State vs Nazrul Islam @ Nazrul
Citation : 57 DLR (2005) 289
Jurisdiction : Bangladesh
Appellant : Nazrul Islam (Defendant, in the court of first instance)
Respondent : State (Plaintiff, in the court of first instance)
Facts :
Nazrul Islam and his wife, Shalema, had been married for about five years. In the said marriage they were blessed with a son. On 13 February 1998, at around 9 PM, Shalema was taking supper with family members when Nazrul suddenly entered. He brought an axe from his uncle’s house and delivered two forceful blows to her head, causing her to collapse with severe bleeding. She was immediately taken to Kishoregonj Sadar Hospital for treatment, where the doctor declared her dead. The FIR was lodged the following morning by the aunt of the deceased, Shakhina Khatun. At the inquest, the police recovered blood-stained rice, plates and earth and recorded statements under sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and submitted a charge sheet under section 302 of the Penal Code. An important aspect emerging from the evidence was Nazrul’s persistent history of mental disorder. Multiple prosecution witnesses, including his mother, sister-in-law, neighbours and even the investigating officer, testified that Nazrul was widely known as “Pagla Nazrul”. In fact, he had been kept tied for several days due to violent madness and had no sense of right or wrong. Previously, he had burnt clothes and household items during episodes of insanity. Again, immediately after the incident, he did not flee, reflecting his abnormal behavior. Despite this, the trial court considered prior criminal records of the accused and extraneous newspaper reports, in its judgment and imposed the death penalty.
Issues :
1. Whether the trial court made a mistake by ignoring the accused’s insanity plea despite prosecution witnesses admitting he was mentally unsound, and whether it was wrong to rely on his past criminal record and newspaper reports.
2. Whether statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of CrPC can be treated as substantive piece of evidence or used to draw adverse inferences/negative conclusions against the accused.
Arguments :
Appellant’s Arguments:
The appellant argued that the trial court committed a serious legal error by ignoring clear admissions from the prosecution that the accused had long-standing mental instability. Such testimony, together with the condemned prisoner Nazrul’s irrational behavior immediately after the incident, raised a strong reasonable doubt regarding his mental capacity at the relevant time. Under Section 84 of the Penal Code, the defense was only required to raise a reasonable doubt about insanity. Generally, in this type of context, the defense needs to merely raise a reasonable doubt rather than any conclusive proof of insanity, as discussed under Section 105 of the Evidence Act.
The appellant further contended that the trial court relied on materials that were legally inadmissible. Statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC were improperly treated as substantive evidence. Section 161 statements are usable only to contradict witnesses, and section 164 statements have limited evidentiary value until or unless these statements are given voluntarily. The appellant again argued that prior criminal records were wrongly used to show “bad character”, which is contrary to Section 54 of the Evidence Act, as the accused’s character was not even in question. Additionally, the trial court referred to newspaper reports describing the incident, which constituted nothing but hearsay. However, under sections 60 and 62 of the Evidence Act, hearsay evidence is inadmissible in the court. The appellant maintained that reliance on such materials rendered the conviction unsound.
Respondent/Prosecution’s Arguments:
The prosecution contended that past abnormal conduct alone did not establish legal insanity at the time of the offence. They noted that no medical or expert evidence had been presented to show that the accused suffered from a mental disease at the time of the incident. The prosecution further argued that the deliberate manner of the assault, such as choosing a weapon and striking vital parts of a human body, indicated intention and awareness, supporting the presumption of a sound mind.
On the evidentiary issue, the State asserted that statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC are not substantive evidence but those could be used to identify inconsistencies or corroborate other evidence. Respondent also maintained that prior criminal history could reflect behavioral tendencies of the condemned prisoner, and newspaper reports might offer contextual background, though they have limited evidentiary value.
Decisions :
The court found that the trial court failed to properly evaluate the insanity plea. When prosecution witnesses themselves asserted the accused’s unsoundness of mind, the court was legally bound to consider whether a reasonable doubt existed regarding his sanity. Appellate court held that the accused met the statutory criteria under Section 105 of the Evidence Act. So, the benefit of the doubt should have been granted. The court further held that the trial judge erred in treating 161 and 164 CrPC statements. None of these are admissible to draw adverse inferences against the accused.
The Honorable Court stated,
“The learned Judge failed to notice that a statement of a witness recorded under section 161 CrPC couldn’t be used as substantive evidence. It can only be utilised under section 162 CrPC to contradict such witness in the manner provided by section 145 of the Evidence Act. In no case such statement shall be taken as the basis for drawing an adverse inference against the accused on any point. Similarly, a statement made under section 164 CrPC could never be used as substantive evidence of facts stated.”
The Court determined that the conviction of Nazrul Islam was unsustainable. The trial court wrongly treated a witness statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC as a confession, contrary to Section 364 CrPC. It failed to distinguish between a statement and a confession. Again, it relied on prior criminal records without giving the accused an opportunity to contest them. The appeal court also found that the trial court was influenced by the newspaper report, which affected its judgement. Considering all of these, the Appeal Court concluded that Nazrul was entitled to the benefit of the doubt and acquitted him of all charges. The death reference was rejected, and the conviction and sentence were set aside.
Relevant Laws :
- The Penal Code, 1860
- Section : 84
- The Evidence Act, 1872
- Section : 54, 60, 62, 105
- The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
- Section : 161, 164, 364
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
