| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1961 SLG 1723 1961 SLD 1723 = 1961 PLD 1 |
Dacca High Court
Criminal Appeals Nos. 534 and 552 of 1959, decided on 19th January, 1960.
Presented By: Murshed and Hasan, JJ
Hamidul Huq Chowdhury with Shamsul Huq Chowdhury and Ahmed Hossain for Appellants in Appeal No. 534. Abdus Salam Khan with Serajul Huq for Appellants in Appeal No. 552. Abdul Aziz for the State in both.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 534 and 552 of 1959, decided on 19th January, 1960.
Presented By: Murshed and Hasan, JJ
Hamidul Huq Chowdhury with Shamsul Huq Chowdhury and Ahmed Hossain for Appellants in Appeal No. 534. Abdus Salam Khan with Serajul Huq for Appellants in Appeal No. 552. Abdul Aziz for the State in both.
SHAHIDULLAH KHAN AND OTHERS-Appellants
VERSUS
THE STATE-Respondent
Law:
Section:
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- -- S. 154-First information report-Telegrams, described as "vague", received by investigating officer "shortly prior to report lodged personally by one of complainants' party at police station"-Report rightly treated as F. I. R. and not the telegrams. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- --- Ss. 161, 162 (2) read with S. 32 (1), Evidence Act (I of 1872)-Statement of injured person recorded by police officer under S. 161-Death of such person-Statement not inadmissible as dying declara tion-[Trial Court, however, did not receive statement into evidence and High Court too kept it "out of consideration" in deciding appeal]. (c) Evidence---- ---Certified copy of order-sheet of Revenue Officer produced in criminal case-Order-sheet not evidence of facts stated therein-Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 77. (d) Evidence Act (I of 1872)--- ---- S. 167-Admission of inadmissible evidence-No ground by itself for re-trial-Appellate Court may decide case after discarding evidence improperly admitted-[Abdul Rahim v. Emperor A I R 1946 P C 82 ref.] (e) Re-trial--- ---Appellants alleged not to have been properly defended in trial Court -No ground for re-trial. (f) Evidence Act (I of 1872)--- --- S. 145-Murder alleged by prosecution to have taken place early in morning-Prosecution witnesses deposing at trial but not before investigating officer that deceased took meals "shortly after mid-night"-Partially digested rice found in deceased's stomach-Omission to state before investi gating officer that deceased took meals "shortly after midnight"-Held, "not of any importance whatsoever". (g) Evidence Act (I of 1872)--- ---- S. 45-Medical evidence-Hour of murder-Partially digested rice found in stomach of deceased-Time taken in digesting food-May be influenced by extraneous factors-Not possible to dogmatise. It is impossible to dogmatise about the number of hours which an individual person will take to digest food. This will depend upon various factors some of which may not be…