FINAL ARGUMENT (24.05.2021) For MHR

1
IN THE DRUTO BICHAR TRIBUNAL NO 01, DHAKA

Druto Bichar Tribunal Case Number 02 of 2020
Arising out of: Sessions Case No. 314 of 2020

General Register (GR) Case No. 565 of 2019 (Chokbazar)
Chokbazar police station case Number 14 (10) 2019
Under sections:
302, 109, 114 and 34 of the Penal Code, 1860
In the matter of:

Written arguments under
section 265J of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1898 on
behalf of accused Mehedi
Hasan Rasel.
AND
In the matter of
Mehedi Hasan Rasel
…Accused petitioner
(In judicial custody)
VERSUS
The State represented by the
Deputy Commissioner of Dhaka
…Prosecution
2
Main allegation as per the First Information
(FI) dated 07.10.2019:
That the prosecution case in brief that one informant Md.
Barkat Ullah lodged the first information in writing
alleging inter alia that on 06.10.2029 at 8.05 pm his son
named Abrar Fahad Rabbi was called from his room
number 1011 by the accused and taking him in the room
number 2011, they caused grievous hurts on the body of
the deceased and thereafter he has been died. Then the
informant lodged the instant case i.e. the first
information against first information report based
accused with Chokbazar Police Station which has been
recorded in BF Form No. 27 under regulation 243 of
police regulations, 1943 as Chokbazar Police Station case
being No.14, dated 07.10.2019 under sections 302 and
34 of the Penal Code, 1860 and in the language of the
informant mentioned in the first information is as
follows:
…msev` cvBqv Avwg ZvrÿwbK fv‡e XvKvq
Avwmqv ey‡qU †k‡i evsjv n‡ji KZ„©c‡ÿi mv‡_,

3
ey‡q‡Ui KwZcq QvÎ‡ì mv‡_ Av‡jvPbv K‡i I
wfwWI dz‡UR †`‡L Rvwb‡Z cvwi †h, D³ QvÎvev‡mi
QvÎ Avmvgx ... ,17| †gvt †gv‡k©` (20) wcZv- AÁvZ,
mvs- AÁvZ, _vbv +†Rjv- AÁvZ, G/wc- ey‡qU †k‡i
evsjv nj (17 e¨vP)(GgB) wefvM, _vbv PKevRvi g‡Wj,
XvKv … Bs 06/10/2019 wLªt ZvwiL 20.05
NwUKvq Avgvi †Q‡j‡K ey‡qU †k‡i evsjv n‡ji iæg
bs 1011 nB‡Z nZ¨vi D‡Ï‡k¨ †W‡K wb‡q Bs
07/10/2019 ZvwiL ivÎ Abygvb 20.30 NwUKv ch©šÍ
D³ n‡ji iæg bs-2011 Ges 2005 Gi wfZi wb‡q c~e©
cwiKwíZ fv‡e wµ‡KU ÷¨v¤ú Ges jvwV-‡mvUv w`‡q
kix‡ii wewfbœ RvqMvq cÖPÛ gviai K‡i hvnvi d‡j
NUbv¯’‡jB Avgvi †Q‡j gviv hvq |
Main allegation as per the Police Report
(Charge Sheet) dated 13.11.2019 is different
from the framed charges as in the police report
11 accused are recommended or mentioned for
direct commiting the offence of causing hurts
i.e. 302 of the Penal Code but rest are
recommended for abetment.

4
According to the Charge framed on 15.09.2020 by
this Druto Bichar Tribunal No. 1, Dhaka, the following
charges have been framed against the instant accused
petitioner Mehedi Hasan Rasel along with others.
Avwg †gvt Avey Rvdi †gvt Kvgiæ¾vgvb, wePviK †Rjv I
`vqiv RR, `ªyZ wePvi UªvBeybvj bs-1, XvKv GZØviv
Awfhy³ (1)... (2)... (3)... (4)... (5)... (6)... 7)... মেহেদী হাসান রাসেল
8)... 9)... 10)... 11)... 12)... 13)... 14)... 15)... 16)... 17)...
18)... 19)... 20)... 21)... 22)... 23)... 24).....25)...
Awfhy³MY‡K wbb¥wjwLZiæ‡c Awfhy³ Kwi‡ZwQ †h,
Avcbviv mKj Awfhy³MY c~e©cwiKwíZfv‡e ci¯úi
†hvMmvR‡k I mnvqZvq Awfbœ AwfcÖv‡q weMZ
04/10/2019 wLªóvã Zvwi‡L mÜ¨v 6.00 Uvi ci †_‡K †h
†Kvb mgq evsjv‡`k cÖ‡KŠkj wek¦we`¨vjq (ey‡qU) Gi
†k‡i evsjv AvevwmK n‡ji K¨vw›U‡b Ges 05/10/2019
wLªóvã ZvwiL ivZ 10.00 Uvi ci †_‡K †h †Kvb mgq ch©šÍ
GKB †M÷ nvD‡R Avcbviv `dvq `dvq wgwUs K‡ib †h
wfKwUg Aveivi dvnv` ivweŸ‡K gviai K‡i nZ¨vi Kivi
Awfbœ AwfcÖv‡q weMZ 06/10/2019 wLªóvã ZvwiL mgq
20: 05 NwUKv nB‡Z 07/10/2019 wLªóvã ZvwiL mgq

5
02:30 NwUKvi g‡a¨ †h †Kvb mgq XvKv gnvbMixi
PKevRvi g‡Wj _vbvaxb ey‡qU Gi †k‡i evsjv AvevwmK
nj iæg bs 2011 Ges 2005 Gi wfZi AÎ gvgjvi wfKwUg
ey‡q‡Ui †k‡ievsjv AvevwmK n‡ji QvÎ Aveivi dvnv`
ivweŸi cÖwZ Avcbviv D‡ËwRZ n‡q µgvMZfv‡e Po,
_vài, jvw_, wKj, Nywl †g‡i, KzbB w`‡q wc‡V, wµ‡KU
ó¨v¤ú, w¯‹wcs †ivc w`‡q wbg©g I wbôzi fv‡e wcwU‡q
40/50 wU gvivZœK ¸iæZi i³v³ RLgmn nZ¨v K‡ib|
cieZx©‡Z Avmvgx †gvkviid mKvj, †gvt †g‡n`x nvmvb
iweb, GGmGg bvRgym mv`vZ, †gv: gyRvwn`yi ingvb,
†gv: †gdZvûj Bmjvg wRqb, †gv: AwbK miKvi, †gv:
gwbiæ¾vgvb gwbi, L›`Kvi Zvev°viæj Bmjvg Zvbfxi MY
†MÖdZvi n‡q Zviv wb‡R‡ì‡K NUbvi mv‡_ RwoZ K‡i
Av`vj‡Z †`vl ¯^xKv‡ivw³g~jK Revbew›` cÖ`vb K‡i I AÎ
gvgjvi Ab¨vb¨ mKj Avmvgxiv NUbvi mv‡_ m¤ú„³ Av‡Q
g‡g© Revbe›`x cÖ`vb K‡ib|
Ges Bnvi Øviv 1860 mv‡ji `Ûwewai 302/109/114/34 avivi
Aax‡b kvw¯Í‡hvM¨ I `Ûbxq Aciva Kwiqv‡Qb Ges Zvnv
AÎ `ªæZ wePvi UªvBeybv‡j wePvh©|

6
Thugh this is not a case of section 302 of the Penal
code, 1860 but having no intention a case of 304
second part of the said Code, 1860 but the charge
framed against the instant accused petitioner is as
follows:
“Avc নী Awfhy³ মেহেদী হাসান রাসেল (অন্যান্যদের সাথে)
c~e©cwiKwíZfv‡e ci¯úi †hvMmvR‡k I mnvqZvq
Awfbœ AwfcÖv‡q weMZ 04/10/2019 wLªóvã Zvwi‡L
mÜ¨v 6.00 Uvi ci †_‡K †h †Kvb mgq evsjv‡`k cÖ‡KŠkj
wek¦we`¨vjq (ey‡qU) Gi †k‡i evsjv AvevwmK n‡ji
K¨vw›U‡b Ges 05/10/2019 wLªóvã ZvwiL ivZ 10.00 Uvi
ci †_‡K †h †Kvb mgq ch©šÍ GKB †M÷ nvD‡R Avcbviv
`dvq `dvq wgwUs K‡ib †h wfKwUg Aveivi dvnv`
ivweŸ‡K gviai K‡i nZ¨vi Kivi Awfbœ AwfcÖv‡q weMZ
06/10/2019 wLªóvã ZvwiL mgq 20: 05 NwUKv nB‡Z
07/10/2019 wLªóvã ZvwiL mgq 02:30 NwUKvi g‡a¨ †h
†Kvb mgq XvKv gnvbMixi PKevRvi g‡Wj _vbvaxb
ey‡qU Gi †k‡i evsjv AvevwmK nj iæg bs 2011 Ges 2005
Gi wfZi AÎ gvgjvi wfKwUg ey‡q‡Ui †k‡ievsjv AvevwmK
n‡ji QvÎ Aveivi dvnv` ivweŸi cÖwZ Avcbviv D‡ËwRZ
n‡q µgvMZfv‡e Po, _vài, jvw_, wKj, Nywl †g‡i, KzbB

7
w`‡q wc‡V, wµ‡KU ó¨v¤ú, w¯‹wcs †ivc w`‡q wbg©g I
wbôzi fv‡e wcwU‡q 40/50 wU gvivZœK ¸iæZi i³v³ RLgmn
nZ¨v K‡ib|
The abovementioned charges framed against the
instant accused petitioner provides the following
parts:
(i) c~e©cwiKwíZfv‡e...
(ii) ci¯úi †hvMmvR‡k...
(iii) ci¯úi mnvqZvq...
(iv) Awfbœ AwfcÖv‡q...
(v) weMZ 04/10/2019 wLªóvã Zvwi‡L
mÜ¨v 6.00 Uvi ci †_‡K †h †Kvb mgq
evsjv‡`k cÖ‡KŠkj wek¦we`¨vjq (ey‡qU)
Gi †k‡i evsjv AvevwmK n‡ji K¨vw›U‡b
`dvq `dvq wgwUs করা …

8
(vi) 05/10/2019 wLªóvã ZvwiL ivZ 10.00
Uvi ci †_‡K †h †Kvb mgq ch©šÍ GKB
†M÷ nvD‡R Avcbviv `dvq `dvq wgwUs
করা …
(vii) weMZ 06/10/2019 wLªóvã ZvwiL
mgq 20: 05 NwUKv nB‡Z 07/10/2019
wLªóvã ZvwiL mgq 02:30 NwUKvi g‡a¨
†h †Kvb mgq XvKv gnvbMixi PKevRvi
g‡Wj _vbvaxb ey‡qU Gi †k‡i evsjv
AvevwmK nj iæg bs 2011 Ges 2005 Gi
wfZi AÎ gvgjvi wfKwUg ey‡q‡Ui
†k‡ievsjv AvevwmK n‡ji QvÎ Aveivi
dvnv` ivweŸi cÖwZ Avcbviv D‡ËwRZ
n‡q µgvMZfv‡e Po, _vài, jvw_, wKj,
Nywl †g‡i, KzbB w`‡q wc‡V, wµ‡KU
ó¨v¤ú, w¯‹wcs †ivc w`‡q wbg©g I wbôzi
fv‡e wcwU‡q 40/50 wU gvivZœK ¸iæZi
i³v³ RLgmn nZ¨v K‡ib|
This is now necessary to analyze the depositions of
prosecution witnesses as well as the evidence coming

9
through the cross examination for the kind
consideration of this Druto Bichar Tribunal No. 1,
Dhaka.
ARGUMENTS FOR ACCUSED NUMBER
MEHEDI HASAN RASEL:( Arguments
for the instant accused
petitioner who has been
charged under sections 302,
109, 324, 114 and 34 of the
Penal Code, 1860)
Here the following main points is to be considered in
respect of the charges of sections 302, 109, 324, 114
and 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 against this
accused petitioner
Whether any produced
prosecution witness has adduced
any piece of evidence in respect of
the charges of sections 302, 109,

10
324, 114 and 34 of the Penal
Code, 1860 against the instant
accused petitioner
The answer of the question is
absolutely ‘No’ and reasons for
‘no’ are given below:
Among 60 (Sixty) police reported (charge sheet)
prosecution witnesses 46(Fifty-six) witnesses have
been produced before the trial Court who have
adduced their evidence and now it is necessary to see
and examine whether any witness has adduced any
evidence against this accused petitioner. On the
contrary, in order to disprove the charges made
against him, the accused petitioner has adduced his
evidence under section 340(3) of the code of criminal
procedure, 1898.
Defence case is in short from the evidence and trend
of the cross examination along with the evidence
adduced under section 340(3) of the said Code, 1898

11
is that the instant accused petitioner was not present
in the six place of occurrences and he was busy in
Mess managerial works in the Shere Bangla Hall
BUET as he was the manager at the time of the
alleged incidenec and he is incapable of hitting any
person due to his incapable physical condition and
accordingly he is defintely an innocent.
(I) Analysis of evidence of PW-1
Md. Borkat ullah in respect
of the charges made against
the aforesaid accused
petitioner:
PW-1 is the father of the deceased Abrar Fahad and is the
informant of this case. He in his examination in chief
stated that- Avwg †jvKgvid‡Z Rvwb‡Z cvwi †k‡i evsjv
AvevwmK n‡ji KwZcq QvÎ Avgvi †Q‡j‡K c~e© cwiKwíZfv‡e
gviai Kwiqv ¸iæZi RLg KiZ: nZ¨v Kwiqv‡Q| D³ msev` cvBqv
Avwg ZvrÿwbKfv‡e XvKvq Avwmqv ey‡qU †k‡i evsjv
AvevwmK n‡ji KZ„©c‡ÿi mv‡_ I KwZcq QvÎ I wkÿK‡ì
mv‡_ Av‡jvPbv Kwiqv Ges wmwm K¨v‡givq aviYK„Z wfwWI
dz‡UR †`‡L Rvwb‡Z cvwi †k‡i evsjv AvevwmK n‡ji QvÎ

12
Avmvgx ... মেহেদী হাসান রাসেল...MY mn AÁvZbvgv Av‡ivI K‡qKRb
evsjv‡`k cÖ‡KŠkj wek¦we`¨vj‡qi QvÎ MY Bs 06/10/2019 Bs
ivZ Abygvb 8:05 wgwb‡U Avgvi †Q‡j Aveivi dvnv` iveŸx‡K
ey‡qU †k‡i evsjv AvevwmK n‡j iæg bs 1011 nB‡Z nZ¨vi
D‡Ï‡k¨ †W‡K wb‡q 07/10/2019 Bs Zvwi‡L ivZ Abygvb 02.30
wgwbU ch©šÍ †k‡i evsjv AvevwmK n‡ji iæg bs 2011 Ges iæg
bs 2005 Gi wfZi wb‡q c~e© cwiKwíZfv‡e wµ‡KU ÷¨v¤ú,
jvwV ‡mvUv Ges w¯‹wcs †ivc A_©¨vr iwk w`‡q kix‡ii
wewfbœ RvqMvq cÖPÛ gviai K‡i| hvi d‡j NUbv¯’‡j Avgvi
†Q‡j gviv hvq|
In the cross-examination pw-1 stated that- Avcwb AÎ gvgjvi
ZwK©Z NUbvi ïiæ †_‡K Aveivi dvnv‡ì g„Zz †NvlYv ch©šÍ
mg‡q msNwUZ ZwK©Z ‡Kvb NUbvB wbR †Pv‡L †`‡Lb bvB
Bnv mZ¨ wK bv? nu¨v| AÎ gvgjvi ZwK©Z NUbvKvjxb mg‡q
Avcwb ZwK©Z NUbvi ¯’‡j Dcw¯’Z wQ‡jb bv Bnv mZ¨ wK
bv? nu¨v wQjvg bv|
In the cross examination he also admitted that he came to
know about the incident from Rafi, Sayem, Rayhan, Yamin,
Mohaimin, Rashik Siddiki and others. The relevant part of
the cross examination is as follows-

13
Avcwb ey‡q‡Ui †h K‡qKRb Qv‡Îi bvg ej‡Z cvi‡eb e‡jb
†mB KwZcq Qv‡Îi msL¨v GRvnv‡i D‡jøwLZ Qv‡Îi msL¨vi
†P‡q Kg wK bv?- Kg| †h K‡qKR‡bi bvg ej‡Z cvi‡eb e‡jb-
Zv‡ì bvg h_vµ‡g ivwd, mv‡qg, ivqnvb, Bqvwgb,
†gvnvBwgb, ivwkK wmwÏKx GB KqRb I Ab¨vb¨|
Among the aforementioned 06 names only Rafi and Yamin
came to the witness box as PW-25 & PW-26. They were not
also the eye witnesses of the case. PW-25 in his
examination-in-chief stated that- …IB mgq c‡i mvBdzj Avgv‡K
wb‡q iæ‡gi evB‡i Kwo‡Wv‡i wb‡q Av‡m I Avgv‡K Rvbvq †h,
Aveivi‡K Avgv‡ì n‡ji Avgv‡ì e¨v‡Pi K‡qKRb †Q‡j 2011 bs iæ‡g
wb‡q wM‡q‡Q| Avwg bvg Rvb‡Z PvB‡j mvBdzj Avgv‡K Zvwbg,
†Rwg mn Av‡iv K‡qKRb Qv‡Îi bvg Rvbvq| ...mvBdzj cybivq ivZ
AvbygvwbK 2.30 †_‡K 2: 45 wgwb‡Ui g‡a¨ Avgvi A_©¨vr 1011 bs
iæ‡g Av‡m| mvBdzj Avgv‡ì iæ‡g Aveiv‡ii kvU© †bIqvi Rb¨ G‡mwQj
I Aveiv‡ii kvU© wb‡q †m †ewi‡q hvq Ges mvBdzj Av‡iv Rvbvq †h,
Aveivi‡K nvmcvZv‡j †bIqv n‡e|
It is clear from the aforesaid depositions that PW-25 did
not know what had happened in Room No. 1011 & 2011 in
respect of the alleged incident. He just came in knowing
everything from third Party.

14
On the other hand, First three lines of cross examination of
PW-26 are- Avcwb ZwK©Z NUbvi w`b KLb †_‡K ivZ 03.00 Uv
ch©šÍ co‡Z wQ‡jb?- ivZ 08:00 Uv †_‡K| D³ ivZ 03:00 Uvi পূর্বের
NUbv Kvi wbKU †_‡K ï‡bwQ Zrg‡g© GBgû‡Z© ¯§iY bvB|
So PW-1 is not only a hearsay witness but also hearsay of
hearsay witness and heard the alleged incident including
from anonymous (অজ্ঞাতনামা) people as he mentioned in his
examination in chief that- Avwg †jvKgvid‡Z Rvwb‡Z cvwi †k‡i
evsjv AvevwmK n‡ji KwZcq QvÎ Avgvi †Q‡j‡K c~e© cwiKwíZfv‡e
gviai Kwiqv ¸iæZi RLg KiZ: nZ¨v Kwiqv‡Q| He was not present in
the place of occurrence at the time of incident. His evidence
deserves no evidentiary value in the light of section 60 of
the Evidence Act.
In Kutubuddin Ahmed Siddiky v. E. Pak Industrial
Development Corporation, 27 DLR (HCD) 433 Para-10 it
has been held that:
The provision of Section 60 is founded upon a cardinal
principle of law of evidence, namely, that the evidence
must always be direct and hearsay evidence must be
excluded. (Underline is given for emphasis)

15
Again in the case of Hossain vs 56 DLR (AD) 213 it has
held that:
It is a settled principle of law that hearsay
evidence cannot be the basis of conviction.
In the case of Nibash Chandra v. Depali Roy, 52 DLR
(HCD) 87 Para-7, it has been held that –
When the other witnesses stated that they heard the
occurrence from the complainant but the complainant did
not herself state in her deposition or in the petition of
complaint that she told those witnesses, the evidence of the
witnesses are hearsay and have no value.
Here although PW-1 has stated that he heard from PW-25
and PW-26 along with Sayem, Rayhan, Mohaimin, Rashik
Siddiki and etc. but the said PWs 25 and 26 are not eye
witnesses. Moreover, they have not stated in their
examination in chief that they told the incident to the
informant of this case who has adduced his evidence as
PW-1 and ergo the evidence of PW-1 is nothing but only the
hearsay of the hearsay evidence which has no
evidentiary value. Other 4 (four) persons have not been
produced as prosecution witnesses. In support of this
contention of hearsay of the hearsay evidence there is a

16
case reference i.e. Kirtan Prasad vs State of Madhya
Pradesh 2005 Cri LJ 69
“Section 60 of Evidence Act requires that the oral evidence
must, in all cases whatsoever, be direct. Where the
testimony of the witness is entirely hearsay and on some
matters hearsay of hearsay, it cannot be admitted in
evidence. Where a witness gives evidence that he received
information from other person and that person does not
say about it, such evidence would be inadmissible being
hearsay evidence.”
In the instant case, PW-25 and 26 are not eye witnesses
and they heard the incidents from others and PW-1 heard
the incident from the said hearsay witnesses PW-25 and
PW-26 and thus in view of the law reported in the case
aforesaid case of Kirtan Prasad vs State of Madhya
Pradesh 2005 Cri LJ 69, the evidence of PW-1 is not only a
hearsay evidence but also a hearsay of the hearsay evidence
which is definitely inadmissible and has no value at all.
In the case of Mir Hossain @ Forkan Meah v. State, 12 BLT
(AD) 59 Para-6, it has been declared by the Hon’ble

17
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh
that-
“The informant did not see the occurrence and he heard it
from others. His evidence shall be treated as hearsay
evidence and cannot be relied upon unless his statement is
corroborated by those from whom he heard.”
Again in the case of Amjad Ali v. State, 72 DLR (AD) 113
Para-29, it has been declared by the Hon’ble Appellate
Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh that-
“Hearsay evidence is not admissible in evidence and if he
has got any information from person or officer, he must
mention his name and the prosecution is required to
examine that person to corroborate the statement, otherwise
the statement cannot be admissible into evidence.”
In the instant case, the charges framed against the instant
accused petitioner has not been stated either in the
examination in chief by pw-25 and 26 which absolutely
make it clear that the statement between the PW-1 and
them (PW-25 and 26) are not corroborated. That is, PW-1
has made his examination in chief in making similarity
with the charges or the information written in the first
information but the said PW-25 and 26 from whom he

18
heard have not stated the same kind of fact or statement
agains the instant accused petitioner and hence their
statements are also uncorroborated and having the
disparity, the evidence of PW-1 is definitely hearsay
evidence and has no evidentiary value at all. Moreover, PW-
1 has stated that he heard from PW-25 and PW-26 along
with Sayem, Rayhan, Mohaimin, Rashik Siddiki and etc.
but the said PWs 25 and 26 are not eye witnesses and the
rest four witnesses (Sayem, Rayhan, Mohaimin and
Rashik Siddiki) have not been produced although as per
the mandatory law reported in 72 DLR (AD) 113 Para-29 it
was required for the prosection to to examine the said four
persons to corroborate the statement of PW-1 and for the
failure of the same, the statement of PW-1 cannot be
admissible into evidence.
For the following admission (Avcwb AÎ gvgjvi ZwK©Z
NUbvi ïiæ †_‡K Aveivi dvnv‡ì g„Zz †NvlYv ch©šÍ mg‡q
msNwUZ ZwK©Z ‡Kvb NUbvB wbR †Pv‡L †`‡Lb bvB Bnv
mZ¨ wK bv? nu¨v| AÎ gvgjvi ZwK©Z NUbvKvjxb mg‡q
Avcwb ZwK©Z NUbvi ¯’‡j Dcw¯’Z wQ‡jb bv Bnv mZ¨ wK
bv? nu¨v wQjvg bv|) of the informant cum PW-1, it is
absolutely crystal clear that he was not present in the place

19
of occurrence and has not seen any facts starting from 8.05
am to 2.30 pm period of time and hence his evidence is
completely a hearsay evidence which is inadmissible in
evidence according to the principle of evidence Act of 1872.
Moreover, he has admitted that there is no presence of the
instant accused petitioner in the video in question of
calling and taking the deceased from his room and in his
own language the said admitted facts is as follows: “…
Avcbvi †Q‡j‡K AÎ gvgjvi ZwK©Z wfwWI‡Z †W‡K wb‡q
hvIqvi `„k¨ gvÎ 11 †m‡K‡Ûi Bnv ej‡Z cvi‡eb wKbv?- bv,
Avwg ej‡Z cvi‡ev bv|...”
This is also notable here that though the PW-1 has stated
that Avwg †jvKgvidZ Rvb‡Z cvwi †k‡i evsjv AvevwmK n‡ji
KwZcq QvÎ Avgvi †Q‡j‡K c~e© cwiKwíZfv‡e gviai Kwiqv
¸iæZi RLg KiZ: nZ¨v Kwiqv‡Q| but he has admitted that AÎ
gvgjvi ZwK©Z cÖvq 6 N›Uvi ïiæi mg‡qi c~‡e©i †Kv‡bv
NUbv msNwUZ NUbvi c~‡e©i †Kvb wKQzB Avcbvi Rvbv
_vKvi K_v bv|- n¨v| This indicates that the PW-1 had no
knowledge about not only the charges framed against the
instant accused petitioner but also about the pre-planning
in question of the alleged allegation.

20
In fact, the evidence of PW-1 is nothing i.e. no evidence
in respect of the charged made against the instant accused
petitioner Mehedi Hasan Rasel.
(II)Analysis of evidence of PW-2 Md.
Delowar Hosen, Sub-inspector of
police in respect of the charges
made against the aforesaid
accused petitioner:
The PW-2, Md. Delwar Hosen, Sub-inspector of police
has made his following deposition during the
examination in chief
g„Z Aveivi dvnv` (21) †K AÁvZbvg e¨w³iv AÁvZ Kvi‡Y
Zvnv‡K gviai Kwiqv ¸iæZi hLg Ae¯’vq A‰PZb Kwiqv †k‡i
evsjv nj ey‡qU XvKvi wØZxq Zjv †_‡K bxP Zjv hvevi
wmwoi gvS eivei †d‡j †i‡L hvq| cieZx© myiZnv‡j D‡jøwLZ
Wvt †gvnv¤§` gvmyK Gjvnx msev` cvBqv D³ ¯’v‡b Avwmqv
g„Z Ae¯’vq †`wL‡Z cvq| Z_vwcI g„‡Zi g„Zzï mwVK KviY
wbY©‡qi Rb¨ gqbv Z`‡šÍi wbwg‡Ë g„Z †`nwU mswkøó
KvMRcÎ mn msMxq Ks/13588 †gvt kwn`yj Bmjvg Gi gva¨‡g

21
miKvix †hv‡M wefvMxq cÖavb d‡ibwmK †gwWwmb
wefvM XvKv †gwW‡Kj K‡jR nvmcvZvj †cÖiY K‡ib| GB
†mB myiZnvj wi‡cvU© cÖ`k©bx-2, Zv‡Z Avgvi ¯^vÿi
cÖ`k©bx-2/1|
So from the above deposition it is found that the PW-2 has
not seen any facts of this case and even he has stated
either wrong statements or false statements as though he
has stated that “…gqbv Z`‡šÍi wbwg‡Ë g„Z †`nwU mswkøó
KvMRcÎ mn msMxq Ks/13588 †gvt kwn`yj Bmjvg Gi gva¨‡g
miKvix †hv‡M wefvMxq cÖavb d‡ibwmK †gwWwmb
wefvM XvKv †gwW‡Kj K‡jR nvmcvZvj †cÖiY K‡ib| but
he has admitted that AÎ gvgjvi wWwm÷ Gi `„k¨Z g„Zÿi
KviY wbY©‡qi †ÿ‡Î Avcbvi †Kvb cÖKvi m‡›`n wQj wKbv?-
nu¨v| †mB m‡›`‡ni wfwË‡Z `„k¨Z wWwm‡÷i g„Zyï KviY
wbY©‡qi wbwg‡Ë XvKv †Rjvi mswkøó wmwfj mvR©‡bi
wbKU wWwm÷ Gi †WW ewW †cÖiY K‡iwQ‡jb wKbv?-
nu¨v| XvKv †Rjvi wmwfj mvR©‡bi wbKU AÎ gvgjvi
wWwm÷ Gi ewW †cÖiY Kivi K_v ZwK©Z myiZnvj
cÖwZ‡e`‡b Av‡Q wKbv?- nu¨v Av‡Q|
Here the PW-2 has made false statements as he has stated
in his examinationin-chief-that the dead body of the

22
deceased of this case has been sent to the Head of the
Forensic Department of Dhaka Medical College, Dhaka but
he in his cross examination has given false statement i.e.
the dead body of the deceased of this case has been sent to
the Civil Surgeon of Dhaka District and even the inquest
report itself does not contain the fact of sending dead body
of the deceased to the Civil Surgeon of Dhaka District.
The PW-2 has made the false statement as the address of
the office of Civil Surgeon of Dhaka District is located at
Azimpur Road, Dhaka but the address of the Head of the
Forensic Department of Dhaka Medical College, Dhaka is
located at near to Zahir Raihan Road, Dhaka and hence it
is crystal clear that the PW-2 has made false statements in
respect of sending the dead body of the deceased for post
mortem report. In fact, the deposition of the PW-2 is no
evidence against the instant accused petitioner and at the
same time, the evidence coming through the cross
examination on behalf of the instant accused petitioner is
false evidence which creates nothing.
This is notable that the PW-2 has made the inquest report
in violating section 174 of the Cod of Criminal Procedure,

23
1898 i.e. without the special empowerment of the
government.
Here the PW-2 has not adduced an iota of evidence in
respect of the charges made against the instant accused
petitioner and hence the evidence of the PW-2 is nothing
i.e. no evidence.
(III) Analysis of evidence of PW-3 Md.
Sohrab Hosen, Inspector of police in
respect of the charges made against the
aforesaid accused petitioner:
The PW-3 Md. Sohrab Hosen, Inspector of police of
police has made his following deposition during the
examination in chief that MZ 07/10/2019 Bs Zvwi‡L Avwg
Awdmvi-Bb-PvR© wnmv‡e PKevRvi g‡Wj _vbvq Kg©iZ wQjvg| D³
Zvwi‡L ivZ 20:30 wgwb‡Ui mgq AÎ gvgjvi ev`x †gvt eiKZ Djøvn Gi
Kw¤úDUvi K‡¤úvRK…Z GRvnvi _vbvq cÖvß nBqv Avwg Awdmvi
Bb PvR© wnmv‡e PKevRvi g‡Wj _vbvi gvgjv bs 14, ZvwiL

24
07/10/2019 Bs, aviv 302/34 `Ûwewa iæRy Kwi but the said PW-3
in his cross examination has admitted that
AÎ gvgjvi msev` `vZv KZ©K cÖ`Ë ZwK©Z cÖv_wgK Z_¨ Øviv wewc
dig 27 c~i‡Yi mg‡q wK Bnv Rvb‡Zb †h, Avcbvi c~iYK…Z AÎ wewc
dig cÖvq 10 eQi Av‡M evwZjK…Z?- Rvwb bv| cÖvq cÖvq 10 eQi
Av‡M evwZjK…Z wewc dig 27 G AÎ gvgjvi ZwK©Z gvgjvi cÖv_wgK
Z_¨ wjwce× Kivi welqwU B”QvK…Z bv Awb”QvK…Z?-
Awb”QvK…Z...
AÎ gvgjvi cÖv_wgK Z_¨ wewc dig 27 c~i‡Yi c‡i AÎ gvgjvi Z`šÍKvix
Kg©KZ©v wbav©iY Kivi welqwU wcweAvB iæjm 2016 Abymv‡i
Avcbvi GLwZqvi ewnf©~Z wKbv?-GUv Avgvi Rvbv bvB| wcweAvB
iæjm Abymv‡i XvKv †Rjv Ges XvKv †g‡UªvcwjUb Gwiqvi
`vwq‡Z¡ wb‡qvwRZ mswkøó wcweAvB Kg©KZ©v KZ©„K Z`šÍKvix
Kg©KZ©v wbav©iY Kiv DwPr wQj Bnv mwVK wK bv?- Bnv Avgvi
Rvbv bvB| AvBb bv Rvbvi AhynvZ bq GUv Rv‡bb wK?- GUv Avgvi
Rvbv †bB| wewc dig c~iY Kivi †gvU KZwU wb‡`©kbv Av‡Q?- Avgvi
Rvbv †bB|“
From plain reading of the deposition and the cross
examination based evidence of this prosecution witness
(PW-3), it is crystal clear that PW-3 was not an eye witness
and he was not present at the time of committing alleged
offence. He being the officer in charge of Chak Bazar Police
Station, DMP, Dhaka aftter getting the written first

25
information has recorded in BP form 27 under regulations
243 and 244 of police regulations, 1943 and hence there is
not a single word of evidence against the instant accused
petitioner.
Moreover, he has admitted in his cross examination that
“wcweAvB iæjm Abymv‡i XvKv †Rjv Ges XvKv †g‡UªvcwjUb
Gwiqvi `vwq‡Z¡ wb‡qvwRZ mswkøó wcweAvB Kg©KZ©v KZ©„K
Z`šÍKvix Kg©KZ©v wbav©iY Kiv DwPr wQj Bnv mwVK wKbv? -
Bnv Avgvi Rvbv bvB|
That is, he was not aware of the necessity of determining
and conducting the investigation of this case by the
authority of Police Bureau of Investigation (PBI) according
to the schedule of the PBI Rules 2016. The case of 302 of
the penal code including this case was to be and is to be
and shall have to be sent to the PBI authority for
investigation till the existence of the said Rules, 2016.”
He was also not aware of the substituted BP form 27 for
which he has used the earlier BP form 27 which is
according the gazette notification dated 13 March 2008
illegal or repealed as the said Form has been already

26
substituted and he has also admitted that this mistake was
his unintentional mistake.
(IV)Analysis of evidence of PW-4 Md.
Zahid Hossain Jony in respect of
the charges made against the
aforesaid accused petitioner:
PW-4 Md. Zahid Hossain Jony is a canteen boy of
Sher-E-Bangla Hall, BUET. His examination-in-
chief is as follows:
NUbvi ZvwiL 07/10/2019 Bs ZvwiL| Avwg weMZ
07/10/2019 Bs ZvwiL Zvwi‡L evsjv‡`k cÖ‡KŠkj
wek¦we`¨vjq (ey‡qU) †k‡ievsjv n‡ji K¨vw›Ub eq wnmv‡e
KvR KiZvg| MZ 06/10/2019 Bs ZvwiL wèvMZ ivZ 01.00
Uvi mgq K¨vw›Ub eÜ nevi ci ey‡q‡Ui †k‡i evsjv n‡ji mKvj

27
fvB Avgv‡K WvwKqv 2011 bs iæ‡g wbqv hvq| Avwg iæ‡gi
wfZi wM‡q †`L‡Z cvB Zvnvi iæ‡gi †g‡S I evwj‡ki Dci
ewg| mKvj fvB Avgv‡K H ewg cwi¯‹vi Kivi Rb¨ e‡j Ges
Avgv‡K UvKv w`‡q Avwm‡e ewjqv Rvbvq| Avwg evwj‡ki
Kfvi I †g‡S †_‡K ewg cwi¯‹vi Kwi| ZLb mKvj fvB Qvov
Ab¨ †jvK wQjbv| Avwg cwi¯‹vi Kwiqv K¨vw›U‡b Avwmqv
nvZ-gyL mvevb w`qv cwi¯‹vi Kwiqv NygvBqv cwi| ivÎ
Abygvb 03:30 NwUKvi mgq Nyg †_‡K DwVqv †k‡i evsjv
n‡ji wb‡P Pvì w`qv XvKv GKR‡bi jvk †`wL‡Z cvB| c‡i
Rvwb‡Z cvwi 1011 bs iæ‡gi Aveivi gviv †M‡Q|...
From the plain reading of the aforesaid statement of PW-4
it is transparent that he was on 06.10.2019 till 1 p.m. in
the canteen that means he did not know what happened
inside of the room no: 2011. Though he has cleaned some
unclean object but he has not seen any fact in question
committed inside of the room no: 2011. After cleaning the
unclean object he slipped and at 3:30 am on 07.10.2019 he
saw the dead body covered by sheet (চাদর). This indicates
that PW-4 has not seen any alleged allegation.

28
(V) Analysis of evidence of PW-5 Dr.
Masuk Elahi in respect of the
charges made against the aforesaid
accused petitioner:
Prosecution Witness (PW) No. 5 Dr. Masuk Elahi has
stated in his examination in chief that “NUbvi ZvwiL
07/10/2019 Bs ZvwiL| Avwg MZ Bs 06/10/2019 Bs ZvwiL mKvj
Abygvb 08:00 NwUKv nB‡Z 07/10/19 ZvwiL mKvj 08:00 Uv ch©šÍ
ey‡qU †gwW‡Kj †m›Uv‡i Bgv‡R©wÝ‡Z Kg©iZ wQjvg| 07/10/19 Bs
ZvwiL ivZ 02:47 NwUKvq ey‡qU †k‡i evsjv nj †_‡K Bgv‡R©wÝ b¤î
6666 n‡Z GKRb QvÎ †dvb w`‡q e‡j †h, GKRb QvÎ LyeB Amy¯’| Zvi
k¦vm Kó n‡”Q| Zviv Avgv‡K `ªæZ †k‡i evsjv n‡j Avm‡Z e‡j| Avwg
mv‡_ mv‡_ G¤^y‡jÝ WªvBfvi Kvgvj‡K mv‡_ K‡i 10 wgwbU Gi g‡a¨
ey‡qU Gi †k‡i evsjv n‡j †cŠ‡Q hvB| n‡j †cŠQvi mv‡_ mv‡_ n‡ji
mvg‡b Abygvb 10/15 Rb ey‡q‡Ui QvÎiv G¤^y‡jÝ wN‡i a‡i| Avgv‡K
Aw·‡Rb wm‡jÛvi, †÷ªPvi Avb‡Z e‡j| Avwg Zv‡ì‡K ewj †h, Avwg
Av‡M iæwM †`Le Zvici hv cÖ‡qvRb Zv Ki‡ev| QvÎiv Avgv‡K DËi
eø‡Ki wmwoi w`‡K wb‡q hvq| wmwo‡Z GKZjv I †`vZjvi gvSvgvwS
j¨vwÛs ¯’v‡b wmwo‡Z †Zvl‡Ki Dci †kvqv‡bv Ae¯’vq Aveivi dvnv`‡K
†`L‡Z cvb| Zvi co‡b GKwU dzj nvZv kvU© I UªvDRvi wQj| gv_v
29
cwð‡g cv c~e© w`‡K wQj| †ZvlK I UªvDRvi cÖmv‡e †fRv wQj | cÖ_g
`k©‡Y Zv‡K Avgvi g„Z e‡j g‡b nq| Zrÿbvr Avwg Zv‡K cixÿv Kwiqv
pulse not palpable, BP- Not recordable , Respiration absent, Heart-
sound not audible, Pupil- Diated fixed & non-reacting to light dvBwÛs
(jÿY) ¸wj cvB| RxweZ _vKvi †Kvb jÿY wQjbv Zvi g‡a¨ GUv Avwg
†`L‡Z cvB| ZLb 15/20 Rb QvÎ wQj †mLv‡b| G‡Z Avwg Aveivi
dvnv`‡K g„Z e‡j †NvlYv Kwi|
He during his cross examination has admitted that “How
much total duration was required for checking 5 vitals
including 5 minute interval periods – 7 to 8 minutes.”
After analyzing the deposition and the cross examination
based evidence of this PW- 5 it is very much clear that he
went to the place where the dead body of the deceased was
kept covered by sheet (চাদর) at 2:50 a.m. to 2:55 a.m. at
night on 7/10/2019 as he has admitted in his cross
examination that “আপনি অত্র মামলার ডিসিষ্টকে রোগী হিসাবে দেখার জন্য তর্কি ত ঘটনা স্থলে
কতটার সময় উপস্থিত হয়েছিলেন? অনুমান রাত ২:৫০ থেকে ২:৫৫ মিনিট।“
He also admitted in his examination in chief that “প্রথম দর্শনে তাকে
আমার মৃত বলে মনে হয়।

30
This means that he did not see any fact of the alleged
allegation. He went to the place of keeping the dead
body after the Death of deceased as at the first sight
Abrar Fahad was seemed to be death. This means that he
had no knowledge as to fact i.e. who did the alleged offence.
In addition to this, he informed over mobile phone to the
Provost Dr. Zafor Iqbal khan at 3:00 a.m. In fact, PW-5
went to the place of keeping the dead body after the end of
the alleged occurrence and the death of the deceased and
accordingly he was not an eye witness and also it was his
beyond knowledge as to the said allegation.
(VI)Analysis of evidence of PW-6 Nivana
Khayer Jessy, PW-7 Sadbir Yasir
Ahsan Chowdhury, PW-9 Md. Tofazzal
Hossain, PW-10 Atikul Islam in
respect of the charges made against
the aforesaid accused petitioner:

31
That the PW-6 Nivana Khayer Jessy, PW-7 Sadbir Yasir
Ahsan Chowdhury, PW-8 Md. Sorafuzzaman Ansary, PW-9
Md. Tofazzal Hossain, PW-10 Atikul Islam all being
Metropolitan Magistrates, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Dhaka are confessions recording magistrates of the co-
accused of the instant accused petitioner and accordingly
they were not present in the Place of Occurrence (PO) and
they are not eye witnesses. They have recorded the
confessions-in-question of 08 (eight) accused in violating
the abovementioned laws regarding the recording of the
confessions-in-question.
They have broadly violated the law declared by the Hon’ble
Appellate Decision reported in 39 DLR (AD) 117 and
according to the said declared law of the Hon’ble Appellate
Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, it is
mandatory for the confession recording magistrates to put
the following question at the first time:
“How long have you been with police?”

32
But the said PW-6, PW-7, PW-8, PW-9 and PW-10 have not
put the aforesaid mandatory question set by the Hon’ble
Appellate Decision of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh
and by which the confessions of the said accused are
definitely violation of the said law. Although they have not
put and written the question “How long have you been
with police?” but at the time of cross examination,
they have given false statement of putting the said
question.
Moreover, the said PW-6, PW-7, PW-8, PW-9 and PW-10
have violated regulation 283 of police Regulations 1943 and
also Rules 78 and 79 of the Criminal Rules and Orders
2009.
Let us see how they have violated the aforementioned laws
in respect of recording the confessions-in-question of the 7
(seven) co-accused and this accused.
Regulation 283 of Police Regulations 1943 provides that
“283. (a) (i) When an accused or suspected person
volunteers a confession it should be recorded in detail by a
police officer who, if it appears to be true, shall take
immediate steps for its verification. Such verification

33
should include the tracing and examination of witnesses
named or indicated in the confession and the search for, or
the recovery of, stolen property or other exhibits material to
the investigation. The officer recording the confession shall
further arrange for the confessing person to be sent to a
Magistrate in order that the confession may be judicially
recorded.
(ii) Anything which savours of oppression or trickery in
obtaining a confession must be avoided. The aim of a police
officer should be to obtain circumstantial and oral evidence
so convincing that the accused person cannot escape. If he
succeeds in obtaining such evidence, the confession will
often follow and will materially strengthen the case, but to
seek to obtain the confession first and the corroborative
evidence afterwards is to reverse the proper order of
proceedings. If, however, a confession is volunteered in an
inquiry, every effort must be made to ascertain if there is
evidence corroborative of any point in the confession which
can be verified. A statement purporting to be a confession
will often be made in order to mislead the inquiring officer,
and such statements are very rarely true in all particulars,
and also are frequently made in order to throw blame on
other persons, or with a view to deter from further inquiry.

34
Also they are generally retracted in court, in which case, if
they stand alone and uncorroborated, they have little or no
probative value, There is thus every reason for testing so-
called confessions very carefully and not accepting them as
final and conclusive, and stopping the inquiry.
(b) (i) Every confession which a person in police custody
wishes to make should be recorded by the highest
Magistrate short of the District Magistrate who can be
reached in a reasonable time. Confessions can be recorded
only by Presidency Magistrates, Magistrates of the first
class and Magistrates of the second class specially
empowered by the Provincial Government.
(ii) Investigating police officers should not be allowed to be
present when a confession is recorded, the Magistrate
should satisfy himself in every reasonable way that the
confession is made voluntarily. It should be made clear to
the prisoner that the making of a statement or not is within
his discretion. Cognizance of complaints of ill-treatment by
the police should be promptly taken and any indications of
the use of improper pressure should be at once
investigated. Concessions should ordinarily be recorded in
open court and during court hours, provided that if the

35
Magistrate is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in writing
on the form of confession, that the recording of the
confession in open court would be liable to defeat the ends
of justice, the confession may be recorded elsewhere. The
immediate examination of an accused person directly the
police bring him into court should be deprecated, and,
when feasible, a few hours for reflection in circumstances
in which he cannot be influenced by the police should be
given him before his statement is recorded.
(c) After a confession, which relates to more than one case
and discloses the activities of a gang of criminals, has
been judicially recorded, it should be verified by a police
officer and ordinarily an Inspector should be deputed for
this purpose. Should any particulars not be capable of
verification without the presence of the confessing accused,
an application should with the approval of the
Superintendent, be made to the District Magistrate to
depute a subordinate Magistrate to verify them with his
assistance. When such an application is made, a copy of
the translation of the confession together with details of the
specific points that it has not been found possible to verify
in the absence of the accused must accompany the
application.
36
(d) The verification should be made with a view to
discover evidence corroborative of the facts disclosed
in the confession and case diaries should be submitted
showing for each case all the evidence and intimation
available on the points mentioned below:
(i) Name, father‘s name, residence, age and personal
description of each member of the gang.
(ii) The route taken by the gang.
(iii) The chief incidents during the journey of the gang from
start to finish, i.e., meeting with any person, visits to shops
or houses for food, oil, light, axes, etc., the hiring of carts,
boats or carriages, buying tickets at railway stations,
crossing ferries, etc.
(iv) The arrival of the gang at the scene of occurrence and
the preliminary arrangements made, lighting torches,
cutting sticks, etc.
(v) The commission of the crime, rooms entered, doors
broken, persons tied up or assaulted, cries uttered, or
threats used, boxes taken away, chests broken open,
property taken, etc.
(vi) The division of stolen property.

37
(vii) The breaking-up of the gang and the homeward route
taken, etc.
(e) … … … …
(f) … … … …
(g) … … … …
(h) … … … …”
From the plain reading of the aforesaid regulation read
with Rules 78 and 79 of the Criminal Rules and Orders,
2009, the recorded confessions-in-question and also the
evidence coming through the cross examination of the said
Magistrates, the confessions-in-question are seriously
doubtful, involuntary and unlawful for the following legal
points:
(I) The investigating officer of this case has not
recorded the confessions-in-detail and no
immediate verification has been made by the said
investigating officer. This non-compliance or
violation of this law has been avoided by the
confession recording Magistrate and by avoiding

38
this she has also violated the regulation 283 (a) (ii)
of police regulations, 1983 for which the
confessions-in-question is seriously questionable,
unlawful and also not true as the detail record
and its verification by investigating officer
generally is a precondition for recording any
confession judicially.
(II) According to Note of Rule 79(8) of the Criminal
rules and Orders, 2009 what questions were put
to the confessing 7 (seven) co-accused and this
accused have not been mentioned by the
concerned confession recording Magistrate and for
this it, is not clear actually whether any question
was put, what questions were put and whether
the questions put to the confessing co-accused
were free from anything in the nature of cross
examination and whether the Magistrate used his
endeavor to record his statement in the fullest
detail and in the absence of these, the confession
in question is seriously questionable, doubtful
and also illegal confession.

39
In the case of King Emperor Vs Sheo Shanker
Singh on 7 April, 1948 it has been mentioned
and held that
“The magistrate who recorded the

confession in this case as to this told the
accused as follows:
"Q. I am a Magistrate. If you make any
statement before me, you may be
convicted on your own statements. Do you
know it?"
To this the accused answered:
"Yes sir. I know it".
It is clear, therefore, that so far as the first
function of a magistrate is concerned, it
was performed in accordance with the
provisions of Section 164, Criminal P. C.
When examined at the trial he stated: "I
warned him that he was not bound to give
a statement and that if he did it might be
used as evidence against him. I gave half
an hour to think calmly about what he
was to do. He said, in spite of my repeated
cautioning that he was repentant, and
must confess. It was voluntary. I was
satisfied that it was voluntary." The
magistrate gave the usual certificate at the
end of the confessional statement and
gave reasons for being satisfied that the
40
confession was voluntary, in column 7 of

the form for recording confession. The
question which has been raised by Mr.
Das is as to whether the second function,
namely before recording such a confession
the magistrate had put questions to the
person making it in order to be satisfied
that it was voluntary as required by the
Code. As to this the magistrate told the
accused. "Q. Do not make any statement
at the instigation & inducement of others.
You may make voluntary statement". To
this the accused answered: "I make
voluntary statement of my own accord
after due consideration. I am not making
statement at the threat, instigation and
inducement of others". Later on
immediately before recording the
statement the magistrate put the following
question "Q" Whatever you have to state
you may voluntarily state". The accused
then proceeded to make his statement.
Mr. Das has argued that this is no

compliance with the provisions of the Code
as there has been no questioning of the
person making a confessional statement. I
think for myself that every case has to be
decided on its own facts as to whether
actually the provisions of the Code have
41
been observed or not. In -- 'AIR 1947 Pat

281 (B)' the manner in which the
confession was recorded led their
Lordships to conclude that in fact no
questions were put to ascertain if the
statement about to be made was a
voluntary one and, therefore, the second
function required under Section 164(3) had
not been complied with, and, therefore, the
statement was inadmissible.”
In the instant case also no questions were put to
the seven co-accused and this accused to
ascertain if their confessions about to be made
were a voluntary and, therefore, the second
function required under Section 164(3) had not
been complied with, and, therefore, the
confessions in questions of the said eight co-
accused were inadmissible and hence no
punishment can be imposed on the basis of the
inadmissible confessions. Moreover, the instant
accused petitioner has adduced the unrebutted
evidence on oath under section 340(3) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1898 as to his (this
accused) innocence.
42
(III) In accordance with Rule 79(7) of the Criminal
rules and Orders, 2009, the confession recording
Magistrates were under the legal responsibility to
understand and realize the reasons to believe that
co-accused are speaking and are about to speak
voluntarily and having no existence of any kind of
reasons, the said confessions-in-question of the
co-accused are involuntary, questionable,
doubtful and also illegal confession.
(IV) The instructions mentioned in the confession
recording Form No. either (M) 84 or (M) 45 have
been violated and thus it has created the position
of the confessions-in-question very doubtful and
also illegal and as such the said confessions-in-
question are unlawful and seriously doubtful.
(V) The confessions-in-question recording
Magistrates have not read out the said
confessions after recording the same to the

43
confessions giving co-accused of this case and as
such the said confessions-in-question are
unlawful and doubtful.
(VI) The confessions-in-question recording Magistrates
either have not put any questions or have not
recorded the said questions put to the
confessions-in-question giving co-accused which
is the clear violation of the instruction mentioned
in serial No. 7 of the Form No. (M) 84 itself and as
(VII) The The confessions-in-question recording
Magistrate have not mentioned and written the
exact Bengali expressions of the questions
provided in serial No. 5 of the of the Form No (M)
84 itself and as such the said confessions-in-
question are unlawful and doubtful.
(VIII) The confessions-in-question recording Magistrates
either have not examined the physical conditions
of the confessions-in-question giving co-accused

44
and as such the said confessions-in-question are
(IX) The confession-in-question recording Magistrates
have not ascertained the first place of observation
and that detention of the confessions-in-question
giving co-accused before their arrest by the police
officer concerned and as such the said
confessions-in-question are unlawful and
doubtful.
(X) The confessions-in-question recording Magistrates
as per serial No. 6(a) of the Form No. (M) 84 have
not mentioned whether they had questioned the
concerned confessions-in-question giving co-
accused for understading the reasons and for
observing the demeanour to believe that the said
co-accused were about to speak voluntarily and
as such the said confessions-in-question are

45
(XI) The confessions-in-question recording Magistrates
were not read to the concerned confessions giving
eight accused and there is no admission of the
confession-in-question by co-accused and as
What is admission: An admission is a statement
oral or documentary which suggests any inference
as to any fact in issue or relevant fact.
What is Confession: A confession must either
admit in terms of the offence or at any rate
substantially all the facts which constitute the
offence.” [Ref. 39 DLR (AD) 117]
In fact, the evidence of PW-6 to PW-10 is nothing
i.e. no evidence in respect of the charged made
against the instant accused petitioner Mehedi
Hasan Rasel.
VII. Analysis of evidence of PW-11
Md. Farid in respect of the charges
made against the aforesaid accused
petitioner:
46
The PW-11 Md. Farid has made his following
deposition during the examination in chief
that Avwg ey‡qU Gi †k‡i evsjv n‡ji †gm eq| MZ 06/10/19Bs
ivZ AvbygvwbK 10.30 NwUKv ch©šÍ †g‡mi wWDwU †k‡l
Avgv‡ì óvd iæ‡g Nywg‡q cwo| 07/10/19Bs ivZ Abygvb 02.15
wgwb‡U Aci †gmeq mvgQzj nK G‡m Avgv‡K Nyg nB‡Z
†W‡K †Zv‡j e‡j †h n‡j bvwK wkwei a‡i‡Q| welqwU cÖ‡fvó
m¨vi‡K Rvbv‡bvi Rb¨ cÖ_‡g †dvb Kwi| †gvevBj †dvb eÜ
†c‡q Avwg I Kv‡ì m¨vi Gi evmvq hvB| m¨vi mv‡_ mv‡_
mnKvix cÖ‡fvó Wv³vi‡K †dvb †`q| Gi Abygvb 1/2 N›Uv ci
m¨vi‡ì wb‡q †k‡ievsjv n‡j Avwm| ZLb †`L‡Z cvB 1011 bs
iæ‡gi QvÎ Aveivi dvnv` iveŸx Gi jvk Uwji Dci Pvì w`‡q
XvKv Av‡Q|
After plain reading of the aforesaid examination in
chief of this PW-11, it is very much clear that PW-
11 has not seen any fact in respect of charges
made against the instant accused petitioner
named Mehedi Hasan Rasel.
According to the evidence of PW-11, there is no an
iota of evidence against the instant accused

47
petitioner and hence this witness has not been
cross examined at all.
In fact, the evidence of PW- 11 is nothing i.e. no
evidence in respect of the charged made against
the instant accused petitioner Mehedi Hasan
Rasel.
VIII. Analysis of evidence of PW-12
Abul Kalam Azad in respect of the
accused petitioner:
The PW-12 Abul Kalam Azad has made his
following deposition during the examination in
chief that Avwg ey‡qU †k‡ievsjv n‡ji wmwKDwiwU
Awdmvi | weMZ 06/10/2019 wLªt iv‡Z Avwg evmvq wQjvg|
weMZ 07/10/2019 wLªt ivZ Abygvb 3.30 NwUKvi mgq
ey‡q‡Ui †k‡i evsjv n‡ji nj cÖ‡fvó W.Rvdi BKevj m¨vi
Avgv‡K ‡dvb w`‡q e‡jb †k‡i evsjv n‡j GKRb QvÎ gviv †M‡Q|
petitioner.
48
From this statement of this PW-12, it is crystal clear
that he was not an eye witness as he heard the
news of the death of the deceased at around 3:30
a.m. at night which means that his evidence is not
direct and is post occurrence fact based which does
not directly creats any liability.
In fact, the evidence of PW-12 is nothing i.e. no
Rasel.
IX. Analysis of evidence of PW-13
Md. Motiur Rahman in respect of the
accused petitioner:
The PW-13 Md. Motiur Rahman has made his
chief that NUbvi ZvwiL 07/10/2019 Bs| Avwg eZ©gv‡b
evsjv‡`k cÖ‡KŠkj wek^we`¨vjq, †k‡ievsjv nj Gi wmwbqi
mycvifvBRvi wnmv‡e Kg©iZ AvwQ| weMZ 06/10/2019Bs

49
ivZ Abygvb 09.30 wgwb‡Ui w`‡K mnKvix cÖ‡fvó
W.Bd‡ZLvi Avng` Lvb I W.kvwnbyi Bmjvg m¨vi‡ì mv‡_
Awd‡mi KvRKg© †k‡l evmvq P‡j hvB| iv‡Z 12.00 wgwbU
bvMv` Avwg †gvevBj mvB‡j›U K‡i Nywg‡q cwo| ciw`b
07/10/2019 Bs ZvwiL mKvj AvbygvwbK 08.30 wgwb‡Ui
w`‡K Nyg †_‡K D‡V †gvevBj †dvb nv‡Z wb‡q 70/80wU
wgmW Kj †`wL †gvevBj †dv‡b| According to the
evidence of PW-13, there is no an iota of evidence
against the instant accused petitioner as he did not
see anything during the time of occurrence.
Rasel.
X. Analysis of evidence of PW-14 ASI
Golam Mostofa in respect of the
accused petitioner:
50
The PW-14 ASI Golam Mostofa has made admitted
the following evidence during his cross
examination that-
“আপনি তর্কি ত মামলার ঘটনার শুরু থেকে শেষ পর্যন্ত কোনো কিছুই নিজ
চোখে দেখেন নাই - সত্য।“
So there is no direct evidence and particularly no
utterance of the name of Mehedi Hasan Rasel.
This means that there is no evidence against
instant accused petitioner in respect of the charge
made against him.
Rasel.
XI. Analysis of evidence of PW-15
Md. Rabiul Islam in respect of the
accused petitioner:
51
The PW-15 Md. Rabiul Islam has made his
chief that weMZ 08/10/2019 Bs Zvwi‡L Avwg
wWwe `wÿY wefvM, jvjevM †Rvbvj wU‡g Kg©iZ wQjvg|
eZ©gv‡b Avwg UªvwdK †ZRMuvI wefvM wWGgwc‡Z
Kg©iZ AvwQ| NUbvi ZvwiL 08/10/2019 Bs | D³
08/10/2019Bs ZvwiL ivZ 21.55 wgwb‡U igbv _vbvaxb 36
wg›Uz †ivW wWwe `wÿY jvjevM †Rvbvj wU‡gi Awdm K‡ÿ
Z`šÍKvix Kg©KZ©v †gvt Iqvwn`y¾vgvbv RãZvwjKv cÖ¯‘Z
K‡ib| Avmvgx BmwZqvK Avn‡g` gybœv‡K †MÖdZvi Kivi ci
Avmvgxi eëüZ GKwU mv`v nvjKv †mvbvjx is Gi MI-5
†gvevBj †mU Rã K‡ib| Avwg mn G.Gm AvB BmivCj †kL D³
Rã ZvwjKvq ¯^vÿi K রি|...
This witness has been declined as he has deposed
no evidence, no statement and even no name of the
instant accused petitioner Mehedi Hasan Rasel
have been mentioned by this PW-15.
petitioner.
52
evidence in respect of the charges made against the
instant accused petitioner Mehedi Hasan Rasel.
XII. Analysis of evidence of PW-16
SI Md. Ruhul Amin in respect of the
charges made against the instant
accused petitioner:
The PW-16 SI Md. Ruhul Amin has made his
chief that Avwg weMZ 08810/19 Bs Zvwi‡L wWwe
`wÿY wefvM, jvjevM †Rvbvj wU‡g Kg©iZ wQjvg| NUbvi
ZvwiL 08/10/2019 Bs I mgq ivZ 21:45 wgwbU| Rã ZvwjKvi
¯’vb-igbv _vbvaxb 36 wg›Uz †ivW wWwe `wÿY jvjevM
†Rvbvj wUg Gi Awdm K‡ÿ| Z`šÍKvix Kg©KZ©v †gvt
Iqv‡n`y¾vgvb Rã ZvwjKv cÖ¯‘Z K‡ib| Avmvgx †g‡n`x
nvmvb iweb‡K †MÖdZvi Kivi ci Avmvgxi eëüZ GKwU
Kv‡jv is‡qi †gvevBj †mU Model- M1804D2SG Rã K‡ib|
Avwg mn G.Gm.AvB †gv: BDbym wgqv D³ Rã ZvwjKvq
¯^vÿi Kwi|
53
This witness has been declined as he has deposed
no evidence, no statement and even no name of the
have been by this PW-16.
petitioner.
XIII. Analysis of evidence of PW-17
Constable Md. Shahidul Islam in
the instant accused petitioner:
The PW-17 Constable Md. Shahidul Islam has
made his following deposition during the
examination in chief that Avwg eZ©gv‡b PKevRvi
g‡Wj _vbvq Kg©iZ AvwQ| NUbvi ZvwiL- 07/10/19 Bs mgq
ivZ Abygvb 04 t 20 wgwbU|

54
myiZnvj ¯’vb- ey‡q‡Ui †k‡ievsjv n‡ji DËi †M‡Ui eviv›`v|
msev` †c‡q PKevRvi _vbvi Gm.AvB †gv: †`‡jvqvi †nv‡mb
mn Avwg I Ab¨vb¨ †dvm© mn NUbv¯’j †k‡ievsjv n‡j Avwm|
ZLb GmAvB †gvt †`‡jvqvi †nv‡mb g„Z Aveivi dvnv‡ì jvk
†`L‡Z cvb| ZLb GmAvB †`‡jvqvi †nv‡mb D³ jv‡ki myiZnvj
wi‡cvU© cÖ¯‘Z K‡ib|
PW-17 Constable Md. Shahidul Islam in his
cross examination has admitted that gvgjvi
Z`šÍKvix Kg©KZ©v hLb Avcbvi wee„wZ wb‡qwQj ZLb K_v
ïbv hvq KvQvKvwQ `~i‡Z¡ GK‡Î Gm.AvB †gvt iæûj Avwgb
Dcw¯’Z wQj wKbv? nu¨v| Gm.AvB iæûj Avwgb ï‡b‡Q|
ZwK©Z Revbe›`xi †Ìqvi mgq Avgvi mv‡_ Gm.AvB gvmy`yi
ingvb wQj| Avcwb gvgjvi AvB/Ii wbKU †Kvb cÖKvi
Revbe›`x cÖ`vb K‡ib bvB-mZ¨ bq| Avcbvi wee„wZ D×©Zb
cywjk Kg©KZ©v KZ…©K GBK c¨vUv‡b Kwc †có Kiv-mZ¨
bq|
In fact, the 161 statement of this PW-17 and the
examination in chief of this PW-17 are almost
parrot like with other police officers’s statement
and examination in chief except the investigating
officers of this case.

55
This witness PW-17 has deposed no evidence, no
statement and even no name of the instant accused
petitioner.
XIV. Analysis of evidence of PW-18
Dr. Md. Mizanur Rahman in respect of
the charges made against the instant
accused petitioner:
The PW-18 Dr. Md. Mizanur Rahman has made his
chief that NUbvi 07/10/2019 Bs| D³ Zvwi‡L Avwg
ey‡q‡Ui QvÎ Kj¨vY cwiPvjK wnmv‡e `vwqZ¡ cvjb KiwQjvg|
weMZ 07/10/19 Bs ZvwiL ivZ AvbygvwbK 03.00 n‡Z 03.10
wgwb‡U ey‡q‡Ui †k‡i evsjv n‡ji cÖ‡fvó W. Rvdi Beevj Lvb I

56
mnKvix nj cÖ‡fvó W. Bd‡ZLvi Avng` Lvb Avgvi ey‡q‡Ui
evmvq 46/7 G G‡m Avgv‡K Nyg †_‡K †W‡K †Zv‡jb Ges
e‡jb †h, †k‡i evsjv n‡j GKRb QvÎ gvW©vi n‡q‡Q|
This witness has adduced no evidence, no
statement and even no name of the instant accused
petitioner.
XIV. Analysis of evidence of PW-19
Dr. Iftekhar Ahmed Khan in respect
of the charges made against the
instant accused petitioner:
The PW-19 Dr. Iftekhar Ahmed Khan has made his
chief that NUbvi 07/10/2019 Bs| D³ ZvwiL n‡Z A`¨vew`
ch©šÍ Avwg ey‡q‡Ui AvB.G.wU wWcvU©‡g‡›Ui mnKvix

57
Aa¨vcK Ges †k‡ievsjv n‡ji mnKvix nj cÖ‡fvó (ms¯’vcb)
`vwq‡Z¡ Kg©iZ AvwQ| weMZ 07/10/2019Bs ZvwiL ivZ
AvbygvwbK 02.07 wgwb‡U ey‡q‡Ui †k‡ievsjv n‡ji
wmwKDwiwU MvW© †gv¯Ídv Avgv‡K †dvbm w`‡q
Rvbvq †h, iweb fvB n‡j Avm‡Z e‡j‡Q| MvW© †gv¯Ídvi
mv‡_ K_v ejvi ci AvbygvwbK ivZ 02.09 wgwb‡U Avwg
ey‡q‡Ui QvÎ Ges †k‡ievsjv n‡ji †Kwg‡KŠkj wefvM Gi
AvevwmK QvÎ †g‡n`x nvmvb iweb‡K †dvb †`B| iweb
Avgv‡K Rvbvq †h †k‡ievsjv n‡j GKRb wkwei a‡i‡Q| h‡_ó
G¨vwf‡WÝ Av‡Q, cywj‡k w`‡e| ZLb Avwg iweb‡K Qv‡Îi
bvg, iæg bs, wWcvU©‡g›U wel‡q wR‡Ám Kwi Ges iweb‡K
ewj †h n‡ji †Kvb QvÎ wW.Gm.WvweøD I nj cÖ‡fv‡ói
AbygwZ e¨wZ‡i‡K KvD‡K cywj‡k †Ìqv hv‡ebv| Avwg
iweb‡K A‡cÿv Ki‡Z ewj| cieZx©‡Z Avwg n‡ji cÖ‡fvó W.
Rvdi BKevj Lvb Ges mnKvix cÖ‡fvó W. †gvt kvwnbyi Bmjvg
Ges wWGmWweøD cÖ‡dmi W. wgRvbyi ingvb m¨vi‡K †dvb
†`B, †U·U †g‡mR cvVvB Ges †dmeyK †g‡mÄv‡iI †g‡mR
cvVvB| g¨v‡mR cvVv‡bvi AvbygvwbK 20/30 wgwbU ci
cÖ‡fvó W. Rvdi BKevj Lvb m¨vi Avgv‡K †dvb †`b| cÖ‡fvó
m¨vi Avgv‡K ey‡q‡Ui wUPvm© ‡KvqvU©v‡i †h‡Z e‡j|
Avwg Avgvi evmv †_‡K ey‡qU †KvqvUv‡i †cŠQv‡bvi Av‡M
†k‡ievsjv n‡ji MvW© †gvt †gv¯Ívdv Ges †k‡ievsjv n‡ji QvÎ,
iwb‡K †dvb w`‡q A‡cÿv Ki‡Z ewj Ges m¨vi‡ì wb‡q AvmwQ
58
e‡j Zv‡ì‡K †dv‡b RvbvB| cieZx©‡Z Avwg ey‡q‡Ui
wUPvm© †KvqvU©v‡i †cŠQvB| †cŠQv‡bvi ci n‡ji cÖ‡fvó
W. Rvdi BKevj Lvb Ges †k‡ievsjv n‡ji WvBwbsGi ‡gm eq
Kv‡ì I dwi`‡K cÖ‡fvó W. Rvdi BKevj Lvb m¨v‡ii evmvq
†`L‡Z cvB| cÖ‡fvó m¨vi Avgv‡K AewnZ K‡ib †h, wZwb
B‡Zvg‡a¨ ey‡q‡Ui ‡gwW‡Kj †m›Uv‡i Lei w`‡q‡Qb| cÖ‡fvó
m¨v‡ii evmv †_‡K †ei n‡q wWGmWvweøD W. wgRvbyi
ingvb m¨v‡ii evmvq hvIqvi c‡_ ey‡q‡Ui Wv³vi gvmy` Gjvnx,
cÖ‡fvó W. Rvdi BKevj Lvb m¨vi‡K ‡dv‡b Rvbvq †h, QvÎwU
gviv wM‡q‡Q, ZvovZvwo n‡j †h‡Z n‡e|
This PW-19 has admitted in his cross examination
that ey‡q‡Ui Gm.we n‡ji †MBU †_‡K XvKv †gwW‡K‡ji
AvbygvwbK `~iZ¡ 1 wK‡jvwgUvi n‡Z cv‡i| †h‡Kvb Amy¯’¨
e¨w³‡K nvmcvZv‡j †bIqv nq Zv‡K evuPv‡bvi Rb¨ Bnv
mwVK wKbv? nu¨v| wmwKDwiwU MvW© ivZ 2.20
wgwb‡U Avcbv‡K 2q evi †dvb w`‡q wQj- mZ¨ bq|
(underlined for emphasis). wØZxq evi †dvb †Ìqvi D‡Ïk¨
wQj Aveivi dvnv‡ì Amy¯’Zvi K_v ÁvZ Kiv Bnv mwZ¨ wKbv
?- mZ¨ bq| ivZ 02.07 NwUKvq wmwKDwiwU Mv‡W©i
cÖ_g †dvb †c‡q Avcwb †k‡ievsjv n‡j †cŠQv‡j 02.20
wgwb‡U wØZxq evi Avcbv‡K †dvb Kiv cÖ‡qvRb n‡Zv bv-
mZ¨ bq| Avcbvi DwPZ wQj 02.07 NwUKvq cÖ_g msev`
†c‡q m‡½ m‡½ mnKvix cª‡fvó wnmv‡e n‡ji AvBb k„•Ljv

59
iÿvi Rb¨ NUbv¯’‡j †cŠQv- mZ¨ bq|(underlined for
emphasis). wØZxq evi wmwKDwiwU MvW© Gi †dvb †c‡q
Avcwb KZRb‡K †dvb K‡i‡Qb ? 02 Rb‡K| KZRb‡K †U·U
†g‡mR w`‡qwQ‡jb ? 03 Rb‡K| Avwg †dmeyK g¨v‡mÄv‡i
msev` Rvwb‡qwQjvg| Avwg 02 Rb‡K g¨v‡mÄv‡i Ki‡Z Avgvi
KZ mgq †j‡MwQj GB gyû‡Z© Avgvi Rvbv ‡bB| Avcwb
2qevi †dvb cvIqvi ci m‡½ m‡½ Amy¯’ Aveivi dvnv`‡K
nvmcvZv‡j wb‡j nq‡Zv Aveivi dvnv` cÖv‡Y †eu‡P †hZ- mZ¨
bq| Amy¯’ Aveivi dvnv`‡K nvmcvZv‡j bv †bIqvi †ÿ‡Î Avcbvi
Pig Ae‡njv `vqx- mZ¨ bq| Avcwb wØZxq evi †dvb †c‡q
cÖ‡fv‡ói evmvq KZUvi mgq †cŠ‡Q wQ‡jb ? ivZ
AvbygvwbK 02.50 wgwb‡U| (underlined for emphasis).
Avwg †dvb †c‡q Wv³vi gvmyK Gjvwn‡K †dvb Kwi bvB| n‡j
QvÎ‡ì †Kvb mvwU©‡d‡KU _v‡Kbv, bvg I wVKvbv _v‡K|
†k‡ievsjv n‡ji †Kw›Ub Ges †Mó iæ‡gi c_ wmwm K¨v‡givi
AvIZvq wQj wKbv ? Kwi‡Wv‡ii GKwU K¨v‡givi AvIZvq
Av‡Q| Avcbvi Ges ey‡qU KZ…©c‡ÿi Ae‡njv RwbZ Kvi‡Y
h_vh_ wPwKrmv bv †c‡q Aveivi dvnv‡ì g„Zz¨ n‡q‡Q Zvi
Rb¨ Avcwb mivmwi Ges Amivmwi ey‡qU KZ…©cÿ `vqx-
mZ¨ bq| (underlined for emphasis).
This witness has adduced no incriminating evidence
against the instant accused petitioner Mehedi
Hasan Rasel.
60
petitioner.
Here, it is mentionable that Dr. Iftekhar Ahmed
Khan has given false evidence on oath in the
following way i.e. he has stated during cross
examination that wmwKDwiwU MvW© ivZ 2.20
wgwb‡U Avcbv‡K 2q evi †dvb w`‡q wQj- mZ¨ bq|
(underlined for emphasis). But later in the cross
examination he has admitted that Avcwb wØZxq evi
†dvb †c‡q cÖ‡fv‡ói evmvq KZUvi mgq †cŠ‡Q wQ‡jb ? ivZ
AvbygvwbK 02.50 wgwb‡U| (underlined for emphasis).
Moreover, the PW-37, security guard Md. Mustofa
in the sentenece Nos. 11, 12, 13 and 17 of his
examination in chief has admitted that he (PW-37)
has phoned him (PW-19) two times and accordingly
it is crystal clear that Dr. Iftekhar Ahmed Khan
(this PW-19) has given the aforesaid false evidence
to the extent of 2nd time phone by the Security

61
Guard for which he should be punished under
section 193 of the Penal Code of 1860 and in order
to do that a step under section 476 read with 195(1)
(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 may
kindly be taken by this Hon’ble Court as the fact of
2nd time phone related the matter of negligence of
this responsinsible official witness and false
evidence.
XV. Analysis of evidence of PW-20
Abu Nawshad Sakib in respect of the
accused petitioner:
PW-20 Abu Nawshad Sakib in his examination in
chief has stated that weMZ 06/10/2019 Bs ZvwiL mÜ¨v
AvbygvwbK 06.00 wgwb‡U Avwg Avgvi eÜz wmRfx‡K †dvb
†`B EEE wKQz ¯øvBW Gi Rb¨| ZLb wmRfx wUDkwb‡Z wQj
e‡j Avgv‡K iv‡Z n‡j Avm‡j †dvb w`‡e e‡j Rvbvq| H w`b ivZ
08.00 wgwb‡Ui w`‡K gwbi MÖæ‡c †g‡mR w`‡q mevB‡K
wb‡P bvg‡Z e‡j Ges 2011 bs iæ‡g Avm‡Z e‡j| Avwg
†g‡mRwU †bvwUwd‡Kkb evi †_‡K †`wL, wKš‘ †g‡mRwU

62
Avwg wmb Kwi bvB| (underline is given for emphasis)
But Avwg †g‡mRwU †bvwUwd‡Kkb evi †_‡K †`wL, wKš‘
†g‡mRwU Avwg wmb Kwi bvB is self-contradictory
and false and according to the Forensic Report
dated 31.10.2019 signed by PW-33 SI Md. Rakibul
Hasan it is reported after forensic test that Abu
Noushed Sakib (this PW-20) has made two
comments (one comment ‘ji vai’ is made at 12.38
AM of October 2019 and another comment ‘2011 te
ache’ is made at 12.39 AM of October 2019) and
accordingly it is crystal clear that Abu Noushed
Sakib (this PW-20) has given aforesaid false
evidence for which he should be punished under
section 193 of the Penal Code of 1860 and in order
to do that a step under section 476 read with 195(1)
(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 may
kindly be taken by this Hon’ble Court.
This witness has adduced no incriminating evidence
against instant accused petitioner Mehedi Hasan
Rasel.
petitioner.
63
Muhtadi Ahnaf Ansari in respect of
accused petitioner:
The prosecution witness No. 21 Muhtadi Ahnaf
Ansari has stated in his examination in chief that-
“weMZ 06/10/2019 Bs Zvwi‡L Avgvi kni evox PÆMÖvg
†_‡K ey‡q‡Ui †k‡ievsjv n‡j Avwm| Avwg wUDkbx †kl K‡i
Avgvi n‡j ivZ Abygvb 09.00 Uvi w`‡K †k‡ievsjv n‡j
Avwm|...(underline is given for emphasis) c‡i Avwg
†d«m n‡q †bB| Avwg G wb‡q Avi gv_v NvgvB bv& KviY
Ggb NUbv †k‡ievsjv n‡j cªvqB N‡U| Gi K‡hKw`b Av‡M
2011 bs iæ‡g 18 e¨v‡Pi QvÎ wmqvg I Zvw° †K I 17 e¨v‡Pi
Gn‡Zkvgyj nK Zvwbg, †Rwg, ivbv, kvgxg wejøvn mn Av‡iv
K‡qK Rb QvÎ gviai K‡i i¨vM †`q| Avwg †d«m n‡q ivZ
AvbygvwbK 09.30 NwUKvi mgq Avgvi iæ‡g Nywg‡q cwo
Ges 07/10/19 Bs ZvwiL ivZ 01.00 Uvi wKQzÿY Av‡M cov

64
†jLv Kivi Rb¨ Nyg †_‡K DwV|(underline is given for
emphasis)
This means that he was not aware of the fact of
alleged allegation till 1.00 AM on 07.10.2019 and
thereafter he heard some circumstantial facts from
a person who has not been produced by the
prosecution as prosecution witness and
accordingly his evidence to the extent of
hearsay only is definitely a hearsay evidence and
not admissible in law.
petitioner’s charges.
Mohammad Galib in respect of the
accused petitioner:
65
The prosecution witness No. 22 Mohammad Galib
has stated in his examination in chief that- “weMZ
06/10/2019 Bs Zvwi‡L Avwg †k‡ievsjv n‡jB wQjvg| Avwg
`ycy‡ii w`‡K Nyg †_‡K D‡V WvBwbs G hvB Ges WvBwbs
†_‡K G‡m iæ‡g co‡Z ewm| weKvj 05.30 Uvi w`‡K ‡Mvmj
K‡i K¨vw›U‡b bv¯Ív Ki‡Z hvB| Gici 1011 bs iæ‡g Avgv‡ì
e¨vP‡gU eÜz ivwd, dvnv` Ges ˆmKZ _v‡K e‡j Ab¨vb¨ w`‡bi
gZB Avwg weKv‡ji w`‡K AvÇv w`‡Z †k‡ievsjv n‡ji 1011 bs
iæ‡g hvB| Gici Avwg Avgvi wb‡Ri iæ‡g G‡m co‡Z ewm| ivZ
10.00 Uvi ci Avwg WvBwbs Kivi Rb¨ wb‡P bvwg| H mgq
17Zg e¨v‡Pi mvwKe Gi mv‡_ †`Lv nq| †m Rvbvq wmwbqi
fvB‡qiv 2011 iæ‡g †W‡KwQ‡jb| c‡i WvBwbs G †XvKvi
mgq gv‡R‡ì mv‡_ †`Lv nq Ges GK mv‡_ WvBwbs G
LvIqv `vIqvi Rb¨ ewm| gv‡R`‡K ewj dz‡qj Gi GKwU eB
wb‡Z Zvi iæg bs 3009 G hv‡ev| Gici LvIqvi †k‡l Zv‡K
wRÁvmv Kijvg mvwKe †_‡K ï‡bwQ wmwbqi fvB‡qiv
WvKwQj †m Zv Rv‡b wKbv, ZLb †m e‡j †m Rv‡b bv Ges
e‡jø Pj wM‡q †`wL †Kb WvKwQj| Avwg Zv‡K ewj Avwg gvÎ
mvwKe wbKU †_‡K ïbjvg, wmwbqi fvBiv bvwK WvKwQj|
c‡i †mI e‡j Zvn‡j wM‡q †`wL †Kb WvK‡Q| ivZ 10.00
NwUKvi mgq Avwg gv‡R` Gi mv‡_ iæ‡g wM‡q †`wL
Aveivi dvnv` †d¬v‡i e‡m Av‡Q|(underline is given for

66
emphasis). Avi Zvi Avkcv‡k 15, 16, 17 e¨v‡Pi A‡b‡K e‡m
Av‡Q| †g‡n`x nvmvb iweb, †gdZvûj Bmjvg wRqb, AwbK
miKvi, BdwZ †gvkviid mKvj, Zvbfxi, gwbiæ¾vgvb gwbi,
†Rwg, Zvwbg, mv`vZ, †gv‡k©`, †Zvnv, ivdvZ I Awf‡ì †`wL|
G mgq †`wL BdwZ †gvkviid mKvj Aveivi‡K DËßfv‡e
wewfbœ cÖkœ Ki‡Q, Avi Aveivi wKQz DËi w`‡ZwQj| GB
mgq BdwZ †gvkviid mKvj Aveivi dvnv`‡K Po-_vài †`q| c‡i
Avev‡iv Zv‡K evievi Aveivi dvnv`‡K cÖkœ Ki‡Z _v‡K, Avi
wKQz bvg Rvb‡Z Pvq| wKš‘ Aveivi Rvbvq †m Kv‡iv bvg
Rv‡b bv| d‡j mKvj Aveivi dvnv`‡K Avev‡iv _vài, Nywl †`q| G
mgq gyRvwn` w¯‹wcs †ivc w`‡q Aveivi‡K K‡qKwU AvNvZ
K‡i wc‡V I Kvu‡a| wKQzÿY ci AwbK miKvi GKwU wµ‡KU
ó¨v¤ú nv‡Z †bq Ges Aveivi‡K Avev‡iv wewfbœ fv‡e cÖkœ
K‡i I wkwei Kviv K‡i Zv‡ì bvg Rvb‡Z Pvq| Aveivi evi evi
Rvbvq, †m Kv‡iv bvg Rv‡b bv Ges Zv‡K †Q‡o w`‡Z e‡j|
wKš‘ AwbK e‡j Aveivi wg_¨v ej‡Q Zvici Aveivi‡K wµ‡KU
ó¨v¤ú w`‡q gvi‡Z _v‡K| Aveivi evi evi Zv‡K †Q‡o w`‡Z e‡j,
wKš‘ AwbK wkwei m¤ú‡K© wKQz Z_¨ Zv‡K w`‡Z e‡j| c‡i
†dvb Avm‡j AwbK miKvi †ei n‡q hvq| G mgq †g‡n`x nvmvb
iweb, †gdZvûj Bmjvg wRqb GivI Aveivi‡K agK †`q| G mgq
16 Zg e¨v‡Pi wgRvbyi ingvb wgRvb, kvgxg wejøvn iæ‡g
Av‡m| H mgq Hiæ‡g 14 Zg e¨v‡Pi †mZz 2009 bs iæ‡g hvq
Ges †mZz iwe‡bi mv‡_ K_v e‡j| Gici AwbK miKvi Avev‡iv
67
2011 iæ‡g hvq| cybivq Aveivi‡K wewfbœ cÖkœ K‡i| †m
wkwe‡ii Kvi Kvi mv‡_ †hvMv‡hvM K‡i, Zv‡ì bvg ej‡Z e‡j|
Aveiv‡ii Kv‡Q ey‡q‡Ui Ab¨vb¨ n‡j Kviv wkwei K‡i Zv ej‡Z
e‡j| Gici Aveivi dvnv`‡K AwbK miKvi gvi‡Z _v‡K| Gici
AwbK miKvi iæg †_‡K †ei n‡q hvq| Gici Aveivi dvnv` Rvbvq
Zvi gv_v Nyiv‡”Q, k¦vm wb‡Z Kó n‡”Q| H mgq Zv‡K †d¬v‡i
ï‡q †`q| G mgq Avwg iæg †_‡K †ei n‡q hvq Ges Avwg wb‡Ri
iæg 407 G P‡j G‡m Avwg co‡Z ewm| wKš‘ covq g‡bv‡hvM
w`‡Z cviwQjvg bv ZvB Avwg ï‡q cwo Ges Nygv‡bvi †Pôv
Kwi| Gici ivZ AvbygvwbK 02.30 ev 03.00 Uvi w`‡K gv‡R`
Avgvi iæ‡g Av‡m Ges †m Avgv‡K Rvbvq †h Aveivi dvnv`
gviv †M‡Q|(underline is given for emphasis)
This means that PW-22 was not aware of the fact of
alleged allegation till 10.00 AM on 06.10.2019 as he
has admitted in his examination in chief that ivZ
10.00 Uvi ci Avwg WvBwbs Kivi Rb¨ wb‡P bvwg| and
thereafter he heard from Sakib (PW-20) that he has
been called by the senior brothers and then he went
to the room number 2011 and he saw some persons
in the said room. But among the said some persons
the name of the instant accused petitioner is not
mentioned by him.
Here, it is necessary to make the analysis:

68
(i) Whther this PW-22 saw the facts as has been
narrated by him in his examination in chief to the
extent of charges made in the case?
The clear answer of this question is not at all.
The reason for this answer of “not at all” is the
admission of PW-46 that this PW-22 was not
present in the place of occurrenec. That is, PW-46
Wahidiujjaman who is the police report (charge
sheet) submitting investigating officer of this case
has stated in his cross examination that he and
three other prosecution witnesses (গালিব, অভি, সাইফু ল ও
সাকিব) were not present in the place of occurrence
during the different stages of the fact of this case.
PW-46 has stated in the following way during
cross examination:
“তর্কি ত ঘটনার সময় গালিব, অভি, সাইফু ল ও সাকিব ঘটনার বিভিন্ন পরিক্রমায় উপস্থিত
ছিলেন। ইহা সত্য কি না ? - সত্য নয়।“ (underlined and bold for
emphasis) = “তর্কি ত ঘটনার সময় গালিব, অভি, সাইফু ল ও সাকিব ঘটনার বিভিন্ন
পরিক্রমায় উপস্থিত ছিলেন না ? - সত্য “ (underlined and bold for
emphasis).
69
(i) Whether the identification of the accused is
lawful in the dock by the witness?
This is necessary to mention here that PW-22
being the student of the same hall of the deceased
has stated that he knows the standing instant
accused petitioner and others in the dock and the
identification of the accused in the said dock
though this PW-22 who knew the accused for a
long time in residing in the same hall of BUET has
no evidentiary value and it is not evidence at all
rather the same is done due to erroneous custom
by the prosecution as the Test Identification (TI)
of the accused must be held in the Jail as per
regulation 282 of police regulations, 1943.
(Underlined for giving emphasis).
(ii) Whether this PW-22 has given false evidence in
the case?
The answer of this question is definitely ‘yes’ i.e.
this PW-22 has given false evidence as he has said
that he was in the place of occurrence but the
police report submitting officer as PW-46 has

70
stated that “তর্কি ত ঘটনার সময় গালিব, অভি, সাইফু ল ও সাকিব ঘটনার বিভিন্ন
পরিক্রমায় উপস্থিত ছিলেন। ইহা সত্য কি না ? - সত্য নয়।“ (underlined and
bold for emphasis) and henece it is clear that this
PW-22 has given false evidence in respect of his
presence in ঘটনার বিভিন্ন পরিক্রমায়.
(iii) Wther the evidence-in-question of PW-22 has
expressed and established any facts to the extent
of the charges framed against the instant accused
petitioner?
The answer of this question is definitely ‘Not at
all’ i.e.
This witness (PW-22) has adduced no evidence
Rasel.
petitioner to the extent of charges made against
him.
71
evidence in respect of the charges made against
Rasel.
XVI. Analysis of evidence of PW-23
Sakhawat Islam Ovi in respect of the
accused petitioner:
The prosecution witness No. PW-23 Sakhawat
Islam Ovi has stated in his examination in chief
that- “weMZ 06/10/2019 Bs ZvwiL ivZ Abygvb 08.00 Uvi
w`‡K 16Zg e¨v‡Pi gwbiæ¾vgvb gwbi g¨v‡mÄv‡i mevB‡K
bx‡P Avm‡Z e‡j| H ‡g‡mRwU †`‡L Avwg Avgvi iæg bs
203 †_‡K wb‡P hvB|(underline is given for
emphasis). †mLv‡b KvD‡K †`L‡Z bv †c‡q iæg bs 1007
Gi mvg‡b `vwo‡q fvZ LvIqvi Rb¨ iæg bs- 4006 G _vKv
mvBdzj‡K †dvb w`‡q wb‡P Avm‡Z ewj| Gici mvBdzj wb‡P
bvg‡j K¨vw›U‡bi evBK ÷¨v‡Û 17 Zg e¨v‡Pi Gn‡Zkvgyj
ivweŸ Zvwbg, gybZvwmi Avj †Rwg, G.Gm Gg bvRgym
mv`vZ, †nvmvBb †gvnv¤§` †Zvnv †ì †`L‡Z †c‡q Avwg I

72
mvBdzj Zv‡ì Kv‡Q hvB| Gici Avg I‡ì wRÁvmv Kwi,
fvB‡qiv WvK‡Q †Kv_vq ? Gn‡Zkvgyj ivweŸ Zvwbg e‡j
ÒfvB‡qiv Avm‡e, Av‡M Avgv‡ì mv‡_ 1011 bs iæ‡g Pj,
Aveivi‡K I fvB‡qiv WvK‡QÓ| Gici Avwg I mvBdzj Bmjvg
I‡ì wc‡Q wc‡Q 1011 bs iæ‡g hvB| (underline is given
for emphasis) Gici H iæ‡g Avwg Zvbfxi Avn‡g` ˆmKZ Gi
mv‡_ K_v ej‡Z _vwK| ZLb Gn‡Zkvgyj ivweŸ Zvwbg
Aveivi‡K Nyg ‡_‡K †W‡K Zz‡j e‡j, †Zv‡K fvB‡qiv 2011
bs iæ‡g ‡W‡K‡Q| Gici Aveivi †d«m n‡q Avm‡j
Gn‡Zkvgyj ivweŸ Zvwbg Ges G.Gm.Gg bvRgym mv`vZ
†K wb‡q 2011 bs iæ‡g hvB| ZLb Gn‡Zkvgyj ivweŸ Zvwbg
Avgv‡K Ges mvBdzj Bmivg‡K e‡j †ZvivI Pj| Gici Avwg I
mvBdyj Bmjvg 1011 iæg †_‡K †ei nB| (underline is
given for emphasis) Gici 1008 bs iæ‡gi mvg‡b kvgxg
wejøvn‡K GKwU bZzb †nj‡gU mn †`wL| Gici Avwg,
mvBdzj Bmjvg I kvwnb Avjg byZb †nj‡gUwU †`L‡Z _vwK|
Gi g‡a¨ Gn‡Zkvgyj ivweŸ Zvwbg I GGmGg bvRgym
mv`vZ Aveivi‡K wb‡q 2011 bs iæ‡gi D‡Ï‡k¨ 2q Zjvi w`‡K
hvq| Gici †nj‡gUwU †`Lvi mgq †nvmvBb †gvnv¤§` †Zvnv
Avgv‡K I mvBdzj Bmjvg‡K Avev‡iv 2011 bs iæ‡g †h‡Z
e‡j| ZLb Avwg fq †c‡q hvB| (underline is given for
emphasis) KviY Gi AvbygvwbK 7/8 gvm Av‡M ey‡q‡Ui
†k‡ievsjv n‡ji Qv‡` 16Zg e¨v‡Pi AwgZ e‡j, †Zv‡K fvB‡qiv

73
2011 bs iæ‡g †W‡K‡Q| Gici Aveivi †d«m n‡q n‡q Avm‡j
Gn‡Zkvgyj ivweŸ Zvwbg Ges G.Gm.Gg bvRgym mv`vZ †K
wb‡q 2011 bs iæ‡g hvB| ZLb Gn‡Zkvgyj ivweŸ Zvwbg
Avgv‡K Ges mvBdzj Bmjvg‡K e‡j ‡ZvivI Pj| Gici Avwg I
mvBdzj Bmjvg 1011 iæg †_‡K †ei nB| Gici 1008bs iæ‡gi
mvg‡b kvgxg wejøvn‡K GKwU bZzb †nj‡gU mn †`wL|
Gici Avwg, mvBdzj Bmjvg I kvwnb Avjg bZzb ‡nj‡gUwU
†`L‡Z _vwK| Gi g‡a¨ Gn‡Zkvgyj ivweŸ Zvwbg I GGmGg
bvRgym mv`vZ Aveivi‡K wb‡q 2011 bs iæ‡gi D‡Ï‡k¨ 2q
Zjvi w`‡K hvq| Gici †nj‡gUwU †`Lvi mgq †nvmvBb
†gvnv¤§` †Zvnv Avgv‡K I mvBdzj Bmjvg‡K Avev‡iv 2011
bs iæ‡g †h‡Z e‡j| ZLb Avwg fq †c‡q hvB| KviY Gi
AvbygvwbK 7/8 gvm Av‡M ey‡q‡Ui †k‡ievsjv n‡ji Qv‡`
16Zg e¨v‡Pi AwgZ mvnv Avgv‡K mvjvg bv †Ìqvi Aciv‡a
wµ‡KU ÷¨v¤ú w`‡q wcwU‡q Avgvi nvZ †f‡½ w`‡qwQj|
(GB mgq ¯^vÿx Zvi Wvb nv‡Zi Kwâi Dc‡i nv‡Zi
gvSvgvwS ¯’v‡bi wfZi ÷x‡ii †jvnvi †cøU Av‡Q e‡j Rvbvq)|
GgZve¯’vq ivZ Abygvb 08.20 NwUKvq Avwg I mvBdzj
Bmjvg 2011 bs iæ‡gi w`‡K hvB| wM‡q †mLv‡b 16 e¨v‡Pi
gwbiæ¾vgvb gwbi, L›`Kvi ZvevK&Kviæj Bmjvg Zvbwfi,
BdwZ †gvkviid mKvj Ges gyRZev ivwd` I 17Zg e¨v‡Pi
Gn‡Zkvgyj nK Zvwbg, G GmGg bvRgym mv`vZ Ges
†nvmvBb †gvnv¤§` †Zvnv‡K Lv‡U e‡m _vK‡Z †`wL| H

74
mgq Aveivi‡K 2011 bs iæ‡gi gvSKv‡b `vuov‡bvi Ae¯’vq
wQj †`L‡Z cvB| Gici Avwg I mvBdzj Bmjvg H iæ‡gi
Lv‡U ewm| Gici gybZvwmi Avj †Rwg Aveiv‡ii 02 (`yB)
wU †gvevBj †dvb I j¨vcUc wb‡q 2011 bs iæ‡g cÖ‡ek K‡i
Ges D³ †gvevBj †dvb I j¨vcUc ¸‡jv 16 e¨v‡Pi D³ fvB‡ì
wbKU †dvb 2wU I j¨vcUc †PK Kivi Rb¨ †`q| Gici 1wU
†gvevBj BdwZ †gvkviid mKvj I Ab¨ †gvevBjwU †gv¯Ídv
ivwd` Ges j¨vcUcwU gwbiæ¾vgvb gwbi Ges L›`Kvi
ZveveKKviæj Bmjvg Zvbfxi †PK Ki‡Z _v‡K| Gi g‡a¨
2011 bs iæ‡g 17 e¨v‡Pi †gv‡k©` AgZ¨© Bmjvg, mvgQzj
Av‡iwdb ivdvZ Ges gv‡R`yi ingvb gv‡R` I 16 e¨v‡Pi
gyRvwn`yi ingvb cÖ‡ek K‡i| GiB g‡a¨ †Kvb GKmgq
†gv¯Ídv ivwd` P‡j hvq Ges †gv¯Ídv ivwd‡ì mv‡_ †RwgI
†ei nq| Gici BdwZ †gvkviid mKvj H iæ‡g _vKv Aveivi‡K
†Riv Ki‡Z ïiæ K‡i †h, ZzB wkwei Kwim wKbv ? Aveivi
e‡j bv Avwg wkwei Kwibv Ges Avwg KL‡bv G¸‡jvi mv‡_
m¤ú„³ wQjvgbv| ... (underline is given for emphasis)
Gici Abygvb ivZ 09.45 wgwb‡Ui mgq †g‡n`x nvmvb iweb
Aveiv‡ii gy‡L Pi _vào gviv ïiæ K‡i|... ZLb Avwg
gwbiæ¾vgvb gwbi‡K ewj fvB Avwg fvZ †L‡Z hve| ZLb
AbgwZ †c‡q Avwg Avi mvBdzj Bmjvg 2011 bs iæg †_‡K
‡ei n‡q hvB| (underline is given for emphasis) GB
NUbv KvD‡K Rvbv‡j Avgv‡KI gvi‡Z cv‡i GB Rb¨ Avwg

75
NUbv KvD‡K ewj bvB| Gici Avwg Ges mvBdzj Bmjvg
Gwjd¨v›U †iv‡W óvi †nv‡U‡j †L‡Z P‡j hvB| HLvb †_‡K
Avwg I mvBdzj P‡j Avwm Ges Avwg Avgvi †k‡ievsjv n‡ji
203 bs iæ‡g P‡j Avwm Ges Nywg‡q cwo| Gici 07/10/2019
Bs Zvwi‡L Abygvb ivZ 03.20 wgwb‡U mvBdzj Bmjvg
Avgv‡K Nyg †_‡K †W‡K †Zv‡j Ges e‡j Aveivi dvnv` Avi
†bB| Aveivi dvnv` gviv †M‡Q|(underline is given for
emphasis)
This means that PW-23 was aware of the fact of
alleged allegation on 06.10.2019 from 08.00 PM
to till at least 9.45 PM and thereafter he came to
know the death of the deceased of this case at
3.20 AM of 07.10.2019. This clearly states that
he (PW-23) was present in the place of occurrence
and at the same this also establishes a fact that
mere presence in the place of occurrence
without participating either in the act or
omission under section 107 of the Penal Code,
1860 for committing alleged abetment or
alleged murder is not an offene under any of
the following sections 109, 114, 302 and 34 of
the said Code, 1860. (Bold and underlined for
emphasis). In support of this conception there is a

76
legal reference i.e. in the case of Rasul vs. State
reported in PLD 1960 (Karcahi) 956 the
aforesaid law (Bold and underlined) has been
established.
If the aforementioned fact of the presence of this
PW-23 in the place of occurrence (Room 2011) is,
for arguments say, considered as true, then it is
clear that mere presence in the place of
occurrence without participating either in the
act or omission under section 107 of the Penal
Code, 1860 for committing alleged abetment
or alleged murder is not an offene under any of
the said Code, 1860 and in the case of Abdul Rahim
Uddin @Abdul Rahim And ... vs The State Of Assam And And Anr it
has been held that “mere presence of the persons at the
place of occurrence or an omnibus allegation against all
the accused persons, that they were also present at the
place of occurrence, per se, would not be sufficient to rope
in all such persons for the commission of offence with the
aid of Section 149 IPC, in absence of proof of individual
overt act [Ref. Pandurang Chandrakant Mhatre & Ors.-VS-
State of Maharashtra reported in (2009) 10 SCC 773] and
the reason has been stated in the aforesaid

77
judgment that the basis of constructive guilt
under Section 149 IPC is the membership of the unlawful
assembly with the requisite common object or knowledge
and not the individual overt act. Whether a person is the
member of the unlawful assembly or he shared the
common object with the other members of the unlawful
assembly or he had the requisite knowledge, has to be
determined on the basis of facts and circumstances of
each individual case. There cannot be a straight jacket
formula to arrive at a conclusion, as to the membership of
the unlawful assembly or sharing the requisite common
object or knowledge. In case of a mob attack or where a
large number of persons are involved, quite often it is
found, that some people gathers at the scene of offence out
of curiosity, in order to see as to what has happened or
what was going to happen without being a member of the
unlawful assembly or sharing any common object.
Therefore, in case of a mob attack involving a large
number of persons, or in a faction ridden village
community, the court is obliged to be extra cautious, to
ensure that no innocent bystander is falsely implicated.
Absence of such cautiousness and alertness may result in
conviction of an undeserving or innocent person, leading to
miscarriage of justice.”
For the above-mentioned reason, according to the
narration of this PW-23, the only entrance of the

78
instant accused petitioner in the said room No.
2011 without participating either in the act or
omission under section 107 of the Penal Code,
1860 for committing alleged abetment or
alleged murder is not an offene under any of
the said Code, 1860.
But this is fundamentally nevessary to see what
evidence has been adduced by the charge sheet
submitting investigating officer (PW-46). This
raises a question i.e. whether this PW-23 has
given false evidence in the case?
presence in ঘটনার বিভিন্ন পরিক্রমায় particularly in the room
numbers 2011.
79
This also raises another question i.e. wether the
evidence-in-question of PW-23 has expressed and
established any facts to the extent of the charges
framed against the instant accused petitioner?
all’ i.e.
This witness (PW-23) has adduced no
incriminating evidence against instant accused
him.
Rasel.
XVII. Analysis of evidence of PW-24
Tanvir Ahamed Soikot in respect of

80
accused petitioner:
The prosecution witness No. 24 PW-24 Tanvir Ahamed
Soikot has stated in his examination in chief that- “…
ঘটনার তারিখ ০৬/১০/২০১৯ইং। উক্ত তারিখে আমি শেরেবাংলা হলের
১০১১ রুমে বিকালে ঘুমিয়ে ছিলাম। উক্ত তারিখে বিকাল অনুমান ০৩:০০
মিনিট হতে ০৪:০০ টার মধ্যে আবরার ফাহাদ তার গ্রামের বাড়ী কু ষ্টিয়া থেকে
শেরেবান্নগ্লা হলের ১০১১ নং রুমে আসে। বিকাল আনুমানিক ০৫:৩০ টার
দিকে আমি ঘুম থেকে উঠি এবং দেখতে পাই আবরার ফাহাদ তার টেবিলে
বসে খাওয়া-দাওয়া করছে। আবরার ফাহাদ বাড়ী থেকে খাবার এনেছে বলে সে
আমাকে তার সাথে খেতে বললে আমি হাত, মুখ ধুয়ে আবরার ফাহাদের সাথে
খেতে বসি। খাওয়া শেষে আমি শেরেবাংলা হলের ক্যান্টিনে ড্রিংকস খেতে
যাই। এরপর আমি আমার হলের ১০১১ নং রুমে ফিরে আসি এবং আবরার
ফাহাদকে তার বিছানায় বসে ফেসবুক চালাতে দেখি। এরপর আমি আমার
টেবিলে পড়তে বসি। মাগরিবের নামাজ পড়ে আবরার ফাহাদ আমাকে বলে
সে ঘুমাতে যাবে এবং তাকে ৯:০০ টার দিকে তাকে ঘুম থেকে ডাক দিতে
81
বলে, কারণ সে ঘুম থেকে উঠে পড়বে। আবরার ফাহাদ ঘুমিয়ে পড়ে। রাত
অনুমান ০৮:০০ টার দিকে ১৭ ব্যাচের মুনতাসির আল জেমি এবং
এহতেশামুল রাব্বি তানিম আমাদের রুমে প্রবেশ করে। কিছুক্ষণ পর তাদের
পিছনে ১৭ ব্যাচের সাখাওয়াত ইকবাল অভি এবং সাইফু ল ইসলাম আমাদের
১০১১ নং রুমে প্রবেশ করে।|(underline and bold for emphasis)
সাখাওয়াত ইকবাল অভি আমাকে জিজ্ঞাসা করে, আমার রুমমেট রাফি
কোথায়। আমি বললাম আমি জানি না। এ সময় এহতেশামুল রাব্বি তানিম
এবং মুনতাসির আল জেমি আবরার ফাহাদের কাছে যায় এবং ঘুম থেকে
ডেকে তোলে, আবরার ফাহাদ ঘুম থেকে উঠে যায়। মুনতাসির আল জেমি
তখন আবরার ফাহাদকে বলে বড় ভাইয়েরা ডাকে। আবরার ফাহাদ তখন
জিজ্ঞাসা করে বলে কোথায়? তখন মুনতাসির আল জেমি বলে হাজার ব্লকের
দবিতীয় তলায়। মুনতাসির আল জেমি আবরার ফাহাদকে তার মোবাইল
ফোন ও ল্যাপটপ সাথে নিয়ে আসতে বলে। মুনতাসির আল জেমি,
এহতেশামুল রাব্বি তানিম এবং এ.এস.এম নাজুমুস সাদাত আবরার
ফাহাদকে নিয়ে ১০১১ নং রুম থেকে বের হয়ে যায়। তাদের পিছনে সাখাওয়াত
ইকবাল অভি এবং সাইফু লও বের হয়ে যায়। এরপর আমি পড়তে থাকি।
82
রাত অনুমান ০৯:০০ টার দিকে শেরেবাংলা হলের ডাইনিং এ আমি খেতে
যাই। খাওয়া শেষে আমি পলাশীতে কপি খেতে যাই।|(underline and
bold for emphasis) পলাশী থেকে শেরেবাংলা হলে আনুমানিক রাত
১০:০০ টার দিকে ১০১১ নং রুমের সামনে এসে দেখি রুম তালাবদ্ধ। এরপর
আমি হলের পাশের ১০১০ রুমে যাই। এবং ফেসবুক চালাই। পরে রাত
অনুমান ১০:৩০ এর দিকে আমি আবার রুমে ফিরে আসি তখন দেখি রুম
খোলা।|(underline and bold for emphasis) ১০১১ নং রুমে
তখন ১৬ তম ব্যাচের মিজানুর রহমান, রাফি এবং সাইফু লকে রুমে দেখতে
পাই। এরপর আমি পড়তে বসি। রাত অনুমান ১১:০০ টার দিকে ১৭ ব্যাচের
মুনতাসির আল জেমি আমাদের রুম ১০১১ তে প্রবেশ করে এবং মুনতাসির
আল জেমি ১০১১ নং রুমে এসে আবরার ফাহাদ এর একটা ট্রাউজার ও শার্ট
নিয়ে যায়। ০৭/৪/১০/১৯ ইং তারিখ রাত অনুমান ০২:২০ এর দিকে তিতু মীর
হলের সামনে সিরাজের টং দোকানে খেতে যাই আমি। খাওয়া শেষে
০৭/১০/১৯ ইং তারিখ অনুমান রাত অনুমান ০৩:০০ টার দিকে আমি
শেরেবাংলা হলে ফিরে আসি এবং তখন শেরেবাংলা হলের নিচ তলায় গেটের
83
সামনে আবরার ফাহাদকে স্ট্রেচারের উপর শুয়ানো অবস্থায়|(underline
and bold for emphasis)
alleged charges in the instant case and he was aware
only the fact of taking the deceased from the room
number 1011 and he has not heard anything as to
the fact of framed charges and accordingly his
evidence is not direct and not admissible in law.
XVII. Analysis of evidence of PW-25
Md. Touhidul Islam Rafi in respect

84
The prosecution witness No. PW-25 Md. Touhidul
Islam Rafi has stated in his examination in chief
that- “ঘটনার তারিখ ০৬/১০/২০১৯ইং। বিগত ০৬/১০/২০১৯ইং তারিখে
বুয়েটের শেরেবাংলা হলের ১০১১ নং রুমে থাকিতাম। আমি বর্ত মানে বুয়েট
ইলেকট্রিক্যাল এন্ড ইলেকট্রিক ইঞ্জিনিয়ারিং বিভাগ,১৭ তম ব্যাচ এর ছাত্র ।
বিগত ০৬/১০/২০১৯ইং তারিখে শেরেবাংলা হলের ১০১১ নং রুম থেকে
বিকাল ০৫:০০ টা নাগাদ খালার বাসার উদ্দেশ্যে বেড়িয়ে যাই। খালার বাসা
দক্ষিন ফু লার রোড, শাহবাগ আবাসিক এলাকায়।আমি খালার বাসায় রাত
আনুমানিক ০৮:৩০ পর্যন্ত অবস্থন করি। রাত আনুমানিক ০৮:৩০ মিনিটে
খালার বাসা থেকে বুয়েটের শেরেবাংলা হলের উদ্দেশ্যে বের হই এবং রাত
আনুমানিক ০৮:৫০ মিনিটে শেরেবাংলা হলের ১০১১ নং রুমে পৌছাই। তখন
আমার ১০১১ নং রুমে আমার রুমমেট তানভীর আহমেদ সৈকত ও মিজানুর
রহমান মিজানকে দেখতে পাই।তখন আমার ১০১১ নং রুমে আবরার ফাহাদ
‍ছিলো না। আমি আনুমানিক রাত ১১:০০টা পর্যন্ত আমার রুমেই অবস্থান করি।
এর রাত ১১:০০/১১:১০ টায় রুম নং-৪০০৬ এর মধ্যে সাইফু ল ইসলামের
সাথে ম্যাসেঞ্জারে কথা হয়। ওর কথাবার্তা কিছুটা অসংলগ্ন মনে হওয়ায় আমি
85
রাত ১১:৩০ টায় আমি শেরে বাংলা হলের রুম নং -৪০০৬ এ যাই ওকে
দেখতে। যাওয়ার পর আমি দেখি যে, সাইফু ল ওর বিছানায় শুয়ে ছিল। ওকে
খুবই চিন্তিত দেখাচ্ছিল। ওই সময় পরে সাইফু ল আমাকে নিয়ে রুমের বাইরে
করিডোরে আসে ও সে আমাকে জানায় যে, আবরারকে আমাদের হলের
আমাদের ব্যাচেরই কয়েকজন ছেলে ২০১১ নং রুমে নিয়ে গিয়েছে। আমি নাম
জানতে চাইলে সাইফু ল আমাকে তানিম, জেমি সহ আরো কয়েকজন ছাত্রের
নাম জানায়।... এই কথা শুনে আমিও চিন্তিত হয়ে পরি ও আমার ১০১১ নং
রুমে চলে আসি।
...বিগত ০৭/১০/১৯ ইং তারিখে রাত আনুমানিক ১:৪৫ থেকে ২:০০ মিনিটের
সময় সাইফু ল তার রুমের উদ্দেশ্যে চলে যায়। সাইফু ল পুনরায় রাত
আনুমানিক ২:৩০ থেকে ২:৪৫ মিনিটের মধ্যে আমার অর্থাৎ ১০১১ নং রুমে
আসে । সাইফু ল আমাদের রুমে আবরারের শার্ট নেওয়ার জন্য এসেছিল ও
আবরারের শার্ট নিয়ে সে বেরিয়ে যায় এবং সাইফু ল আরো জানায় যে
আবররার কে হাসপাতালে নেওয়া হবে।এই কথা শুনে আমরা চিন্তিত হয়ে পড়ি
এবং কি করব তা বুঝতে পারছিলাম না। এরপর সাইফু ল শার্ট নিয়ে বের হয়ে
যায়।এরপর রাত আনুমানিক ০৩:০০ থেকে ০৩:১৫ মিনিটের মধ্যে ১৭ তম

86
ব্যাচের আরাফাত রহমান আমাদের রুমে ১০১১ তে আসে এবং আরাফাত
রহমান আমাদেরকে জানায় যে , আমাদের রুম থেকে একজন কে যেতে হবে ।
ঐ সময় ১০১১ নং রুমে ১৬ তম ব্যাচের মিজানুর রহমান মিজান ছিলেন এবং
আমর আরেক রুমমেট তানভীর আহমেদ সৈকত এর আগে হাটতে বেরিয়ে
ছিলেন। আমি আরাফাত রহমানের সাথে যাই এবং হলের গেটের দিকে
যাচ্ছিলাম। এবং যাওয়ার পথে প্রথম ও দ্বিতীয় তলার ল্যান্ডিংয়ে আবরার
ফাহাদকে একটি তোষকের উপর পড়ে থাকতে দেখি। তার পায়ে রক্ত জমাট
হয়েছিল। ঐ সময় আবরারের পাশে ছিলেন বুয়েটের ডাক্তার মাসুক এলাহি।
আমি যাওয়ার কিছুক্ষণ পরে ডাক্তার মাসুক এলাহি বলেন যে, আবরার ফাহাদ
আর বেঁচে নেই। (underlined and bold for emphasis)
alleged charges in the instant case and the fact in
part in a sentence in fact in respect of the instant
accused petitioner is not an offence for which no
charge regarding this has been framed and he has not
heard anything as to the fact of framed charges in the
case and accordingly his evidence is not direct and
not admissible in law.

87
This reality of our Public Prosecutor has been
expressed very correctly in the Calcutta Review, Vol.
XLIV, No LXXXVII, 1867 in the following language:
“In England counsels have no communication with
the witnesses before they are called into the box. In
America, on the otherhand, it is a common practice
for practioners to have an interview with the
witnesses in order to ascertain what they really know:
but in India the mookhtar considers it his duty, after
ascertaining this, to instruct the witness what to say,
how to say it, and what to suppress, telling him that
spoiling of the case will be the inevitable result of his
directions not being followed.”
iota of evidence against the instant accused petitioner
in respect of the charges framed against him.
XVIII. Analysis of evidence of PW-26
Yamin Hosen in respect of the

88
accused petitioner:
The prosecution witness No PW-26 Yamin Hosen has
stated in his cross examination that- “আপনি তর্কি ত ঘটনার
দিন কখন থেকে রাত ০৩:০০টা পর্যন্ত পড়তে ছিলেন?- রাত ০৮:০০ টা
থেকে। উক্ত রাত ০৩:০০ টার পূর্বের ঘটনা কার নিকট থেকে শুনেছি তৎমর্মে
এই মুহুর্তে আমার স্মরণ নাই। (underlined and bold for
emphasis)
This witness (PW-26) has further admitted during
cross examination that “মোট কতজন কতটি ইশারা, নির্দে শ দিয়েছিল
তাহা আইও কে বলেছিলেন কি না? – বলি নাই।“
alleged charges in the instant case and the allegation
of giving order (নির্দে শ) is absolutely vague and false to
the extent of the instant accused petitioner and
accordingly his evidence is not direct and not
admissible in law as law requires that evidence must
always be direct and hearsay evidence must be
excluded. [Ref. 27 DLR (1975) 254]

89
iota of evidence against the instant accused petitioner
in respect of the charges framed against him.
XIX. Analysis of evidence of PW-27
Wahidur Rahman Rafsan in respect of
accused petitioner:
What has been stated by the prosecution witness No
PW-27 Wahidur Rahman Rafsan in his 161 statement,
examination in chief and in the cross examination it
is transparent that, he was not aware of the fact of
alleged allegation i.e. the facts of the charges framed
in the instant case and thereafter he heard some
circumstantial facts in part from a person who has
not been produced by the prosecution as
prosecution witness and accordingly his evidence
is definitely a hearsay evidence and not admissible

90
in law. He is not an eye witness of the facts of this
case for which the charges are framed in the case.
In his examination in chief he has admitted that
“পরে জানতে পারি শেরেবাংলা হলের ১০১১ নং রুম থেকে আবরার ফাহাদ
কে ২০১১ নং রুমে ০৬.১০.২০১৯ ইং তারিখে আনুমানিক রাত ০৮.০০ টার
সময় রুম নং ২০১১ তে ডেকে নিয়ে … কিল-ঘুষি, চর-থাপ্পর ও লাথি-গুতা
মেরে আবরার ফাহাদ কে মেরে ফেলেছে।“
Here, this witness has not stated from whom he has
heard the aforesaid fact of allegation and hence his
evidence is not direct and being hearsay without
source person is definitely inadmissible.
XX. Analysis of evidence of PW-28
Saiful Islam in respect of the

91
accused petitioner:
After perusal of the evidence of prosecution
witness No PW-28 Saiful Islam adduced in the
examination-in-chief, it is crystal clear that PW-28
was aware of the fact of alleged allegation on
06.10.2019 from 08.00 PM to on 07.10.2019
till 2.30 PM. He went into the room number 2011
and stayed their as per his narration during his
examination in chief and according to the video
available in the Youtube he was present at the
time of keeping the deceased in the landing place
of the stair i.e. in the ‘Gha’ identified place of
occurenec in question. This clearly states that he
entered in the room number 2011 and was
present in the place of occurrence but the instant
accused petitioner was not present in any facts
facts of the allegation of charges in between on
06.10.2019 at 8.05 PM to on 07.10.2019 at 2.30
AM and hence he is completely innocent and his
presence after the death of the Abrar Fahad

92
(deceased) is not an offence for which no charge
has been framed.
But this is fundamentally necessary to see what
evidence has been adduced by the charge sheet
submitting investigating officer (PW-46). This
raises a question i.e. whether this PW-28 has
given false evidence in the case?
presence in ঘটনার বিভিন্ন পরিক্রমায় particularly in the room
numbers 2011.
This PW-28 has also admitted in his cross
examination that “ফাহাদের শুধু খারাপ অবস্থা কখন শুরু হয়েছিল ? আনুমানিক
রাত ০২.৩০ মিনিটে। আবরার ফাহাদের আরো খারাপ অবস্থা কখন শুরু হয়েছিল ? সিঁড়ির
ল্যান্ডিং স্থানে।“
93
“This means that the death of the Abrar Fahad is
on 07.10.2019 after 2.30 PM but according to the
charges framed by this Tribunal based on the first
information and the charge sheet, the death of the
deceased is within 2.30 PM on 07.10.2019 and
hence the evidence “ফাহাদের শুধু খারাপ অবস্থা কখন শুরু হয়েছিল ?
আনুমানিক রাত ০২.৩০ মিনিটে। আবরার ফাহাদের আরো খারাপ অবস্থা কখন শুরু হয়েছিল ?
সিঁড়ির ল্যান্ডিং স্থানে। is false and contradictory with the
charges.
This also raises another question i.e. wether the
evidence-in-question of PW-28 has expressed and
established any facts to the extent of the charges
framed against the instant accused petitioner?
all’ i.e.
Rasel to the extent of participating in any acts of
either abetment or main alleged offenece.

94
him.
Rasel.
XXI. Analysis of evidence of PW-29
Md. Ismail in respect of the charges
made against the instant accused
petitioner:
This prosecution witness PW-29 Md. Ismail as per
his adduced evidence is not an eye witness as he
did his many things and came out from his room
at 2.40-2.45 PM on 07.10.2019 and heard
somethings from Akash who has not been
produced as witness and accordingly his evidence
being hearsay without the production of Akash is
not admissible in evidence.

95
Wether the evidence-in-question of PW-29 has
petitioner?
all’ i.e.
petitioner Mehedi Hasan Rasel to the extent of
participating in any acts of either abetment or
main alleged offenece.
him.
Rasel.
96
XXII. Analysis of evidence of PW-30
Md. Abdul Kader in respect of the
accused petitioner:
This prosecution witness PW-30 Md. Abdul Kader
as per his adduced evidence is not an eye
witness as he has admitted in his cross
examination that “আপনি ঘুম থেকে উঠার পূর্বের কোন ঘটনা জানতেন
না। ইহা সঠিক কি না ?-হ্যাঁ । and he came out from his bed
that is, from sleeping condition at 2.15 PM on
07.10.2019 and heard somethings from Security
Guard Smasul who has not been produced as
witness and accordingly his evidence being
hearsay without the production of Security Guard
Samsul is not admissible in evidence.
petitioner?
all’ i.e.
97
him.
Rasel.
XXIII. Analysis of evidence of PW-31
Dr. Sohel Mahmud in respect of the
accused petitioner:
This prosecution witness PW-31 Dr. Sohel Mahmud
was working in the Dhka Medical college Hospital
during the time of alleged occurrence and
according to his adduced evidence he is not an

98
eye witness and he has just made the post
mortem of the deceased.
petitioner?
all’ i.e.
him.
Rasel.
99
XXIII. Analysis of evidence of PW-32
Constable Dostogir Hossain in
the instant accused petitioner:
This prosecution witness PW-32 Constable
Dostogir Hossain was working in the Chakbazar
police station DMP, Dhaka during the time of
alleged occurrence and according to his adduced
evidence he is not an eye witness.
petitioner?
all’ i.e.

100
him.
Rasel.
XXIV. Analysis of evidence of PW-33
SI Md. Rakibul Hasan in respect of
accused petitioner:
This prosecution witness PW-33 SI Md. Rakibul
Hasan was working in the CID, Dhaka during the
time of alleged occurrence and according to his
adduced evidence he is not an eye witness.
petitioner?
101
all’ i.e.
him.
Rasel.
XXV. Analysis of evidence of PW-34
Abul Kalam in respect of the charges
made against the instant accused
petitioner:
102
This prosecution witness PW-34 Abul Kalam was
working as Driver in BUET, Dhaka during the
adduced evidence he is not an eye witness as
heached in the place of occurrence after 3.00 PM
i.e. after death of Abrar Fahad (Deceased).
petitioner?
all’ i.e.
him.
103
Rasel.
XXVI. Analysis of evidence of PW-35
Md. Momirul Islam in respect of the
accused petitioner:
This prosecution witness PW-35 Md. Momirul
Islam was working in Cumilla during the time of
petitioner?
all’ i.e.
104
him.
Rasel.
Md. Kamrul Hasan in respect of the
accused petitioner:
This prosecution witness PW-36 Md. Kamrul Hasan
was working as PS to VC of BUET and according
to his adduced evidence he is not an eye
witness.
105
petitioner?
all’ i.e.
him.
Rasel.
Md. Mustofa in respect of the

106
accused petitioner:
This prosecution witness PW-37 Md. Mustofa was
working as security guard during the time of
petitioner?
all’ i.e.
him.
107
Rasel.
XXVII. Analysis of evidence of PW-38
Md. Abdul Quader in respect of the
accused petitioner:
This prosecution witness PW-38 Md. Abdul Quader
was in Rampura, Dhaka during the time of
petitioner?
all’ i.e.
108
him.
Rasel.
XXVIII. Analysis of evidence of PW-
39 Md. Zakir Hasan Imon in respect
This prosecution witness PW-39 Md. Zakir Hasan
Imon was Rampura, Dhaka during the time of

109
petitioner?
all’ i.e.
him.
Rasel.
XXVIV. Analysis of evidence of PW-40
ASI AK Njmul Hosen in respect of the

110
accused petitioner:
This prosecution witness ASI PW-40 AK Njmul
Hosen was working in the CID, Dhaka during the
petitioner?
all’ i.e.
petitioner Mehedi Hasan Rasel to the extent of
participating in any acts of either abetment or
main alleged offenece.

111
him.
Rasel.
XXVIV. Analysis of evidence of PW-41
Abdul Mubin IBNE Hafiz aias Prottoy
in respect of the charges made
against the instant accused
petitioner:
This prosecution witness PW-41 Abdul Mubin IBNE
Hafiz aias Prottoy was a BUET student, Dhaka
who was not present in the place of occurrence
during the time of alleged occurrence and
according to his adduced evidence he is not an
eye witness as he entered into Sher e Bangla Hall
at 3.15 PM on 07.10.2019 (Underlined for
emphasis).
112
petitioner?
all’ i.e.
him.
Rasel.
113
XXIX. Analysis of evidence of
PW-42 Tajwar Bokhtiar Zahid in
respect of the charges made
petitioner:
This prosecution witness PW-42 Tajwar Bokhtiar
Zahid was a BUET student, Dhaka who was not
present in the place of occurrence during the time
of alleged occurrence and according to his adduced
expressed and established any facts to the extent of
the charges framed against the instant accused
petitioner?
The answer of this question is definitely ‘Not at all’
i.e.

114
him.
XXX. Analysis of evidence of
PW-43 Dr. Md. Abdullah Adnan in
petitioner:
This prosecution witness PW-43 Dr. Md. Abdullah
Adnan was a BUET teacher, Dhaka who was not
present in the place of occurrence during the time
of alleged occurrence and according to his adduced

115
petitioner?
i.e.
him.
XXXI. Analysis of evidence of
PW-44 Md. Akterujjaman Inspector
of Police, Photography expert in

116
petitioner:
This prosecution witness PW-44 Md. Akterujjaman
was not present in the place of occurrence during
the time of alleged occurrence and according to his
petitioner?
i.e.

117
him.
XXXII. Analysis of evidence of
PW-45 and PW-46 in respect of
the charges made against the
According to the charges framed on 15.09.2020
there are total 7 stages of the alleged allegation
which are mentioned and analyzed as follows.
(i) Pre-planning-in-question (তর্কি তপূর্ব-
পরিকল্পনা…):
(ii) conspiracy in question (তর্কি ত ci¯úi
†hvMmvR‡k)
(iii) Aid in question (তর্কি ত ci¯úi mnvqZv)

118
(iv) Common intention-in-question (তর্কি ত
Awfbœ AwfcÖv য়)
(v) Meeting dated 04.10.2019 held at any time
after 6 p.m. in the Shere Bangla Hall Canteen.
(vi) Meeting dated 05.10.2019 at any time after
10 PM in the guest house of Shere Bangla hall.
(vii) Whether the allegation of “চড়, থাপ্পর, লাথি, কিল,
ঘুষি মেরে, কনুই দিয়ে পিঠে, ক্রিকেট স্ট্যাম্প, স্কিপিং রোপ দিয়ে নির্মম
ভাবে পিটিয়ে ৪০/৫০টি মারাত্মক গুরুতর রক্তাক্ত জখমসহ হত্যা
করা।” has been proved against Mehedi Hasan
Rasel.
Part 1 of beyond and within the whole period of
allegation:
This part 1 has established in respect of time i.e.
the time of meetings in question held on dated
04.10.2019 at any time after 6 p.m. in the Shere
Bangla hall canteen and 05.10.2019 at any time
after 10 p.m. in the guest house of Shere Bangla
hall. This means mathematically that the period of
1st meeting was 6 PM to 11.59 PM on 04.10.19 that

119
is within not exceeding 6 hours and 2 nd meeting was
held at 10 PM to 11.59 PM on 05.10.19 that is,
within not exceeding 2 hours and in total within
6+2=8 hours (within not exceeding). Regarding this
part of pre-planning in question within the
aforesaid not exceeding 8 hours, this is the
fundamental question whether there is any iota of
evidence coming from PW 45 and PW 46 against the
The answer is absolutely not at all as PW 45 has
admitted directly in his cross examination that “নিচ
তালার বারান্দা দিয়ে আসামি মোঃ †gv‡k©` ওরফে †gv‡k©`
AgZ¨© Bmjvg, মেফতাহুল ইসলাম জিয়ন এবং মেহেদি হাসান
রাসেলগন গত ০৪.১০.২০১৯ ইং তারিখে সন্ধ্যা ০৬.০০ টার পর যে কোন
সময় শেরে বাংলা হল বুয়েটের ক্যান্টিনে আদৌ গিয়েছিল কি না সে বিষয়ে
কোন ভিডিও রেকর্ড জব্দ করেছেন কি ? না)”
PW 46 has admitted in his cross examination that-
“হলের সকল সিসি ক্যামেরার ইংরেজী ০৬.১০.২০১৯ তারিখ রাত
০৮.০৫ ঘটিকা হতে ০৭.১০.২০১৯ তারিখ রাত ০২.৩০ ঘটিকা পর্যন্ত

120
সময়ের সমগ্র ভিডিও এই মামলায় জব্দ করা হয়েছে কি না ? সি আই ডির
মাধ্যমে জব্দ করা হয়েছে । আমি করেছি।“ (underlined for
emphasis).
PW 46 has again admitted in his cross examination
that-
“আপনার দাখিলকৃ ত ছবি অনুসারে ০৬.১০.১৯ ইং তারিখ রাত ২.৫৯
মিনিট ৫৯ সেকেন্ড পর্যন্ত ঘটনাক্রমে আসামী মেহেদী হাসান রাসেলের কোন
ছবি ও নাম নাই ? নাই, তবে ০৭.১০.১৯ ইং তাং রাত ০৩.২৬ টায় আছে।
রাত ০৩.০০ টার পরে আসামী আসামী মেহেদী হাসান রাসেল কে যখন
দেখা যায় তখন একই সাথে ডি এস ডাবলিউ সিকু উরিটি গার্ড সহ আর
অনেক কে দেখা যায় ইহা সত্য কি না ? হ্যাঁ“
This clearly means that the instant accused
petitioner has no involvement as he was present
after death of Abrar Fahad (Deceased) along with
DSW of BUET and security guard and others.
Where it is admitted and evident that
PW 22 has admitted in his cross examination that
“অতিথি কক্ষের করিডর সিসি ক্যামেরার আওতায় ছিল কি না?-হ্যাঁ।”
and PW 21 has admitted in his cross examination
that “শেরে বাংলা হল বুয়েটের ক্যান্টিনের করিডোর সিসি ক্যামেরার
আওতায় ছিল কি না?- আমার যতটু কু মনে হয় ছিল।”

121
So, this is clear that who actually entered into the
said canteen or guest room shall be known from the
video record of the CC camera as the corridor of the
Canteen or Guest room was covered by CC
Camera.
Here, for the innocence of the instant accused petitioner,
this is absolutely challeneged that if the video record is
viewed, no entrance and leaving the the said canteen or
guest room shall be revealed.(underlined and bold
for emphasis).
In addition to this, it can be mentioned for the re-
establishment of the matter in respect of the
absence of the instant accused petitioner in the said
meeting-in-question that he was not communicated
the message-in-question for which PW 46 has also
admitted in his cross examination that “ফরেনসিক
রিপোর্ট অনুসারে অত্র মামলার তর্কি ত মেসেজ আসামী মেহেদী হাসান
রাসেল ও মেফতাহুল ইসলাম জিয়ন লাইক, সিন, কমেন্ট ও শেয়ার করেন
নাই। ইহা সত্য কি না? - না লাইক শেয়ার করেন নাই।”

122
(ii) Conspiracy in question (তর্কি ত ci¯úi †hvMmvR‡k)
Is there any iota of evidence in respect of conspiracy
(তর্কি ত ci¯úi †hvMmvR‡k) coming from PW 45 and PW
46 against the instant accused petitioner Mehedi
Hasan Rasel?
কোন ভিডিও রেকর্ড জব্দ করেছেন কি ? না )”
In addition to this it can be mentioned for the re-
meeting in question, he was not communicated the
message in question for which PW 46 has also

123
(iii) Aid in question (তর্কি ত ci¯úi mnvqZv)
Is there any iota of evidence in respect of Aid in
question(তর্কি ত ci¯úi mnvqZv) coming from PW 45
and PW 46 together against the instant accused
petitioner Mehedi Hasan Rasel?
admittedin his cross examination that “জব্দকৃ ত তর্কি ত
বস্তুসমূহ হতে…ল্যাটেনট প্রিন্ট, ফু ট প্রিন্ট, প্যাটেন্ট প্রিন্ট বা অন্য কোন
ধরনের ফিজিক্যাল এভিডেন্স জব্দ করেছিলেন কিনা? না করি নাই”
From the plain reading of this evidence, it is clear
that Mehedi Hasan Rasel has not entered into the
places of occurrence and aided any of the accused
in committing the alleged offence in question.
(iv) Common intention in question (তর্কি ত Awfbœ
AwfcÖv য়):
124
Is there any iota of evidence in respect of Common
intention in question (তর্কি ত Awfbœ AwfcÖv য়)
coming from PW 45 and PW 46 together against the
instant accused petitioner Mehedi Hasan Rasel?
কোন ভিডিও রেকর্ড জব্দ করেছেন কি ? না )”
In addition to this, it can be mentioned for the re-
meeting in question, he was not communicated the
message in question for which PW 46 has also

125
“জব্দকৃ ত তর্কি ত বস্তুসমূহ হতে…ল্যাটেনট প্রিন্ট, ফু ট প্রিন্ট, প্যাটেন্ট প্রিন্ট
বা অন্য কোন ধরনের ফিজিক্যাল এভিডেন্স জব্দ করেছিলেন কিনা? না
করি, নাই”
From the plain reading of this evidence, it is clear
that Mehedi Hasan Rasel has not entered into the
places of occurrence and aided any of the accused
in committing the alleged offence-in-question.
In view of the aforesaid evidence, it is clear that
there is no evidence of hitting by the instant
accused petitioner means no causing injury by him,
there is no evidence of making conspiracy by the
instant accused petitioner means no evidence of in
participating in pre-planning and there is no
evidence of aiding by the instant accused petitioner
means no common intension by accused instant

126
Analysis as to stage No- 5:
(Whether the instant accused petitioner Mehedi
Hasan Rasel was present in the meeting dated
04.10.2019 held at any time after 6 p.m. in the
Shere Bangla Hall Canteen)
After perusal of the evidence coming through cross
examination of PW 45 and PW 46 together in
respect of first point of charges the instant accused
petitioner Mehedi Hasan Rasel was not present in
the meeting held on 04.10.2019 in the canteen as
PW 45 has admitted that
(i) “তর্কি ত খসড়া মানচিত্রে আসামী মোঃমোর্শেদ ওরফে মোর্শেদ অমর্ত্য
ইসলাম, মেফতাহুল ইসলাম জিয়ন এবং মেহেদী হাসান রাসেল গণের
অবস্থান চিহ্নিত করেছিলেন কি না? -না, করি নাই।”
Here it is under regulation 273 of police regulations,
1943 necessary to mention the location of the
accused in the map.
PW-45 has further admitted in his cross
examination that-
127
(ii) “আসামী মোঃ মোর্শেদ ওরফে মোর্শেদ অমর্ত্য ইসলাম,
মেফতাহুল ইসলাম জিয়ন এবং মেহেদী হাসান রাসেলগনদের
তর্কি ত ঘটনার শুরুর পূর্বেকার অবস্থান, তর্কি ত ঘটনা কালীন
সময়ের অবস্থান এবং তর্কি ত ঘটনার উত্তর কালীন সময়
জানার জন্য আবেদন করেছিলেন কি না? আবেদন করা হয়
নাই।” (Underlined for emphasis).
PW-45 has also admitted in his cross examination
that-
(iii) “নিচ তালার বারান্দা দিয়ে আসামি মোঃ †gv‡k©` ওরফে
†gv‡k©` AgZ¨© Bmjvg,মেফতাহুল ইসলাম জিয়ন এবং মেহেদি
হাসান রাসেলগন গত ০৪.১০.২০১৯ ইং তারিখে সন্ধ্যা ০৬.০০ টার পর যে
কোন সময় শেরে বাংলা হল বুয়েটের ক্যান্টিনে আদৌ গিয়েছিল কি না সে
বিষয়ে কোন ভিডিও রেকর্ড জব্দ করেছেন কি ? না”
From the plain reading of the aforesaid evidence
adduced by PW 45 it is absolutely clear that the
instant accused petitioner had not entered into the
Canteen and that means that he did not participate

128
in the meeting held on 04.10.2019 at any time after
6:00 p.m. in the canteen. This is mentionable that
“শেরে বাংলা হল বুয়েটের ক্যান্টিনের করিডোর সিসি ক্যামেরার আওতায়
ছিল কি না?- আমার যতটু কু মনে হয় ছিল।”
So, this is clear that who actually entered in to the
said canteen shall be known from the video record
of the CC camera as the corridor of the Canteen was
covered by CC Camera.
No video record show the entrance of accused
Mehedi Hasan Rasel into the said Canteen i.e. the
charge of entering into the canteen and
participation in the canteen meeting in question is
not proved in any means.
In view of the aforesaid evidence and analysis there
is no existence of the video record, latent print,
patent paint, foot print or any other physical
evidence in respect of entering into the Canteen of
the instant accused petitioner Mehedi Hasan Rasel
which means no entrance in the said canteen of

129
him and the same also means no participation in
the canteen meeting-in-question.
Analysis as to stage No- 6:
(Whether the instant accused petitioner Mehedi
Hasan Rasel was present in the meeting dated
05.10.2019 at any time after 10 PM in the guest
house of Shere Bangla Hall):
After perusal of the evidence coming through cross
examination of PW 45 and PW 46 together it is
crystal clear that the instant accused petitioner
Mehedi Hasan Rasel has not entered into the guest
house-in-question of Shere Bangla Hall, BUET.
As PW 46 has directly admitted that “ খসড়া মানচিত্র
অনুসারে বুয়েটের শেরে বাংলা হল এ কোন গেস্টহাউস আছে কি না?
গেস্টহাউজ নাই, গেস্টরুম আছে।”
This establishes that ther is no existence of Guest
House which means that there was no meeting held
in the guest house-in-question as has been
mentioned in the charges framed on 15.09.2020.

130
If it is considered that the words ‘guest house’ have
been written wrongly or mistakenly in the charge
framing form and the charged framing order dated
15.09.2020, then it is necessary to see whether
instant accused petitioner Mehedi Hasan Rasel has
entered into the guest room-in-question?
The answer is absolutely not at all.
That means the instant accused petitioner Mehedi
Hasan Rasel has not entered into the guest room at
any time after 10 PM for the following reasons.
(i) PW 22 has admitted in his cross examination
that “অতিথি কক্ষের করিডর সিসি ক্যামেরার আওতায় ছিল কি না?-
হ্যাঁ।”
So, this is more clear that who actually entered
into the said guest room-in-question shall be
known from the video record of the CC camera by
who is the corridor of the guest house was covered.
The said PW 45 has also admitted that-
(ii) গেস্ট রুমের করিডোর দিয়ে আসামী মোঃ †gv‡k©` ওরফে
†gv‡k©` AgZ¨© Bmjvg,মেফতাহুল ইসলাম জিয়ন এবং মেহেদি

131
হাসান রাসেলগন গত ০৫.১০.২০১৯ ইং তাং রাত ১০.০০ টার পর যে কোন
সময়ে গেস্ট রুমে গিয়েছিল কি না সেই বিষয়ে কোন ভিডিও-রেকর্ড জব্দ
করেছেন কি ? না। (Bold and underlined for emphasis)
The aforesaid evidence of PW 45 has established
that the instant accused petitioner Mehedi Hasan
Rasel into the said guest room and that means
that the charge of entering into the guest room and
participation in the guest room meeting-in-question
is not proved in any means.
In view of the aforementioned evidence, it is
transparent that there is no existence of the video
record in respect of entering into the guest room-in-
question which also means no participation of the
instant accused petitioner Mehedi Hasan Rasel in
the said guest room meeting-in-question.
Analysis as to stage No- 7
Whether the instant accused petitioner Mehedi
Hasan Rasel has committed the offence of “চড়, থাপ্পর,
লাঠি, কিল, ঘুষি মেরে, কনুই দিয়ে পিঠে, ক্রিকেট স্ট্যাম্প, স্কিপিং রোপ
132
দিয়ে নির্মমভাবে পিটিয়ে ৪০/৫০টি মারাত্মক গুরুতর রক্তাক্ত জখমসহ
হত্যা করা।”
The answer is absolutely not at all.
The fundamental reasons are given below.
(i) The instant accused as per the evidence of
PW-45 has not entered into the 6 (six) places
of occurrence. (PW-45 has admitted that “…
০৬.১০.১৯ ইং তাং রাত ২১.০৭ ঘটিকার যে ছবিটি দাখিল
করেছেন সে ছবির স্থান খসড়া মানচিত্রে উল্লেখিত ০৬ টি পিও
বহির্ভূ ত কি না ? হ্যাঁ, পিওর বাহিরে বারান্দায়।“
(ii) No direct evidence of causing any hurts or
injuries by this accused upon the body of the
deceased.
(iii) No video record of entering into and exiting
from the 6 (six) places of occurrence as PW-
46 has admitted that “হলের সকল সিসি ক্যামেরা
ইংরেজি ০৬.১০.২০১৯ তারিখ রাত ০৮.০৫ ঘটিকা হতে
০৭.১০.২০১৯ তারিখ রাত ০২.৩০ ঘটিকা পর্যন্ত সময়ের সমগ্র-
ভিডিও এই মামলায় জব্দ করা হয়েছে কি না? - সিআইডির
মাধ্যমে জব্দ করা হয়েছে। আমি জব্দ করেছি।” (Underlined
and bold for emphasis).

133
Points for acquittal:
(i) Whether the instant accused petitioner Mehedi
Hasan Rasel is involved in the charge meetings of of
preplanning-in-question of dated 04.010.2019 and
05.10.2019 (তর্কি ত পূর্ব-পরিকল্পনা…) under the adduced
evidenec?
(1) The answer is absolutely not at all because of
the following evidence:
The said PW 45 has also admitted that-
“নিচ তালার বারান্দা দিয়ে আসামি মোঃ †gv‡k©` ওরফে
†gv‡k©` AgZ¨© Bmjvg, মেফতাহুল ইসলাম জিয়ন এবং মেহেদি
হাসান রাসেলগন গত ০৪.১০.২০১৯ ইং তারিখে সন্ধ্যা ০৬.০০ টার পর যে
কোন সময় শেরে বাংলা হল বুয়েটের ক্যান্টিনে আদৌ গিয়েছিল কি না সে
বিষয়ে কোন ভিডিও রেকর্ড জব্দ করেছেন কি? না” This means the
had not entered into the Canteen at all.

134
(2) PW 21 has admitted in his cross examination that
“শেরে বাংলা হল বুয়েটের ক্যান্টিনের করিডোর সিসি ক্যামেরার আওতায়
ছিল কি না?- আমার যতটু কু মনে হয় ছিল।” and PW 22 has
admitted in his cross examination that “অতিথি কক্ষের
করিডর সিসি ক্যামেরার আওতায় ছিল কি না?-হ্যাঁ।” This means
that no video record is exhibited by the
prosecution in respect of entering into and
exiting from either Canteen or Guest Room of
Sher e Bangla Hall, BUET.
(ii) Whether the instant accused petitioner Mehedi

Hasan Rasel is involved in the charge of conspiracy-
in-question (তর্কি ত ci¯úi †hvMmvR‡k) of dated
04.010.2019 and 05.10.2019 by each other under
the adduced evidenec?
The answer is absolutely not at all as the instant

accused petitioner in accordance with the aforesaid
evidence (Point No. i for acquittal) had not
entered into either the Canteen or Guest Room i.e.
he was not present either in the Canteen meeting or
in the guest room meeting.
(iii) Whether the instant accused petitioner Mehedi

Hasan Rasel is involved in the charge of aid-in-
135
question (তর্কি ত ci¯úi mnvqZv) of dated 04.010.2019 and

05.10.2019 by each other under the adduced
evidenec?
The answer is absolutely not at all as the

instant accused petitioner in accordance with
the aforesaid evidence (Point No. i for
acquittal) had not entered into either the
Canteen or Guest Room i.e. he was not present
either in the Canteen meeting or in the guest
room meeting.
(iv) Whether the instant accused petitioner Mehedi
Hasan Rasel is involved in the charge of common
intention-in-question (তর্কি ত Awfbœ AwfcÖv য়) of dated
04.010.2019 and 05.10.2019 by each otherunder

room meeting.
136
(v) Whether the instant accused petitioner Mr. Mehedi
Hasan Rasel is involved in the charge of canteen
meetings-in-question (তর্কি ত K¨vw›U‡b `dvq `dvq wgwUs)
of dated 04.010.2019 under the adduced evidenec?
room meeting.
(vi) Whether the instant accused petitioner Mehedi
Hasan Rasel is involved in the charge of Guest
House meetings-in-question (তর্কি ত †M÷ nvD‡R তর্কি ত
`dvq `dvq wgwUs) of dated 05.10.2019 under the
adduced evidence?
The answer is absolutely not at all as there was
and is no existence of †M÷ nvD‡R as PW-46 has

137
admitted in his cross examination that “খসড়া মানচিত্র
অনুসারে বুয়েটের শেরেবাংলা হলে কোন গেস্ট হাউজ আছে কি না? – গেস্ট হাউজ
নাই, গেস্ট রুম আছে।‘’
And hence the instant accused petitioner Mehedi
Hasan Rasel is not involved in the charge of Guest
House meetings-in-question (তর্কি ত †M÷ nvD‡R তর্কি ত
`dvq `dvq wgwUs) of dated 05.10.2019
(vii) Whether the instant accused petitioner Mehedi
Hasan Rasel is involved in the charge of canteen
meetings-in-question (তর্কি ত †M÷রুমে তর্কি ত `dvq `dvq
wgwUs) of dated 05.010.2019?

room meeting.
(viii) Whether the instant accused petitioner Mehedi
Hasan Rasel is involved in the charge of weMZ
06/10/2019 wLªóvã ZvwiL mgq 20: 05 NwUKv nB‡Z 07/10/2019
wLªóvã ZvwiL mgq 02:30 NwUKvi g‡a¨ †h †Kvb mgq XvKv

138
gnvbMixi PKevRvi g‡Wj _vbvaxb ey‡qU Gi †k‡i evsjv AvevwmK nj
রুম bs 2011 Ges 2005 Gi wfZi AÎ gvgjvi wfKwUg ey‡q‡Ui †k‡ievsjv
AvevwmK n‡ji QvÎ Aveivi dvnv` ivweŸi cÖwZ Avcbviv D‡ËwRZ n‡q
µgvMZfv‡e Po, _vài, jvw_, wKj, Nywl †g‡i, KzbB w`‡q wc‡V,
wµ‡KU ó¨v¤ú, w¯‹wcs †ivc w`‡q wbg©g I wbôzi fv‡e wcwU‡q 40/50
wU gvivZœK ¸iæZi i³v³ RLgmn nZ¨v K‡ib -in-question under
The answer is absolutely not at all because of the
following legal grounds:
(1) No direct evidence of causing any hurts or
injuries by this accused upon the body of the
deceased.
(2) No video record of entering into and exiting from
the 6 (six) places of occurrence as PW-46 has
admitted that “হলের সকল সিসি ক্যামেরা ইংরেজি
০৬.১০.২০১৯ তারিখ রাত ০৮.০৫ ঘটিকা হতে ০৭.১০.২০১৯ তারিখ
রাত ০২.৩০ ঘটিকা পর্যন্ত সময়ের সমগ্র-ভিডিও এই মামলায় জব্দ করা
হয়েছে কি না? - সিআইডির মাধ্যমে জব্দ করা হয়েছে। আমি জব্দ
করেছি।” This means that the instant accused
petitioner has not only caused any injury but
also not entered into 6(six) places of occurrence

139
which establishes the innocence of the instant
accused petitioner.
(3) Whether the confessions of co-accused are
evidence against the instant accused petitioner?
Answer is absolutely not because of the
following laws:
“Confession of a co-accused-it does not
indeed come within the definition of ‘evidence’
as contained in section 3 of the Evidence Act. It
is not required to be given on oath, nor in the
presence of the accused, and it cannot be
tested by cross-examination.” [Ref. Lutfun Nahar
Begum Vs the State 27 DLR (AD) 29 Para-7 and also in 16
BLC (HCD) 310 and 14 BLD (HCD) 477]
(4) Whether the confessions of the co-accused can
be used without independent corroborative
evidence against the instant accused petitioner
Mehedi Hasan Rasel under the adduced
evidenec?
140
Answer is absolutely not at all for the following
laws:
“Confession of an accused cannot be treated as
substantive evidence against another accused
but that it can only be used to lend assurance
to other evidenec.” [Ref. Lutfun Nahar Begum Vs the
State 27 DLR (AD) 29 Para-7 and also in 16 BLC (HCD) 310,
44 DLR (AD) 10, 3 BLC (AD) 53 and 14 BLD (HCD) 477]
(5)Whether any physical evidence (foot print,
latent print, patent print and etc.) or any video
recordhas been seized from the inside of the said
6 (six) places of occurrence and ‘ ছ’ ও ‘জ’ two
places-in-question of the draft map for the proof
of the presence of instant accused petitioner
Mehedi Hasan Rasel under the adduced
evidenec?
The answer is absolutely not in accordance
with the evidence adduced by prosecution
witness No. 46 of this case. This is
mentionable that absence of the exixtence of
the latent print, patent prints, foot print

141
and any other physical evidence means the
absence of the instant accused petitioner
inside of the said 6 (six) places of occurrence
and ‘ছ’ ও ‘জ’ two places-in-question of the draft
map which means the innocence of the instant
accused petitioner.
This aforesaid doubtful evidence has created
absolute doubt in respect of the inclusion of
the instant accused petitioner Mehedi
Hasan Rasel.
(6)Whether the first information, charge sheet, 161
statements are substantive evidence?
The answer is absolutely not at all because of
the following laws:
(1) It is well settled that FIR is not a
substantive piece of evidence.(underlined for
emphasis), [Ref. Sohel (Md.) Vs. The State, 10
MLR (2005) (HC) 239, Abdus Subhan Vs. The
State, 15 BLD (HCD) 281,

142
(2) Recording statement under Section
161, Cr.P.C. or while filing charge-
sheet is not a substantive evidence. It is
settled law that the contents in the First
Information Report or the statement
recorded under Section 161, CrPC are not
substantive evidence. [Ref. The Oriental
Insurance Company ... vs Sharafat And Others on 24
August, 2017 Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh,
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/96587712/]
(3) The FIR, charge-sheet or other police
papers are not substantive evidence.[

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., ... vs Raghunath
Srichandan And Ors. on 27 April, 2005, Equivalent
citations: III (2006) ACC 622, 101 (2006) CLT 409,
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1715926/]
(7)Whether the seized video is admissible as
evidence in the case? Ans. Not at all.
“Regarding the admission of digital or
electronic evidence, as it appears the the
party seeking to admit any statement or

143
admission of person recorded in a
compact disk or video cassette or any
interview of conducted by any television
channel relating to a relevant a fact or
facts in issue, must also produce the
original compact disc or video cassette
or the programmee published in the
television channel with the certificate of
the producer of the programmee
certitfying the date and place of the
record of the programmee and further
the signature of the producer in the
certificate has also to bthe electronic
be proved. In the present appeals, these
requirements have not been met-the
electronic evidence produced by the
prosecution in this case can not be used.
[Ref. 18 BLT (AD) 1 Para-317]
In the present case, having no
certificate from the authority of BUET,
the video in question is not admissible in
evidence and hence it has no evidenetiary
value.
144
(8)Whether the prosecution has been able to
prove the charges beyond any shadow of
reasonable doubt?
The answer is absolutely not at all for
the following reasons:
(1) That the prosecution has not been able to
prove that the FI and FIR named accused
Mehedi Hasan Rasel.
prove that this Mehedi Hasan Rasel was
present in the meetings in question.
prove that this Mehedi Hasan Rasel was
involved in committing the offence of aid-
in-question.
prove that this Mehedi Hasan Rasel has

145
caused any injury upon the body of the
deceased in any way at any time.
(9)Whether the instant accused petitioner
Mr. Mehedi Hasan Rasel is entitled to be
acquitted from the charges made aganst
him?
ÓGKbR‡iÓ
Avmvgx মেহেদী হাসান রাসেল Gi weiæ‡× MwVZ PvR© I Lvjv‡mi Kvi‡Yi
mswÿß Dc¯’vcb:-
PvR© (MwVZ) Lvjv‡mi KviY
1. c~e© cwiKwíZfv‡e 04/10/2019

wLª: Zvwi‡L K¨vw›U‡b Ges DËi: মেহেদী হাসান রাসেল ZwK©Z c~e©-
05/10/2019 wLª: Zvwi‡L cwiKíbvq Dcw¯’Z wQ‡jv bv|
†M÷nvD‡R wgwUs K‡ib
(A_©¨vr মেহেদি হাসান রাসেল ZwK©Z সাক্ষ্যগত প্রমানঃ
c~e©-cwiKíbvq Dcw¯’Z wQ‡jv
wKbv? wcWvweøI 46 Gi GWwg‡UW
Gwf‡WÝ- Ó
(K) d‡ibwmK wi‡cvU© Abymv‡i AÎ

gvgjvi ZwK©Z †ম‡mR Avmvgx মেহেদী
হাসান রাসেল ও মেফতাহুল ইসলাম জিয়ন jvBK,
wmb, K‡g›U I †kqvi K‡ib bvB Bnv
mZ¨ wKbv? - bv, jvBK †kqvi K‡ib
bvB|
wcWvweøI 45 Gi GWwg‡UW
Gwf‡WÝ-
(L) “নিচ তালার বারান্দা দিয়ে আসামি মোঃ †gv‡k©`

ওরফে †gv‡k©` AgZ¨© Bmjvg, মেফতাহুল ইসলাম
জিয়ন এবং মেহেদি হাসান রাসেলগন গত ০৪.১০.২০১৯
ইং তারিখে সন্ধ্যা ০৬.০০ টার পর যে কোন সময় শেরে
বাংলা হল বুয়েটের ক্যান্টিনে আদৌ গিয়েছিল কি না সে
বিষয়ে কোন ভিডিও রেকর্ড জব্দ করেছেন কি? না )”
(গ) গেস্ট রুমের করিডোর দিয়ে আসামী মোঃ †gv‡k©`

ওরফে †gv‡k©` AgZ¨© Bmjvg,মেফতাহুল ইসলাম
জিয়ন এবং মেহেদি হাসান রাসেলগন গত ০৫.১০.২০১৯
ইং তাং রাত ১০.০০ টার পর যে কোন সময়ে গেস্ট রুমে
146
গিয়েছিল কি না সেই বিষয়ে কোন ভিডিও-রেকর্ড জব্দ

করেছেন কি ? না। (Bold and underlined for
emphasis)
2. ci¯úi †hvMmvR‡m 04/10/19 wLª: DËi: ...ÓbvÓ ‡gdZvûj Bmjvg wRqb

ZvwiL- K¨vw›U‡b Ges 05/10/19 ZwK©Z ci¯úi †hvMmvR‡m Dcw¯’Z
wLª Zvwi‡L †M÷nvD‡R wgwUs wQ‡jv bv?
K‡ib|
সাক্ষ্যগত প্রমাণঃ
A_©¨vr মেহেদী হাসান রাসেল ZwK©Z
ci¯úi †hvMmvR‡m Dcw¯’Z wcWvweøI 46 Gi GWwg‡UW
wQ‡jv wK bv? Gwf‡WÝ- Ó

bvB|
wcWvweøI 45 Gi GWwg‡UW
Gwf‡WÝ-
(L) “নিচ তালার বারান্দা দিয়ে আসামি মোঃ †gv‡k©`

ওরফে †gv‡k©` AgZ¨© Bmjvg, মেফতাহুল ইসলাম
জিয়ন এবং মেহেদি হাসান রাসেলগন গত ০৪.১০.২০১৯
ইং তারিখে সন্ধ্যা ০৬.০০ টার পর যে কোন সময় শেরে
বাংলা হল বুয়েটের ক্যান্টিনে আদৌ গিয়েছিল কি না সে
বিষয়ে কোন ভিডিও রেকর্ড জব্দ করেছেন কি? না )”
(গ) গেস্ট রুমের করিডোর দিয়ে আসামী মোঃ †gv‡k©`

জিয়ন এবং মেহেদি হাসান রাসেলগন গত ০৫.১০.২০১৯
ইং তাং রাত ১০.০০ টার পর যে কোন সময়ে গেস্ট রুমে
emphasis)
3. ci¯úi mnvqZvq 04/10/19 wLª: DËit bv, ‡gdZvûj Bmjvg wRqb ZwK©Z
ZvwiL- K¨vw›U‡b Ges 05/10/19 ci¯úi mnvqZvq Dcw¯’Z wQ‡jv bv ।
wLª Zvwi‡L †M÷nvD‡R wgwUs
K‡ib| সাক্ষ্যগত প্রমাণঃ
A_©¨vr মেহেদী হাসান রাসেল ZwK©Z wcWvweøI 46 Gi GWwg‡UW

ci¯úi mnvqZvq Dcw¯’Z wQ‡jv Gwf‡WÝ-
wK bv?
wmb, K‡g›U I †kqvi K‡ib bvB Bnv mZ¨
wKbv? - bv, jvBK †kqvi K‡ib bvB|
147
(L) Lmov gvbwPÎ Abymv‡i ey‡q‡Ui

†k‡i evsjv n‡j †Kv‡bv †M÷ nvDR
Av‡Q wK bv?- †M÷ nvDR bvB,
†M÷iæg Av‡Q|
4. Awfbœ AwfcÖv‡q 04/10/19 wLª: DËit bv, মেহেদী হাসান রাসেল ZwK©Z Awfbœ
ZvwiL- K¨vw›U‡b Ges 05/10/19 AwfcÖv‡q Dcw¯’Z wQ‡jv bv।
wLª Zvwi‡L †M÷nvD‡R wgwUs
K‡ib| সাক্ষ্যগত প্রমাণঃ
A_©¨vr মেহেদী হাসান রাসেল ZwK©Z wcWvweøI 46 Gi GWwg‡UW

Awfbœ AwfcÖv‡q Dcw¯’Z Gwf‡WÝ-
wQ‡jv wK bv?
wmb, K‡g›U I †kqvi K‡ib bvB Bnv mZ¨
wKbv? - bv, jvBK †kqvi K‡ib bvB|
(L) Lmov gvbwPÎ Abymv‡i ey‡q‡Ui

†k‡i evsjv n‡j †Kv‡bv †M÷ nvDR
Av‡Q wK bv?- †M÷ nvDR bvB,
†M÷iæg Av‡Q|
5. weMZ 04/10/2019 wLª: Zvwi‡L DËit bv, ‡gdZvûj Bmjvg wRqb weMZ
mÜ¨v 6.00 Uvi ci †_‡K 04/10/2019 wLªt Zvwi‡Li K¨vw›Ub
†h‡Kv‡bv mgq evsjv‡`k wgwUs-G Dcw¯’Z wQ‡jv bv ।
cÖ‡KŠkj wek¦we`¨vjq (ey‡qU) Gi
†k‡i evsjv AvevwmK n‡ji সাক্ষ্যগত প্রমাণঃ
K¨vw›U‡b `dvq `dvq wgwUs Kiv
A_©¨vr- wcWvweøI 46 Gi GWwg‡UW
‡gdZvûj Bmjvg wRqb weMZ Gwf‡WÝ- Ó
04/10/2019 wLªt Zvwi‡Li
K¨vw›Ub wgwUs-G Dcw¯’Z (K) d‡ibwmK wi‡cvU© Abymv‡i AÎ
wQ‡jv wK bv? gvgjvi ZwK©Z †ম‡mR Avmvgx মেহেদী
bvB|
6. 5/10/19 wLª: ZvwiL ivZ 10.00 DËit bv, ‡gdZvûj Bmjvg wRqb 5/10/19
Uvi ci †_‡K †h †Kv‡bv mgq Zvwi‡L †M÷nvDR (ev †M÷iæg)
ch©šÍ GKB †M÷ nvD‡R...`dvq wgwUs G Dcw¯’Z wQ‡jv bv ।
`dvq wgwUs Kiv|
A_©¨vr ‡gdZvûj Bmjvg wRqb সাক্ষ্যগত প্রমাণঃ
5/10/19 Zvwi‡L †M÷nvDR (ev
†M÷iæg) wgwUs G Dcw¯’Z wcWvweøI 46 Gi GWwg‡UW
wQ‡jv wK bv? Gwf‡WÝ-
148

bvB|
7. weMZ 06/10/19 wLª: ZvwiL mgq DËit bv, ‡gdZvûj Bmjvg wRqb Aveivi
20.05 NwUKv nB‡Z 07/10/19 dvnv`‡K Po, _vài, jvw_, wKi, Nywl
wLª: ZvwiL mgq 2.30 NwUKvi †g‡i KzbB w`‡q wc‡V, wµ‡KU ÷¨v¤ú,
g‡a¨ †h †Kvb mgq... nZ¨v K‡ib|w¯‹wcs †ivc w`‡q wbg©g I wbôyifv‡e
wcwU‡q 40/50 wU gvivZœK ¸iyZi i³v³
A_¨vr ‡gdZvûj Bmjvg wRqb RLgmn nZ¨v K‡ib bv ই ।
Aveivi dvnv`‡K Po, _vài, jvw_,
wKi, Nywl †g‡i KzbB w`‡q সাক্ষ্যগত প্রমাণঃ
wc‡V, wµ‡KU ÷¨v¤ú, w¯‹wcs
†ivc w`‡q wbg©g I wbôyifv‡e (K) wcWvweøI 46 Gi GWwg‡UW
wcwU‡q 40/50 wU gvivZœK Gwf‡WÝ- “জব্দকৃ ত তর্কি ত বস্তুসমূহ হতে…ল্যাটেনট প্রিন্ট, ফু ট
¸iyZi i³v³ RLgmn nZ¨v K‡ib wK
প্রিন্ট, প্যাটেন্ট প্রিন্ট বা অন্য কোন ধরনের ফিজিক্যাল এভিডেন্স জব্দ
bv?
করেছিলেন কি না? না করি নাই ”।
(L) ZwK©Z Lmov gvbwP‡Î Avmvgx

†gv: †gv‡k©` Ii‡d †gv‡k©` AgZ©¨
Bmjvg, †gdZvûj Bmjvg wRqb Ges
†g‡n`x nvmvb iv‡mjMY ‡ì Ae¯’vb
wPwýZ K‡iwQ‡jb wK bv?- bv Kwi
bvB| (wcWvweøI 46 এর জেরায়)
(M) bxPZjvi eviv›`v w`‡q Avmvgx †gv:

†gv‡k©` Ii‡d †gv‡k©` AgZ©¨ Bmjvg,
†gdZvûj Bmjvg wRqb Ges †g‡n`x
nvmvb iv‡mj MY MZ 04/10/2019 wLª:
Zvwi‡L mÜ¨v 6.00 Uvi ci †h ‡Kv‡bv
mgq †k‡i evsjv nj ey‡q‡Ui K¨vw›U‡b
Av‡`Š wM‡qwQj wKbv †mB wel‡q
†Kvb wfwWI †iKW© Rã K‡iwQ‡jb
wK?- bv| (wcWvweøI 4 ৫ এর জেরায়)
(ঘ) গেস্ট রুমের করিডোর দিয়ে আসামী মোঃ †gv‡k©`

জিয়ন এবং মেহেদি হাসান রাসেল গন গত ০৫.১০.২০১৯ ইং
তাং রাত ১০.০০ টার পর যে কোন সময়ে গেস্ট রুমে
emphasis)(wcWvweøI 4 ৫ এর জেরায়)
(O) Lmov gvbwPÎ Abymv‡i ÕOÕ

wPwýZ ¯’vbmn bxP Zjvi eviv›`v w`qv
K¨vw›U‡b cÖ‡ek Kiv hvq wK bv?-
nu¨v| Lmov gvbwPÎ Abymv‡i ÕOÕ
wPwýZ ¯’vbmn bxP Zjvi eviv›`v
wmwm K¨v‡givi AvIZvfy³ wK bv Ges
149
Zv Avcbvi Z`‡šÍ Rvb‡Z c‡i‡Qb wK

bv?- nu¨v| (wcWvweøI 4 ৫ এর জেরায়)
O) mn Avmvgx‡ì ¯^xKv‡ivw³g~jK
Revbew›` Avmvgx †gdZvûj wRq‡bi
weiæ‡× ‡gŠwjK mvÿ¨ (mve‡÷bwUf
G¨wf‡WÝ) b‡n|
Analysis of the examination under
section 342 of CrPC, 1898:
In the case of Mitarjit Singh v The King
Emperor (1921) 6 P.L.J., 644; 68 I.C., 825
and in the case of Varisai Rowther and Anr.vs
King-Emperor reported in (1923) ILR 46 Bom
449 it has been held that “examination
under Section 342 means examination-in-
chief, cross-examination and re-
examination.” But in the present case the
examination has been completed by
writing the examination in chief only. In
addition to this, the laws reported in 27
BLD (HCD) 107, 18 BLD (AD) 695 and 54
DLR (AD) 60 have not been complied with
and ergo the examination in question of

150
the instant accused petitioner is
absolutely questionable and the same
does not contain any incriminating
evidence i.e. even after getting no
evidence against the instant accused
petitioner, the illegal examination under
section 342 has been completed.
In conclusion:
In the case of Gemini vs Chandran on 14 July, 2006 it
has been uttered the settled law that “the
general safeguard for an accused in a criminal
prosecution is presumption of innocence in his
favour. Law intends to punish only the guilty,
whose guilt is proved to the hilt. Therefore, an
accused in a criminal case is presumed to be
innocent, until the guilt is proved beyond
reasonable doubt. The presumption of
innocence is declared even as a human right by
the Supreme Court. (vide Narendra Singh v.
State of M.P., [(2004) 10 SCC 699] and P.N.
Krishna Lal v. Govt. of Kerala, [1995 Supp (2)
SCC 187]” and having no evidence, the instant
innocenet accused petitioner Mehedi

151
Hasan Rasel is entitled to be acquitted
from the charges made aganst him as the
prosecution has not proved proved the
charges framed against him beyond any
reasonable doubt.

FINAL ARGUMENT (24.05.2021) For MHR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FINAL ARGUMENT (24.05.2021) For MHR

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

FINAL ARGUMENT (24.05.2021) For MHR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

IN THE DRUTO BICHAR TRIBUNAL NO 01, DHAKA

Arising out of: Sessions Case No. 314 of 2020

Chokbazar police station case Number 14 (10) 2019

302, 109, 114 and 34 of the Penal Code, 1860

In the matter of:

Mehedi Hasan Rasel

(In judicial custody)

The State represented by the

Deputy Commissioner of Dhaka

Main allegation as per the First Information

(FI) dated 07.10.2019:

That the prosecution case in brief that one informant Md.

Barkat Ullah lodged the first information in writing

alleging inter alia that on 06.10.2029 at 8.05 pm his son

named Abrar Fahad Rabbi was called from his room

number 1011 by the accused and taking him in the room

number 2011, they caused grievous hurts on the body of

the deceased and thereafter he has been died. Then the

informant lodged the instant case i.e. the first

information against first information report based

accused with Chokbazar Police Station which has been

recorded in BF Form No. 27 under regulation 243 of

police regulations, 1943 as Chokbazar Police Station case

being No.14, dated 07.10.2019 under sections 302 and

34 of the Penal Code, 1860 and in the language of the

informant mentioned in the first information is as

…msev` cvBqv Avwg ZvrÿwbK fv‡e XvKvq

Avwmqv ey‡qU †k‡i evsjv n‡ji KZ„©c‡ÿi mv‡_,

ey‡q‡Ui KwZcq QvÎ‡`i mv‡_ Av‡jvPbv K‡i I

wfwWI dz‡UR †`‡L Rvwb‡Z cvwi †h, D³ QvÎvev‡mi

QvÎ Avmvgx ... ,17| †gvt †gv‡k©` (20) wcZv- AÁvZ,

mvs- AÁvZ, _vbv +†Rjv- AÁvZ, G/wc- ey‡qU †k‡i

evsjv nj (17 e¨vP)(GgB) wefvM, _vbv PKevRvi g‡Wj,

XvKv … Bs 06/10/2019 wLªt ZvwiL 20.05

NwUKvq Avgvi †Q‡j‡K ey‡qU †k‡i evsjv n‡ji iæg

bs 1011 nB‡Z nZ¨vi D‡Ï‡k¨ †W‡K wb‡q Bs

07/10/2019 ZvwiL ivÎ Abygvb 20.30 NwUKv ch©šÍ

D³ n‡ji iæg bs-2011 Ges 2005 Gi wfZi wb‡q c~e©

cwiKwíZ fv‡e wµ‡KU ÷¨v¤ú Ges jvwV-‡mvUv w`‡q

kix‡ii wewfbœ RvqMvq cÖPÛ gviai K‡i hvnvi d‡j

NUbv¯’‡jB Avgvi †Q‡j gviv hvq |

Main allegation as per the Police Report

(Charge Sheet) dated 13.11.2019 is different

from the framed charges as in the police report

11 accused are recommended or mentioned for

direct commiting the offence of causing hurts

i.e. 302 of the Penal Code but rest are

recommended for abetment.

According to the Charge framed on 15.09.2020 by

this Druto Bichar Tribunal No. 1, Dhaka, the following

charges have been framed against the instant accused

petitioner Mehedi Hasan Rasel along with others.

Avwg †gvt Avey Rvdi †gvt Kvgiæ¾vgvb, wePviK †Rjv I

`vqiv RR, `ªyZ wePvi UªvBeybvj bs-1, XvKv GZØviv

18)... 19)... 20)... 21)... 22)... 23)... 24).....25)...

Awfhy³MY‡K wbb¥wjwLZiæ‡c Awfhy³ Kwi‡ZwQ †h,

Avcbviv mKj Awfhy³MY c~e©cwiKwíZfv‡e ci¯úi

†hvMmvR‡k I mnvqZvq Awfbœ AwfcÖv‡q weMZ