Avgv ! i ¯Kz !ji Awdm mnKvix Ges Avmvgx  nWgvóvi|

9/4/06 Bs ¯Kz !ji ßix Avgvi evox !Z Avwmqv e !j  h, ¯Kz !j

P !jb| ¯Kz !j Avwmqv   wL  h, Avmvgxi i g ! Avmvgx I g¨v !bwRs KwgwUi mfvcwZ| mfvcwZ Avgv !K e !j  h, Avmvgx wfKwU !gi mv !_

RovRwo Kwiqv !Q| wfKwU !gi wbKU hvBqv wRÁvmv Kwi wK nBqv !Q? fKwUg e !j  h, Avmvgx Zv !K RovBqv awiqvwQj| 15/4/06 Bs g¨v !bwRs KwgwU wgwUs !q e !m| Avgiv ¯Kz !ji wk¶K I Kg©Pvix ! I wRÁvmv Kwi !j Zviv e !j  h, Zviv e !j  h, NUbv mZ¨| Zvici wgwUs !q Avmvgx !K PvKzix nB !Z mvgwqKf e eiLv¯Z Kiv nq|

GBwU Avmvgx wjwLqv !Q| GBwU Avgiv ¯evt cÖt

32. In cross-examination he added that  meeting of the Managing committee was held on 09.4.2006. He did

not hand over the copy of the resolution to the Investigating Officer. He found 50/60 persons in the play ground.

33. One of the members of the Managing committee named Azizul was examined as PW12 who in his examination-in chief added the following evidence:-

 6 Zvwi !Li NUbv Avwg Rvwb bv| 9/4/06 Bs Zvwi !Li NUbv Rvwb| 9/4/06 Bs mKvj 11.00 Uvi mgq wfKwU !gi   ei meyR Avgv !K Rvbvq  h, ¯Kz !j Av !mb| Avwg ¯Kz !j Avwm| ¯Kz !j Avwmqv

nWgvóv !ii i g ! XywK|   wL  h,  nWgvóv !K Zvi  Pqv !i bv emvBqv Ab¨  Pqv !i emvBqv ivLv nBqv !Q| Zvici Avwg wk¶K Kgbi g ! hvB| mLv !b gave, Aveyj !K wRÁvmv Kwi !j Zviv e !j  h, Zviv wKQy Rv !b bv| iv¾vK I wfKwUg, Avmvgx !K gvwiqv !Q GB K_v wk¶Kiv Avgv !K e !j | cieZ©x !Z g¨v !bwRs KwgwUi m m¨ ! i Lei   B|

Lei w evi ci Zviv Av !m| wfKwU !gi k¦ïo Avmvgx !K e !j  h, Zywg ¯exKv !ivw³   I| Avmvgx ¯exKv !ivw³   q| Rã ZvwjKvq mB KwiqvwQ| GBwU Avgvi m¦vt cÖt 2/2|

He was declared hostile by the prosecution and from

the cross-examination made by the prosecution he

added the following evidence:-

 Avmvgxi   vl m¦xKvi KvM !R Avwg mB Kwi bvB| GBwU Avgvi mB| GB ¯Kz !j Avgvi  g !q wkw¶Kvi PvKzix K !i| Avmvgx Avgvi AvZ¥xq nq bv| 15 Zvwi !L Avmvgx !K mvgwqKfv !e eiLv¯Z Kiv nBqv !Q| wfKwU !gi Awf !hv !Mi Dci Avmvgx !K eiLv¯Z Kiv nBqvQ|

34. From the cross-examination made by the defence he

made following evidence:-

 Avgvi mB  Rvo Kwiqv w qv !Q| Avmvgx Avgv !K e !j bvB|wfKwU !gi m¦vgx !K ¯Kz !ji gv !V   wLqvwQjvg| wfKwU !gi

k¦ï !oi wbKU KvMRcÎ wQj|

35. The husband of the informant was examined as

PW13 who added the following evidence:-

 wfKwUg Avgvi ¯¿x nq| 6/4/06 Bs NUbvi ZvwiL| 6/4/06 Bs mKvj  ejvq Avwg Avgvi Kg©¯n !j hvB| weKvj  ejvq evox wdwiqv

  wL  h, ¯¿x  mwjbv evmvq gb Lvivc Kwiqv ewmqv Av !Q| Avwg

Zv !K wRÁvmv Kwi !j  m e !j  h,  nWgvóvi gv !R yi ingvb xN©w b awiqv Avgv !K KzcÖ¯Zve w qv Avwm !ZwQj| Abygvb 10.30 wgwb !Ui

w !K Avmgx Zv !K Kv !Q WvwKqv wbqv Zv !K KzcÖ¯Zve    q Ges GK

ch©v !q Zv !K RovBqv a !i| ZLb  m wPrKvi Kwiqv D !V| wPrKvi

ïwbqv Kg©iZ Avqv mvgmyb bvnvi Awdm i g !    `ovBqv Av !m|

Zvici Avmvgx wfKwXg !K Qvwoqv   q| Avwg ¯¿x !K ewj  h, Zywg

Zvgvi ¯Kzj KwgwUi wbKU Awf !hvM Ki| 9/4/06 Bs Abygvb 10/10.30 wgwb !U ¯Kz !ji ßix dRjy Avgvi evox !Z Avmwqv

Avgv !K msev  q  h, ¯Kz !j mgm¨v nBqv !Q Avcwb Av !mb| Avwg

¯Kz !j hvBqv   wL  h, wfKwUg Zvi  Uwe !j ewmqv Kvw !Z !Q Ges

wk¶K ! i G !jv !g !jvfv !e   wL !Z cvB| wfKwUg Avgv !K e !j  h,

Avwg  Uwe !j ewmqv Avmvgxi wei × !Awf !hvM wjwL !ZwQjvg| H

mgq Avmvgx Zvi wbKU hvBqv e !j  h, Zvi wei × ! hb KwgwUi

wbKU Awf !hvM   Iqv bv nq| Avmvgx cybivq Avgvi ¯¿x !K KzcÖ¯Zve

  q| Bnv !Z Avgvi ¯¿x PovI nBqv Avmvgx !K RyZv w qv gv !i|

¯Kz !ji Kg©Pvix I wk¶K GB welq ¯Kzj KwgwU !K Rvbvq| GB

NUbv evwn !i QvovBqv cwo !j ¯nvbxq  jvKRb QvÎÐQvÎxiv ¯Kzj

gv !V Dcw¯nZ nq| KwgwUi  jvKRb wfKwUg !K wRÁvmv Kwi !j

wfKwUg KwgwUi wbKU NUbv Lywjqv e !j Ges Avmvgxi wei × !wjwLZ

Awf !hvM   q| wfKwU !gi Awf !hvM mZ¨Zv hvPvB Gi Rb¨ mKj

wk¶K Kg©Pvix !K wRÁvmv K !i| KwgwU NUbvi mZ¨Zv cvq| KwgwU,

Avmvgx !K wRÁvmv Kwi !j  h Zvi   vl ¯exKvi K !i Ges

¯exKv !ivw³ KwgwUi wbKU   q I mB K !i| 

36. During cross-examination PW13 added the following

evidence:-

 ¯Kzj cÖwZôvjMSnB !Z Avmvgx cÖavb wk¶K| mZ¨ b !n  h, ¯Kz !j

PvKzix Kive¯nvq Avwg vwqZ¡ cvjb bv Kivq Avmvgx Avgv !K

wZi¯ 9vi Kwiqv !Q| mZ¨ b !n  h, wfKwUg Avgv !K NUbvi K_v e !j

bvB| Avgvi 2 weNv Rwg Avgvi evox nB !Z 1 wK !jv nB !e| NUbvi

w b Avwg 0mq cy !i wM !qwQjvg| 6/4/05 Bs wfKwUg Avgv !K 1g

e !j  h, Avmvgx Zv !K wewfbSmgq DZ³ ¨ KwiZ| 6/4/06 Bs weKvj 5/5.30 wgwb !Ui w !K ¯¿x wfKwUg Avgv !K NUbvi K_v e !j| Avwg KwgwUi wbwKU wjwLZ Awf !hvM Kwi bvB| Avwg H mgq cvovq KvD !K NUbvi K_v ewj bvB| 9/4/06 Bs wfKwUg KZ© ‑K Avmvgxi

wei × !wjLv Awf !hv !Mi iLv¯Z Avwg   wL bvB| ¯¿xi  Uwe !j ¯¿x !K

Kvw !Z   wL|Avmvgxi   vl ¯exKv !iv³ KvMR mfvcwZ !K   Iqv

nq| mZ¨ b !n  h, Avmvgx ¯exKv !ivw³  q bvB I m¦xKv !ivw³ !Z mB

  q bvB| mZ¨ b !n  h, Avwg NUbv Rvwb bv| GRvnvi nv !Zi wjLv| GRvnvi Avwg v !ivMv !K   B wKbv g !b bvB| mZ¨ b !n  h, GRvnvi

w evi w b wfKwUg _vbvq hvq bvB| GRvnvi Kwievi Av !M Avmvgx

d`R vix gvgjv KwiqvwQj| Avwg Avmvgx AvwQ| Avmvgx wg_¨v Awf !hvM Kwiqv !Q| v !ivMvi wbKU Revbew : w qvwQ| 6/4/06 Bs mKvj  ejvq Kg©¯n !j hvB I weKvj  ejvq evox wdwiqv ¯¿x !K gb Lvivc Ae¯nvq   wL h ¯¿x wPrKvi Kwi !j Avqv mvgmyb bvnvi    `ovBqv Av !m, KwgwUi wbKU Awf !hvM w evi Rb¨ wfKwUg !K ewjqvwQjvg, 9/4/06Bs mKvj 10.00 Uvi mgq dRjy Avgvi evox !Z Avwmqv Avgv !K msev    q ¯Kz !j Avwmqv   wL  h, ¯¿x

Uwe !j ewmqv Kvw !Z !Q| ¯¿x ewjqvwQj  m Avmvgxi wei × ! Awf !hvM wjwL !ZwQj Ges Avmvgx Zv !K RovBqv a !i, wfKwUg Avmvgx !K RyZv gv !i|

37. The Investigating Officer was examined as PW14

who in his cross-examination admitted that the extra judicial confessional statement was not handed over

to him during investigation. From above evidence it appears that both the occurrence dated 6.4.2006 and 9.4.2006 allegedly took place during going on the national anthem of the school at about 10.30 am.

38. The defence case, in short, as transpired from the

trend of cross-examination are that the accused-

appellant is the founder Head Master of the Ghantaghar Girls High School. He has been discharging his duties as the Head Master for last 15 years with due diligen. The father of the informant is the President of the Managing Committee of the School. The younger sister of the informant is an M.A. who got her name registered for becoming a teacher. The informant and other witnesses with a view to remove the accused appellant illegally from his post / service and to get appointed the sister of informant as Head Master staged a fake drama on 9.04.06.  The husband of the informant and other witnesses illegally entered into the office room of the Head Master, assaulted him physically by beating him with Sandal and thereafter the Managing Committee took up a resolution dismissing the accused appellant temporarily from service. The accused appellant lodged an F.I.R on 13.04.2006 with the Chirirbandar Police Station being P.S Case No. 6 under section 143/447/342/323/307/ 385/386/506 of the Penal Code against the informant Selina, her husband A. Razzaque (PW13), (3) Dulal, (4) Hashim Uddin (PW4), (5) Fazlur Rahaman (PW2), (6) Most. Shamsun Nahar (PW3). It is the further case of the defence that no occurrence took place on 6.04.2006 or 09.04.2006 as alleged in the F.I.R and the case has been filed upon falsehood.

39. The case made out by the prosecution as well as considering the submissions of learned Advocates for the parties the following points for determination are essentially liable to be decided by this Court for lawful disposal of the appeal:-

i)                  Whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case in the alleged manner and on the alleged date and time as stated in the F.I.R. beyond reasonable doubt?

ii)               Whether the other witnesses namely the PW3, PW4, PW5, PW6, PW7, PW12, PW13 have embellished the prosecution case making the same doubtful?

iii)            Whether it is probable on the part of the accused appellant to commit offence punishable under section 10 of the Nari-O- Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain in the alleged place, manner and time as stated in the First information reports.

iv)             Whether the impugned judgment and order of conviction is sustainable in law?

40. Let us take up the points for determination No. 1 for decision as to whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case in the alleged manner and on the alleged date and time as stated in the F.I.R.

(a)             The First Information reports has been admitted into evidence and was marked as exhibit-1 which is a typed copy and signed by the information (PW1). The said F.I.R was lodged with the Chirirbandar Police Station on

22.04.06  at 04:30 pm. The occurrence allegedly took place from 06.04.06 to 09.04.06 continuously as it is evident from 1st page of the F.I.R. In the body of the F.I.R it has been mentioned that the accused appellant being the Headmaster of the school was offering

proposal for witnessing blue film since for last 4/5 months and ultimately gave illicit offer. Thereafter on 06.04.06 at about 10.30 am the accused-appellant directed the informant to sit on the chair beside him which is the ear marked chair for the President of the Managing Committee and she sat on the said chair. After few minutes of her sitting the accused- appellant offered her immoral proposal and at one stage caught hold her by the hands. She raised hue and cry and hearing hue and cry the PW3 Shamsun Nahar (Bu¡ of the school) entered into the office of accused and saw the occurrence. Thereafter she left the office room of the accused appellant and without disclosing the matter to others left the school, went to her

residence and disclosed the fact tot her husband (PW13) who instructed her to submit a complaint to the President of the Managing Committee. The first information report further disclosed the fact that she (informant) spent 7.04.06  and 8.04.06 without informing the occurrence to others and attended the school on 09.04.06  and was thinking of writing a complaint to the President of the Managing Committee at about 10 am on 09.04.06. At that time the accused appellant again gave her immoral proposal and requested her not to disclose the occurrence dated 06.04.06 to others and at this she raised hue and cry and hearing hue and cry the PW3 and other teachers came to the office of the Headmaster

(accused-appellant) and came to know about the occurrence. Thereafter she made a written complaint to the President of the Managing Committee who dismissed the accused- appellant temporarily and thereafter she sent the written F.I.R. to the police station through her husband.

(b)            The F.I.R was lodged after 16 days of the occurrence dated 06.04.06 so it could be said that the fact narrated in the F.I.R. was the only occurrence and there took place no other occurrence. As per the F.I.R. the only occurrence took place on 06.04.06 at about

10.30 am inside the office of Headmaster of the Ghantaghar Adarshaya Balika Bidyalaya while the accused appellant being the Headmaster of the school caught hold the Office Assistant (PW1) by his hands offering her immoral proposal. Thereafter she (PW1) waited for 3 (three) days without disclosing the matter to others but to her husband and attended the school normally and as usually. On 09.04.06 about 10.00 am the accused simply gave her immoral proposal and requested her not to disclose the occurrence dated 06.04.06 to others. Save and except offering immoral proposal and requesting the informant not to disclose the occurrence dated 06.04.06 there took place no other occurrence on 09.04.06 as per the F.I.R cae. As per the F.I.R. case the PW3 was the sole witness of the occurrence dated 06.04.06. After receiving

immoral proposal on 09.04.06 she raised hue

and cry and the PW3 and other teacher s came

to the office of the Headmaster and came to

know the occurrence. Section 10 of the Nari-o-

Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000 and 2003 as

well reads as under:-

 20| k±e  f£se, CaÉ¡¢cl cäx- k¢c ®L¡e hÉ¢a²

A¯hdi¡ h a¡q¡l k±e L¡je¡ Q¢la¡bÑ Ll¡l E xnÉ a¡q¡l

nl£ ll ®k ®L¡e AwN h¡ ®L¡e hÙ¹ à¡l¡ ®L¡e e¡l£ h¡

¢nöl ®k±e AwN h¡ AeÉ ®L¡e AwN ØfnÑ L le h¡ ®L¡e e¡l£l nÔ£ma¡q¡¢e L le a¡q¡ qC m a¡q¡l HC L¡S qC h ®k±e f£se Hhw a 9eÉ Ea² hÉ¢a² Ae¢dL cn hvpl ¢L¿º Ae§ÉeÉ ¢ae hvpl pnÐj L¡l¡c ä cäe£u qC he Hhw Cq¡l A¢a¢la² AbÑc ä cäe£u qC hezÕÕ

(c)             Upon perusal of the contents of section 10 of

the Ain it appears that to constitute an offence

punishable under section 10 of the Nari-o- shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain the following are the essentials:-

i)                  There should be an illegitunate desire to fulfill sexual need.

ii)               To fulfill the said desire the accused should touch any organ of a woman or a girl of any age by hands or by any substance. Or

iii)            The accused commits sexual intercourse.

(d)            The F.I.R disclosed that on 06.04.06, the accused made an offer to the informant with a view to commit immoral sexual act at 10.30 am inside his office room and thereafter caught hold her by the hands. So the case as disclosed

in the first information report about the occurrence dated 06.04.2006 comes within the essentials for constituting offence punishable under section 10 of the Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000. The occurrence dated 09.04.06  as disclosed in the F.I.R. does not come within any of the essentials to constitute offence punishable under the said section:

(e)             Now let us see as to whether the prosecution has been able to prove the occurrence dated 06.04.2006 to constitute offence under section 10 of the Ain, 2000.

The PW1 (informant) in her examination in chief simply added the following:-

 06/04/06 a¡¢l L Cw Ae¤j¡e pL¡m 10.30 V¡l pju Bp¡j£ a¡l A¢g p Bj¡ L X¡¢L m B¢j a¡l ®Qð¡ l k¡Cz B¢j a¡l

®Qð¡ l h¢p m ®p Bj¡ L L¥fÐÙ¹¡h ®cu Hhw HL fkÑ¡ u Bj¡ L Ss¡Cu¡ d l z aMe B¢j ¢QvL¡l L¢l m Bu¡ n¡jp¤e e¡q¡l L r

fÐ hn L¢lu¡ OVe¡ ®c Mz B¢j A¢gp qC a h¡¢ql qCu¡ h¡s£

k¡Cu¡ ü¡j£ L OVe¡ h¢mz ü¡j£ OVe¡l ¢hou ú¥m L¢j¢V L S¡e¡uz

In cross-examination she added the following

evidence

• qXj¡ØV¡ ll l¦ j L¢ÇfEV¡l B R Hhw HLSe L¢ÇfEV¡l

¢nrL B Rz ú¥ m Bj¡l SeÉ Bm¡c¡ ®L¡e l¦j e¡C B¢j ®qXj¡ØV¡ ll l¦ j h¢pu¡ L¡S L¢lz Avgv ! i ¯Kz !j cªvq 200/250

QvÎx Av !Q| 9.30 wgwb !Ui ci nB !Z QvÎxiv ¯Kz !j Avmv ïi K !i

Ges 10.00 Uvi c~ !e©B  nWgvóv !ii AwdmK¶ msjMSgv !V RvZxq

msMxZ  k !l wc,wU nq 10/15 wgwbU| Zvici QvÎxiv hvi hvi KSv !m

hvq| 10.30 wgwb !U Kèvm ïi nq|

The PW1 further admitted in his cross-examination

that the accused appellant is her uncle  by relation

adding the following evidence:-

 Avgvi evevi evox I Avmvgxi evevi evox GKB cvovq| Avgvi PvPvi bvg BqvKze| Avgvi PvPx  dwÝqviv Avmvgxi  evb| evev

dÝx !K fvjevwmqv weevn Kwiqv !Q| evev  dwÝqviv !K weevn Kwievi

Rb¨ Avmvgxi evev bwRi ev x nBqv Avgvi PvPv BqvKze, evev Av°vm, PvPv Avwgi, beve Gi wei × !Acni !bi gvgjv KwiqvwQj|

gvKÏgvq PvPv nvR !Z wQj|

The PW1 further admitted in her cross-examination

that the daughter of the accused was a student of

class VII of that school adducing the following

evidence:-

 Avmvgxi  g !q gygy NUbvi mgq N :UvNo ¯Kz !j 7g  kÖYx !Z cwoZ|

Bs 6/4/06 Zvwi !Li ci Avwg wbqwgZ Awdm KwiqvwQ| She

further added 9/4/06 Bs m¨v !Ûj w qv Avwg Avmvgx !K gvwi|

ÐÐÐÐ Avmvgx Avgvi m¦vgx I Avgv ! i wei × !GKwU  gvKÏgv

KwiqvwQj|

(f)              The PW2 Fazlul Hoque being the Daptari of

the school in his examination-in-chief added

that the occurrence dated 06.04.2006 took

place in presence of PW3 by adducing the following evidence:-

 6/4/06Cw OVe¡l a¡¢lMz I ¢ce ØL¥ ml L r fË¢ahå£ cl ¢j¢Vw Q¢m a¢Qj| mKvj 10.30 wgwb !U Avmvgx Avgv !K evw bx !K Zvi K !¶ WvwKqv Avwb !Z e !j| Avwg

evw bx !K WvwKqv Avwb| Avgvi mv !_ Avqv mvgmyb bvnvi Av !m| evw bx Avmvgxi i g ! XywK !j Avwg Pwjqv hvB I

 iRvq Avqv mvgmyb bvnvi _v !K|

In cross-examination this PW2 adduced evidence which are quite contradictory with the prosecution case with regard to the occurrence dated 06.4.2006 adducing the following evidence:-

 B¢j 12 hvpl qC a ØL¥ m Q¡L¥l£ L¢lz fË¢aÖW¡ mNÀ qC a Bp¡j£ ØL¥ ml ®qXj¡ÖV¡lz h¡¢ce£ 6/4/06Cw a¡¢l M ¢QvL¡l L l

e¡Cz

(g)            With regard to the time of occurrence the PW2

in his examination-in-chief as well as in his cross-examination contradicted the prosecution

case. In his chief he added- 6/4/06Cw OVe¡l

a¡¢lMz I ¢ce ØL¥ ml L r fË¢ahå£ cl ¢j¢Vw Q¢m a¢Qj| --------- wgwUs  k !l Avmvgxi K !¶i mvg !b hvB Ges   wL

h evw bx Kv !Z Kv !Z Avmvgxi i g nB !Z evwni nBqv

Avwm !Z !Q|

In cross-examination the PW2 added NUbvi w b cÖwZeÜx wgwUs Gi c~ !e© cÖ_ !g K¬v !mi  ivjKj nBqvwQj wKa

K¬vm nq bvB| ÐÐÐÐÐÐ wgwUs ïi nBevi AvaN :Uv ci Avmvgx

evw bx !K WvwKqv Avwb !Z e !j| Avwg I Avqv wgwUs ïwb !Z wQjvg| Avmvgx mvgmyb bvnvi !K WvwK !Z e !j bvB| QvÎQvÎx

A !b !KB wgwUsG wQj| wgwUs G g¨v !bwRs KwgwUi mfvcwZ, mnmfvcwZmn A !b !KB wQj| As per the evidence of

PW1 the National assembly held at 10 am.

Thereafter the parade took place for about 15 minutes and the class started after 10.30 am.

As per the case of First Information Report the occurrence took place at 10.30 am on 06.4.2006 but as per the evidence of PW2 the occurrence took place after half an hour of the

roll call was held. This PW2 admitted in his evidence that he was an accused in a case filed

by the appellant. The PW2 if believed the time

of occurrence varied at least one hour later

than that of the time as mentioned in the FIR.

(h)            The PW3 Shamsunnahar being Aya of the school added in her examination-in-chief that

the occurrence took place at 10.30 am on 6.4.2006 but in cross-examination she added

that 6ô  kÖYx !Z mfv ïi nBevi 10 wgwbU ci Avmvgx victim- !K Zvi i g ! WvwKqv  bq| So the time of occurrence as stated by the prosecution was not supported by the PW3.

This PW3 added  in her examination-in-chief

 Avwg nvwRiv LvZv wbqv Avmvgxi i g ! XyKvi c~ !e© wfKwU !gi

wPrKvi ïwb| wPrKvi ïwbqv Av !iv ZvovZvwo XywKqv   wL

Avmvgx wfKwUg !K RovBqv awiqv UvbvUvwb Kwi !Z !Q Ges

Avgv !K   wLqv Qvwoqv   q| In cross-examination

she added that ¢iL¢V~j L Bp¡j£ kMe Ss¡Cu¡ d¢lu¡ V¡e¡V¡¢e L l aMe ¢iL¢V jl fs el L¡fs ®Q¡fs ¢WL

¢Rmz ¢iL¢V jl fs e ®h¡lM¡ ¢Rmz This PW3 further

added in her cross-examination that she did not

disclose the occurrence dated 06.4.2006 and

9.4.2006 to the Managing Committee adding-

 6/4/06, 9/4/06 Cw a¡¢l Ml OVe¡ ¢ho u L¢j¢Vl ¢eLV ¢LR¤ h¢m e¡Cz

(i)               The PW4 Hasimuddin being the night guard of

the school in his examination-in-chief added

that the occurrence dated 6.4.2006 took place

in presence of PW3 adducing the following

evidence- 6/4/06Cw ØL¥ m ¢j¢Vw qC a ¢Rmz B¢j ®N Vl h¡¢q l ¢Rm¡jz ¢j¢Vw Qm¡L¡ m cçl£ gSm¤m qL A¢gp pqL¡l£  ®p¢me¡ L X¡¢Lu¡ ®qXj¡ÖV¡ ll l¦ j ¢eu¡ k¡uz

®qXj¡ÖV¡l ®p¢me¡ L X¡¢Lu¡¢Rmz ®p¢me¡l p¡ b Bu¡ ¢Rmz

A¢g p ¢QvL¡l ö¢eu¡ ®pM¡ e k¡Cz ®p¢me¡l ¢QvL¡l ö¢eu¡ ®qXj¡ÖV¡l ll l¦ j k¡Cz Bu¡ p¡jp¤ee¡q¡l Bj¡ L h m ®k, ®qXj¡ÖV¡l p¡ qh  ®p¢me¡ L Ss¡Cu¡ d¢lu¡¢Rmz This

PW4 departed far away from the prosecution

case in his examination-in-chief adducing

 9/4/06Cw pL¡m 10.30 ¢j¢e V ØL¥ m HÉ¡ pj h¢m Q¢m a¢Rmz ®qXj¡ÖV¡ ll l¦ j ¢QvL¡l ö¢eu¡ pM¡ e k¡Cz ®p¢me¡ L ¢S ¡p¡ L¢l m p h m ®k, Bp¡j£ a¡ L Ss¡Cu¡ d¢lu¡¢Rm Bl ¢LR¤ S¡¢e e¡z although the

prosecution case does not disclose any such

occurrence took place on 09.4.2006 at 10.30

am. This PW4 in his cross-examination

contradicted the case of PW1, PW2 and PW3

adducing 6/4/06Cw ¢QvL¡l ö¢eu¡ Bj¡l j a¡ Bl

 LE B p e¡Cz This PW4 made the credibility of

other witnesses shaken in adducing 6/4/06 J

9/4/06Cw c¤C¢c eC cç¢l gSm¤ J Bu¡ p¡jp¤ee¡q¡l R¡s¡

AeÉ L¡E L c¢M e¡Cz 6/4/06Cw B¢j OVe¡Øq m k¡Ch¡l

fl AeÉ ®Lq OVe¡Øq m B p e¡Cz although the PW5

claimed to have gone to the place of occurrence and heard the occurrence from

PW1.

(j)               The PW6 Mini Ara  Bala being an Assistant