State vs Anjuara Khatun (2004)
Citation : 57 DLR HCD 277
Death Reference No. 43/2001
Jurisdiction : Bangladesh
Petitioner : State
Defendant : Anjuara Khatun
Facts :
Tipu Sultan and his wife, Anjuara Khatun, lived together in their family home. On the day of the incident, Tipu Sultan sustained a fatal throat injury, allegedly inflicted with a spade (kodal). Immediately after the incident, Anjuara Khatun fled the house and sought refuge in a nearby residence, raising strong suspicion regarding her involvement. She was subsequently apprehended by local witnesses and made an extra-judicial confession, admitting that she had struck her husband. Later, she provided a judicial confession before the Magistrate, voluntarily confirming her guilt. Dr. M. Shamsul Hassan, the medico-legal officer, examined the deceased and confirmed that the injury was homicidal, consistent with the alleged weapon.
A critical piece of evidence was the dying declaration written by Tipu Sultan on a small piece of paper, stating in Bangla: “কোদাল দিয়া কোপ দেয় কিন্তু আমি জানিনি তোর ভাবি” (“Struck with a spade, but I didn’t know, your sister-in-law.”) The handwriting was verified by the deceased’s brother, adding authenticity to the statement.
Issues :
1. Whether the conviction of Anjuara Khatun could be sustained on the basis of circumstantial and confessional evidence without direct eyewitness testimony.
2. Whether the dying declaration made by the deceased was legally valid and sufficient to form the basis of a conviction.
3. Whether the death penalty imposed by the trial court was justified, or whether mitigating factors warranted commutation to life imprisonment.
Arguments :
Petitioner’s Arguments:
The prosecution contended that both the circumstantial and confessional evidence conclusively established Anjuara Khatun’s guilt. They emphasized that the deceased’s dying declaration, naming her as the assailant, fulfilled the legal standards under Sections 32 and 80 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Medical findings confirmed that the death was homicidal, while her immediate flight and failure to explain her husband’s death, as required under Section 106, further strengthened the presumption of guilt. Her subsequent inconsistent statements were deemed fabricated. Collectively, these facts formed a complete and convincing chain of evidence, leaving no scope for reasonable doubt.
Defendant’s Arguments:
The defence argued that Anjuara Khatun was not guilty and that her confession had been obtained under duress. In her retracted statement, she alleged that outsiders killed her husband over a land dispute and coerced her into taking the blame. Later, in her statement under Section 342 of the CrPC and her Jail Appeal, she claimed that her brother-in-law, Advocate Altaf Hossain (PW 11), was the actual killer, motivated by her refusal to marry him. The defence further challenged the reliability of the dying declaration, citing Cyril Waugh v. King [1950] AC 203 to argue that it was incomplete and ambiguous. They also contended that the incident lacked premeditation and that the death penalty was disproportionate given her emotional and domestic turmoil.
Decisions :
Trial Court:
The Trial Court found Anjuara Khatun guilty under Section 302 of the Penal Code based on the dying declaration, her confessions, and circumstantial evidence, and sentenced her to death, describing the murder as brutal and intentional.
The High Court Division:
The High Court Division upheld the conviction but modified the sentence. It held the dying declaration credible, spontaneous, and consistent with medical evidence, noting that brevity does not reduce its evidentiary value (State of Maharashtra v. Krishnamurti Laxmipati Naidu AIR 1981 SC 617; Surajdeo Oza v. State of Bihar AIR 1979 SC 1505) and distinguishing it from Cyril Waugh v. King [1950] AC 203. Circumstantial evidence forming an unbroken chain was also accepted. Considering mitigating factors, including her role as a mother of three, the absence of premeditation, and her husband’s abusive behaviour, the Court applied the “rarest of rare” doctrine and commuted the sentence to life imprisonment, directing the lower court to execute the modified sentence.
Relevant Laws :
- The Penal Code, 1860
- Section : 302
- The Evidence Act, 1872
- Section : 32, 80, 106
- The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
- Section : 164, 342
Author :
1. Fuad Hasan
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
