Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 595 views

    Case Summary - The State V Roushan Mondal

    Uploaded by

    ModonKumar
    The High Court declared the death sentence of Roushan Mondal illegal for the rape and murder of Rikta Khatun. Roushan was initially found to be a juvenile, so the case was transferred to a juvenile court, but he was instead charged under an adult law and sentenced to death. However, the High Court found multiple deficiencies in the case, including conflicting witness statements, evidence the confession was coerced, and lack of jurisdiction for the lower court to try it. Therefore, the High Court overturned the conviction and sentence due to lack of substantial evidence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case Summary - The State V Roushan Mondal

    Uploaded by

    ModonKumar
    595 views2 pages
    The High Court declared the death sentence of Roushan Mondal illegal for the rape and murder of Rikta Khatun. Roushan was initially found to be a juvenile, so the case was transferred to a juvenile court, but he was instead charged under an adult law and sentenced to death. However, the High Court found multiple deficiencies in the case, including conflicting witness statements, evidence the confession was coerced, and lack of jurisdiction for the lower court to try it. Therefore, the High Court overturned the conviction and sentence due to lack of substantial evidence.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Case Summary_The State v Roushan Mondal

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The High Court declared the death sentence of Roushan Mondal illegal for the rape and murder of Rikta Khatun. Roushan was initially found to be a juvenile, so the case was transferred to a juvenile court, but he was instead charged under an adult law and sentenced to death. However, the High Court found multiple deficiencies in the case, including conflicting witness statements, evidence the confession was coerced, and lack of jurisdiction for the lower court to try it. Therefore, the High Court overturned the conviction and sentence due to lack of substantial evidence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    595 views2 pages

    Case Summary - The State V Roushan Mondal

    Uploaded by

    ModonKumar
    The High Court declared the death sentence of Roushan Mondal illegal for the rape and murder of Rikta Khatun. Roushan was initially found to be a juvenile, so the case was transferred to a juvenile court, but he was instead charged under an adult law and sentenced to death. However, the High Court found multiple deficiencies in the case, including conflicting witness statements, evidence the confession was coerced, and lack of jurisdiction for the lower court to try it. Therefore, the High Court overturned the conviction and sentence due to lack of substantial evidence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    Case Summary: The State v Roushan Mondal

    bdjls.org/case-summary-state-v-md-roushan-mondal-59-dlrhcd-72/

    Editor April 30, 2016

    Reference: 59 DLR(HCD) 72

    Summary:
    The reference under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for death penalty of
    Roushan Mondal was submitted before the High Court Division and also an appeal on the
    penalty was made. Roushan Mondal was sentenced to Death penalty for the rape and
    murder of one girl named Rikta. The High Court declared that the sentence was illegal
    due to want of jurisdiction of the court and also there was lack of substantial evidence for
    the case to be send back on remand.

    Facts of the case:


    A girl named Rikta Khatun was raped and killed by an anonymous person in the night she
    went to watch Television in the neighbor’s house. The F.I.R was filed by the victim’s father
    without naming anyone as accused. But in the investigation process, the police arrested
    Roushan Mondal. Rousan Mondal confessed to the crime and it was recorded by a
    Magistrate. During trail, Rousan Mondal was adjudged as juvenile and the case was
    transferred to the Additional Session Judge. But the charge sheet was given under
    section 6 of Nari-o-Shishu Nirjaton Domon Ain, 1995. Upon evidence submitted by the
    prosecution side and depending on the confessional statement Roushan Mondal was
    sentenced to Death Penalty.

    Judgment:
    The High Court declared that the sentence is illegal due to want of jurisdiction of the court
    and also there was lack of substantial evidence for the case to be send back on remand.

    1/2
    It was adjudged that the accused was a juvenile and thus the case was transferred to
    Additional Session Judge, who assumed the role of Juvenile Court. But then the charge
    sheet was give under Nari-o-Shishu nirjaton Domon Ain and also a sentence of death
    penalty was awarded, which under the Children Act, 1974 is not possible. The HCD
    observed that the lower court while deciding this case was not itself clear as to which role
    it was playing while deciding this case.

    It was also proved that the confession was given under influence, which the prosecution
    side accepted. And as the judgment was delivered without any jurisdiction, they wanted
    the case to be send back to a Juvenile Court for re-adjudication.

    In this case not all the witnesses were not cross examined. Again the statements given by
    the prosecution witnesses were conflicting. Police did not arrest Roushan Mondal on its
    own rather one person named Kamal captured him and handed him to the police, with
    whom Rousha Mondal’s family had a land related conflict. But despite all these
    deficiencies, Rouson Mondal was given Death Penalty.

    The defence side argued that the accused was juvenile and the case should have been
    tried by the Juvenile Court. So as there is no ground for the judgment and the accused
    should be acquitted of all charges.

    The court also did not see any reason for the case to be resend on remand as there was
    no substantial evidence and no chance of new evidence to come up was present either.

    In this case there were few important directions were given regarding trail procedure of
    juveniles in conflict with law. These directions had a lot of influence in the child policy
    making in Bangladesh.

    This case also clarified the relevant date for determining the age of the accused. The date
    of the offence would be considered as the cause of action which was later inserted in
    the Children Act 2013.

    2/2

    You might also like