Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Appeal No. 10‑D of 1958, decided on 5th May 1959.
(On appeal from the order of the High Court of East Pakistan at Dacca, dated the 3rd July 1956, in Criminal Appeal No. 303 of 1956).
Ss. 302 & 304, Part II‑Special leave to appeal granted by Supreme Court to consider whether Judge in awarding ,sentence could proceed on the view that offence committed was murder and for that reason maximum sentence under S. 304, Part II, P. P. C. should he given.
A. Kakeem, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant.
M. H. Khandker, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Nandalal Das, Attorney for the State.
Date of hearing : 5th May 1959.
In this case leave to appeal was given to consider the questions :‑
(1) whether the address to the jury was full and accurate
(2) whether the verdict of the jury was in accordance with the address, and
(3) whether the Judge in awarding the sentence could proceed on the view that the offence committed was murder and that for that reason the maximum sentence under section 304, Part II, P. P. C. should be given
We have now heard Mr.Hakeem at length, but do not feel called upon to interfere either with the conviction or with the sentence. All that Mr. Hakeem has been able to say is that the charge suffered from a material omission because no reference was made by the learned trial Judge to the evidence of Md. Lutfar Rahman (P.W.6) who states that sometime after the firing he saw one of the police constables running alone and three others including the appellant in a group. Apparently, the witness is deposing to what he saw after the murder had been committed and his evidence does not necessarily show that the appellant was not alone when he fired at the deceased.
It is true that the reasons which have been given by the learned Sessions Judge for awarding the maximum sentence, if true, would make the offence amount to murder. But having con sidered the circumstances of the case, we do not think that the sentence actually awarded is really excessive. The appeal is therefore dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer