Khashru vs State
Citation: 35 DLR 119
Jurisdiction : Bangladesh
Appellant: Khashru (Defendant in the court of first instance)
Respondent: State (Prosecutor in the court of first instance)
Facts :
The Night of the Murder:
Natub Ali lived with his wife, Kamala Khatun (P.W. 2), and his mother, Sonajan (P.W. 3). On the night of the incident, Natub Ali and his wife, Kamala Khatun were sleeping in the kitchen to guard their cattle instead of their usual hut. According to Kamala Khatun’s initial statement, 2-3 men including Khashru, entered the house at midnight and stabbed the victim till his death. She claimed Khashru threatened her to stay silent. However, at trial, though she retracted her statement, and said she could not recognize anyone at night of such incident. She alleged the police had coerced her earlier statement. Sonajan (P.W. 3) testified that Kamala Khatun was in an illicit relationship with the accused, Khashru alias Khorshed Ali. Before the murder, Natub Ali had confronted Khashru and warned him to stay away from his wife which create a strong motive for the murder.
Recovery of the Murder Weapon:
Later during investigation, Khashru led the police to a dagger (Exhibit 1) hidden in Natub Ali’s house. The post-mortem report confirmed Natub Ali died from multiple stab wounds consistent with a sharp weapon like the recovered dagger.
Absence of Direct Evidence:
No eyewitnesses saw the murder. The First Information Report (FIR) by Natub Ali’s brother (P.W. 1, Badsha Mia) did not name any accused initially.
Issues :
1. Whether the alleged illicit affair between the accused and the victim’s wife, along with prior hostility, could establish a strong motive for the murder?
2. Whether the recovery of the dagger at the instance of the accused, together with the conduct of the key witnesses, completed the chain of circumstantial evidence sufficient for conviction under section 302 of the Penal Code?
Decisions :
The court found its concealment and recovery highly incriminating, especially since Khashru could not explain how he knew its location. The case rested entirely on motive directed from illicit affair and prior hostility. Moreover, the Recovery of the dagger and Kamala Khatun’s suspicious conduct added to it. The High Court upheld Khashru’s conviction under section 302, ruling that the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete, consistent, and conclusive. The court emphasized three key principles:
(1) Circumstantial evidence must form a complete, unbroken chain excluding all reasonable doubts, as established in Md. Luqman vs. State case. Which is satisfied here by the illicit affair, witness conduct, and weapon recovery.
(2) Isolated suspicious acts require corroboration – met through combined proof of motive, concealment and recovery.
(3) Convictions demand legal proof, not moral assumptions, as established in Alkas Mia vs. State case, ensuring the judgment rested on evidence, not conjecture.
These safeguards upheld Khashru’s conviction while protecting against wrongful conclusions. The chain of events motive, conduct, and recovery left no reasonable doubt. This case remains a benchmark for evaluating circumstantial evidence in Bangladeshi criminal law.
Relevant Laws :
- Penal Code, 1860
- Section: 302
- The Evidence Act, 1872
- Section: 8, 27
Author :
1. Mohammad Hannan
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
