The accused have voluntarily testified knowing that they will be hanged?
Desk Report: ‘We are the children of this soil. We can’t say everything in court. Journalists also live here. Did the accused voluntarily testify knowing that they would be hanged, is it credible? The High Court said this while hearing the case of the girl who came back alive after giving a statement under Section 164 in the court admitting that she was killed after raping a fifth class student in Narayanganj. He then commented, ‘It’s unfortunate. The people of this country are the losers. ‘
At one stage of the hearing on the report given by the Judicial Inquiry Committee on the return of the ‘dead’ girl, Justice M. Inayetur Rahim and Justice. A bench comprising Mostafizur Rahman made the remarks. During the hearing, the High Court further said that there was no need to blame the entire police force for this incident in Narayanganj. They should look at isolated events in isolation. If there is any irregularity, then the police force should think about how to overcome it. The court further said that if a person utters a harsh word while in police custody in our neighboring country India, it is considered a crime.
On August 24 last year, the news was published in the media that a schoolgirl who had left her body in the river after being raped had returned alive after 49 days. According to the details of the incident, the fifth class student went missing on July 4 last year. On August 8, her father filed a kidnapping case with Narayanganj Sadar Model Police Station. After the case, police arrested three persons named Abdullah, Rakib and Khalil. They made a confessional statement under section 164 in court. In their confession, they said that the student was killed after being gang-raped and her body was floated in the Shitalakshya river. After taking the statement, the accused were sent to jail. But the student was found on August 23. On August 25 last year, five lawyers filed a revision petition in the High Court seeking the accuracy, validity, rationality and case documents of the case filed at Narayanganj Sadar Model Police Station and the subsequent proceedings.
Later on August 27, after a preliminary hearing of the revision application, the High Court summoned the former investigating officer in connection with the student’s return alive. Instructed the present investigating officer to appear with the case documents. Accordingly, they appeared and explained on 16 September. The court then set September 24 last year as the date for the order. Later on September 24, the High Court ordered the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Narayanganj to conduct a judicial inquiry. According to him, the report of the judicial inquiry was presented in the court on January 5. The opinion part of the report says, ‘… However, while in police custody (police remand) while investigating officer Md. Shamim Al-Mamun, SI Narayanganj Sadar Model Police Station against the accused beating, intimidation and temptation to force the confession of the crime is found.
The report was heard in the High Court bench yesterday. Lawyer Mansurul Haque Chowdhury represented the police, Advocate Shishir Mohammad Monir represented the revision petition and Deputy Attorney General Sarwar Hossain Bappi represented the state.
Lawyer Mansurul Haque Chowdhury, appearing for the investigating officer at the hearing, said the report of the Judicial Investigation Committee blamed the police force. But I don’t think the investigating officer in the case did anything exaggerated. He has arrested and remanded the accused from within his jurisdiction. The accused were not tortured. Because the accused did not raise the issue of torture with anyone outside the Judicial Committee.
The court said, then, will we assume that the statement made by the accused in the statement is not true? What is the interest of the accused in the statement of killing the victim and throwing him in the river? Senior Justice Enayetur Rahim of the bench said, “The people of the country wanted to see Khudiram hanged. Everyone wants to go to the gallows for this! We have to come to a decision in this regard.
Mansurul Haque Chowdhury said the victim told the judicial committee that accused Abdullah had raped her. The court said, what did the girl say in court in her statement under section 22? Which of the two statements do we think is correct?
During the hearing, Deputy Attorney General Sarwar Hossain Bappi said the accused had given a confessional statement after remand. At the time, they did not tell the magistrate about the torture. The court said that if the two of you are to be heard, the confessional statements of the accused have to be taken as true.
Mansurul Haque Chowdhury said the judicial report also praised the investigating officer for rescuing the victim. It would not be right to convict the investigating officer in this case. Investigating officer Shamim Al Mamun should be acquitted of the charges. Addressing Attorney General AM Amin Uddin at this stage, the court said that if an accused is remanded in India, there is an opportunity to have a lawyer there. For that, they have also amended the CRPC. When we talk about amending the law from the court, there are many reactions.
Citing the example of Bangladesh v. Blast case, Mansurul Haque Chowdhury said, “In this case, there is an opportunity to keep a lawyer in remand.” The then Attorney General said that the review of the case is now pending in the Appellate Division. You (High Court) can observe. The court said, is it the job of the High Court to grant or dismiss the rule and grant bail?
At this stage, Shishir Monir, a lawyer in the revision case, said that the review sought from the state in the Blast v. State case did not raise any objection to keeping the lawyer in remand. After that, the High Court fixed Wednesday for the next hearing of the Narayanganj case. The court will hear the statement of the Attorney General on that day. Daily our time