Abul Hossain and others vs State and others
Citation : 56 DLR (2004) 12
Jurisdiction : Bangladesh
Petitioners : Abul Hossain and others
Respondents : The State and others
Facts :
The case arose from a complaint filed by the informant alleging that the accused persons, including Abul Hossain and others, formed an unlawful assembly and trespassed into the paddy field of the informant’s father. It was alleged that the accused persons, being armed with deadly weapons, cut and removed ripe paddy on 30-10-1996. It was also claimed that they assaulted the victims, causing injuries and committed theft and mischief on the same date and place. On the basis of the complaint, a case was registered under sections 143, 447, 323, 324, 379, 307 and 114 of the Penal Code, 1860. After an investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons.
During the trial, the prosecution examined witnesses, but the trial court ultimately acquitted all the accused persons. Being aggrieved, the informant filed a revisional application under section 439A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (CrPC), upon which the revisional court set aside the acquittal and directed the trial court to write a fresh judgment after proper assessment of the evidence.
The accused-petitioners then moved to the High Court Division by filing an application under section 561A of the CrPC, challenging the legality of the revisional order.
Issues :
1. Whether the revisional court was justified in setting aside the order of acquittal.
2. Whether the revisional court could direct the trial court to write a fresh judgment.
3. Whether the trial court properly assessed the evidence in its judgment.
Decisions :
The High Court Division examined whether the revisional court acted lawfully in setting aside the acquittal and directing the trial court to write a fresh judgment. After examining all the records, the Court found that the trial court had failed to properly discuss and assess the evidence of witnesses and had not determined the facts in issue. Moreover, the judgment did not comply with the requirements of section 367 of the CrPC and could not be regarded as a proper judgment in the eyes of the law. The Court also held that under section 439A, read with sections 423 and 439 CrPC, the revisional court is competent to set aside an order of acquittal and direct a re-trial or a fresh judgment, provided that such power is exercised judiciously. Here, the revisional court correctly identified non-appreciation and misappreciation of evidence by the trial court, which made the judgment questionable. The Court further observed that the power to order a fresh judgment should not be exercised widely. However, where the trial court fails to fulfil its duty to properly evaluate the evidence, such an intervention becomes necessary to prevent miscarriage of justice.
Accordingly, the High Court Division found no illegality or impropriety in the order of the revisional court. It also held that the direction to write a fresh judgment was justified. Thus, the application under section 561A of the CrPC was rejected.
Relevant Laws :
- The Penal Code, 1860
- Section : 114, 143, 307, 323, 324, 379, 447
- The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
- Section : 367, 423, 439A, 561A
Author :
1. Farah Arifin
Note : The Case Summary is a platform by the law students, for the law students. We aim to summarize the facts and decisions of various important cases in both Bangla and English with utmost caution. However, this platform is in no way a replacement for going through the complete judgements by the law students and we discourage any learner from relying on case summaries alone. Thank you
