In the Nari O Shishu Nirjatan Daman Tribunal, Jessore Present: M. D.

Noor Mohammad Moral Judge, Nari O Shishu Nirjatan Daman Tribunal, Jessore Nari O Shishu Nirjatan Daman Tribunal Case No. 22/2004

State Vs. 1. Noor Islam alias Moina 2. Arshad Ali 3. Nazir Ali
Charge: Under sections 511//30 o the Nari O Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain 2000 Judgement: 31.10.2006 1. Mrs. Sabia Khanom.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State 2. Kazi Tohidur Rahman.Learned Advocate for the Defence 3. Md. Sahnoor Alam Sahin..Learned State Defence Lawyer Judgment The case of the prosecution in short is that the informant Mst. Noorjahan Begum lodged the First Information Report (FIR) of this case to this effect that she is a helpless woman and passes her days by working in other persons residences. She lived with her only daughter Beauty Khatun (18). The informant, on a pleasure trip*,+ went to the house of Md. Rabiul with her daughter Beauty Khatun (18). At that time the accused No. 1, Noor Islam alias Moina said that he did service in the *g+arments factory in Dhaka and he would manage a service of good salary *there+ for the victim, Beauty Khatun and that Beauty would send every months salary to her mother (informant). Thinking the matter of financial crisis of her family the informant on 10.07.1999 gave that Beauty Khatun to the hands of the accused persons in presence of the witnesses for doing service in Dhaka. In the following night, the accused persons went to Dhaka with that victim, Beauty Khatun. The informant came back home on the following day. After some months, the informant again went to the house of the accused persons for taking news of her daughter. At that time, the accused No. 2 and accused No. 3 informed that the accused Noor Islam *alias+ Moina had taken the victim to Dhaka and kept her in his residence *+. At that time, she (victim) was well in Dhaka. In this way, the informant used to visit the residences of the accused persons after some interval. But the accused persons said that the victim was serving in the garment*+s factory *+ and she would send money of some months en bloc. After some months, the informant again went to the houses of the accused persons who used to harass her by saying the same words. In this way, four years have *been+ passed away. Last of all, on 25.07.2003 at 5 pm the informant called the accused persons in the house of accused no. 1 by witness no. 2 and demanded her daughter back. At that time, the accused side that since they

could not provide good service to the victim in Dhaka they had sent her to *Mumbai+, India. The victim was engaged in a residence in *Mumbai+ *+. The accused side trafficked the victim in *Mumbai+, *+ for engaging her in unethical or immoral profession. The case was investigated by the Benapole Port Police Satation, J*e+ssore and after completing all the formalities of investigation filed *the+ police report against the accused Noor Islam *alias+ Moina, Md. Arshad Ali, Md. Nazir Ali Khondokar under section 5(1) of the Nari O Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000. At the beginning of the trial the accused persons were charged under section 5(1) of the Nari O Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000. The accused persons denied the charge claiming them to be innocent. After the closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused Nazir Ali Khondokar was examined under section 342 *of the Code of Criminal Procedure+ (CrPC), 1898 to which he maintained the same plea of innocence. At this stage, that accused person declined to examine any defence witness in his favour and that accused person also declined to file any document*s+. But the accused Noor Islam *alias+ Moina and Arshad Ali were found *fugitive+ before *the+ tribunal at this stage and as such they could not be examined under section 342 *of the+ CrPC, 1898. Since this is a case of capital punishment, state defence has been provided for defending them before *the+ tribunal. The defence case as appears from the trend of cross-examination is that the accused persons are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Rabiul (witness), a maternal uncle of the victim sent the victim to India and subsequently *married off her+ and the victim is now staying in India in her husbands house. Point or determination 1. Whether on the alleged date, time, place and manner the accused persons trafficked the victim*,+ Beauty Khatun to India for engaging in unethical or immoral profession by way of giving her allurement of giving her a service in the garments factory in Dhaka and whether as such the accused persons are liable to *be+ punished under section*s+ 5(1)/30 of the Nari O Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000. Discussion and Findings In this case, the prosecution has examined nine (9) prosecution witnesses *(PW)+. Of them the PW-5, A. Quddus , PW-6, A. matin Mia*h+ have been tendered by the state.

The PW-1, Badsha in his evidence has said that he knows the informant, the victim and the accused persons. In 1999, the informant came to the house of the witness Rabiul with the victim on pleasure trip. At that time, the father of the victim was dead. At that time, the accused Noor Islam said that he would give service to the victim Beauty Khatun in the garment*+s factory *in+ Dhaka. The accused Noor Islam, having said that matter of giving service in the garments factory *+, took away the victim Beauty Khatun

from the custody of her mother. Other accused persons abetted the commission of that offence. Thereafter, *Beauty Khatuns+ mother (informant) did not get any news of that victim *+. The accused persons confessed that they took away the victim to *Mumbai+, India and arranged service for her. The victim Beauty Khatun is still traceless. The accused persons trafficked the victim *+.

The PW-1 Badsha has been extensively cross-examined by the *learned+ Advocate for the accused Nazir Ali Khondokar and by the learned state defence counsel. In the cross-examination by the learned Advocate for the accused Nazir Ali Khondokar*,+ the PW-1 Badsha has said, *I was present at the time when the accused persons talked to Beauty about providing her a service.+ In that cross-examination, no important discrepancy or cause to misbelieve the PW-1 Badsha has come out.

The PW-2 Rabiul in his evidence has said that he knows both the informant and *the+ victim who are his relatives. He also knows the accused persons. The names of the accused persons are Noor Islam alias Moina, Arshad *Ali+ and Nazir *Ali+. The occurrence of this case took place in 1999. At that time the informant went to his house with the victim on pleasure trip. At that time the accused Noor Islam said that he would give service to the victim in the garments factory in Dhaka. At that time the accused Noor Islam also said, *..Send Beuaty with me so that I can give her a good service in the garments factory in Dhaka. Then accused Arshad assured of Beautys security. Accused Nazir is not involved with the matter.+

The PW-2 Rabiul in his evidence has further said *that+ the accused Noor Islam *alias+ Moina in 2003 confessed that the victim was not in Dhaka, but she (victim) was taken to *Mumbai+, India. At that time the accused Arshad was present there. The Victim Beauty Khatun is still traceless.

In answer to the questions of the tribunal, the PW-2 Rabiul replied, *I knew Noor Islam as a good person. He used to work in a factory, but now has left the job. Police used to go to his place in search of him.+

It appears that the *..+ PW-2 Rabiul is *a+ man of 35 years old.

The PW-3 Noor Jahan Begum is the informant of this case who in her evidence has said that the accused Noor Islam *alais+ Moina and Arshd Ali took away her daughter seven years ago in the name of giving service in garments factory in Dhaka. The accused persons took away that victim Beauty Khatun from her (informants) fathers house. That PW-3 *.+ in her evidence has further said, * I asked Noor Islam alias Moina about the whereabouts of my daughter. Moina then replied that he would bring back my daughter, but he didnt. I dont know where my daughter is now as in the meantime so many years have been passed away.+

The PW-3 Noor Jahan Begum during the time of her examination-in-chief has identified the FIR of this case with her signature *..+ put thereon. Accordingly, that FIR and signature have been marked as exhibit no. 1 series.

The PW-3 Noor Jahan Begum has been extensively cross-examined by the defence side. In that crossexamination the PW-3 has said, *With my daughter Beauty, I went to my fathers residence at Sakharipota where my brother Rabiul Islam lived. At that time Beauty wore a torn pants and a maxi.+

The PW-3 in her cross-examination has denied this defence suggestion that her brother Rabiul took away her daughter to India and *married off her+ there.

The PW-4 Peari Begum in her evidence has said that she knows both the informant and the victim. The victim went to the house of her maternal uncle on a pleasure trip. The accused Noor Islam *alias+ Moina, Arshad Ali took away the victim in the name of giving service in the garments factory in Dhaka and trafficked her in India.

It appears that the PW-4 Peari Begum is a woman of that village of Sakharipota.

In cross-examination, the PW-4 has said, *My house is situated to the next ten houses of Beautys maternal uncle Rabiul who is my brother-in-law in relation. I heard the accused Noor Islam and Arshad Ali took away Beauty.+

The PW-7 Sirjul Islam, Sub-Inspector (SI) of police in his evidence has said that he was appointed *as the+ investigating officer (IO) of this case. As *the+ IO has visited the place of occurrence (PO), that he prepared the sketch map of *the place+ with its index, that he recorded the statements of the witnesses under section 161 of the CrPC, 1898, that during the time of his investigation he was transferred and as such he handed over the Case Docket (CD) to the officer-in-charge of the police station and left the station.

During the time of examination-in-chief the PW-7 Sirajul Islam, SI of police identified the sketch-map with index which are marked as exhibit no. 2 series and 3 series respectively.

The PW-8 Sahabul Hossain in his evidence has said that he knows both the informant and the accused persons. The informant and the victim went to the house of maternal uncle of the victim on a pleasure trip. At that time the accused Noor Islam told the mother of the victim that he would give service to her

daughter after taking her to Dhaka. Seven years ago, the accused Noor Islam and Arshad Ali*,+ having said so*,+ took the victim away in the name of going to Dhaka. After 3-4 years the informant locked in altercation with the accused Noor Islam Moina and Arshad Ali over that matter of her daughter and at that time those accused persons said that the victim was taken to *Mumbai+, India.

The PW-8 Sahabul Hossain has been cross-examined by the defence side. But in his cross-examination no hostility or cause to disbelieve him has come out.

The PW-9 Daliluddin, SI of Police in his evidence*,+ has said that he took up the responsibility of investigation of this case after the transfer of the earlier IO. As IO he consulted the case docket (CD), that he visited the PO. He prepared no new sketch map with index of the PO as he found no dissimilarity in the earlier prepared sketch map and index. He also examined the witnesses of the case. He tried to recover the victim but he could not as she (victim) was not within Bangladesh. After completing all the formalities of investigation*,+ he filled the police report against the accused under section 5(1) of the Nari O Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000.

The PW-1 Badsha in his evidence has said that the accused Arshad Ali Khondokar abetted the commission of trafficking of the victim Beauty Khatun. The PW-2 Rabiul in his evidence has said that accused Arshad Ali Khondokar said, *Sending Beauty with Noor Islam is not a matter of any problem as we can assure it.+ The PW-3 Noor Jahan (mother of the victim) has evidenced that the accused Noor Islam *alais+ Moina and Arshad Ali Khondokar took her daughter (victim) in the name of taking her to Dhaka. The PW-4 Peari in her evidence has said that she came to hear that accused Noor Islam and Arshad Ali Khondoker took away the victim. The PW-8 Sahabul Hossain in his evidence has said that the accused Noor Islam and Arshad Ali took away the victim Beauty Khatun in the name of taking her to Dhaka. The Tribunal finds no important discrepancy or legal cause to disbelieve them.

From the record it appears the occurrence of this case took place on 10.07.1999 and the case was filed on 23.10.2003. That delay has been explained by saying that informant is a widow and she has got no son or daughter excepting the victim daughter and she is poor rural woman. The accussed persons harassed her many times in the name of giving her daughter (victim Beauty Khatun) back and in this way those times were passed.

Upon scrutiny of the entire evidence and circumstances it appears that such explanation for delay in lodging the case is quite satisfactory.

From the record it appears that the accused Noor Islam *alias+ Moina and Arshad Ali Khondokar were absconding for a long time. Last of all, the police procured the arrest of accused Noor Islam and produced him before Tribunal on 17.10.2006 that means after the closing of the argument of this case.

Another accused Arshad Ali Khondokar is still absconding. This is an important circumstance which comes to tell loudly against them.

In the case of Babul Sikder and others vs. State represented by the D.C, reported in 56 DLR at page 174 their Honable Lordships observe that long abscondence of the accused is an important circumstance to fasten the accused.

I have gone through that Honable ruling of the case of Babul Sikder and others vs. State represented by D.C., reported in 56 DLR at page 174 and it appears to me that such ruling is quiet applicable here in the instant case.

Now, let me discuss section 5 of the Nari O Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000 which runs as follows:

Now let me see section 30 of the Nari O Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000 which runs as follows:

From police report (charge sheet) *it appears+ that the personal character (PC) and personal record (PR) of the accused Arshad Ali Khondokar are not good. Another Benapole Port PS case bearing no. 11 dated 26.05.2003 under section 5(1) of the Nari O Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000 was filed against him and in that case the police filed police report against him under section 5(1) of the Nari O Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000 after completing the formalities of *the+ investigation.

It appears that the evidence of this case are in consonance with probabilities and fully consistent with the other evidences of this case.

This is true that in our country the offence of trafficking *in+ wom*e+n is alarmingly increasing day by day. Such sort of offence needs to be uprooted for ever for the sake of the country as well as for the interest of the whole nation and above all for the sake of humanity. Infliction of exemplary punishment can check and uproot *+ such type of heinous offence*s+.

Therefore in view of the above discussions, it is quite clear that the prosecution has been successful to prove the charges against *the+ accused Noor Islam Moina and Arshad Ali Khondokar under sections 5(1)/30 of the Nari O Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000 beyond all reasonable doubts.

In this case there is no extenuating circumstance*s+ for *a lesser punishment than the death penalty.+

From record it is proved before the tribunal that the accused persons are men of sufficient understanding and men of sufficiently mature age. So, the accused Noor Islam Moina and Arshad Ali Khnodokar deserve exemplary maximum punishment under section 5(1)/30 of the Nari O Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000.

Hence it is Ordered That the accused 1) Noor Islam alias Moina, 2) Arshad Ali Khondokar*,+ both are son of Siraj Khondokar of village Sakharipota under Police Station: Benapole Port, District: Jessore*,+ are hereby found guilty to the charges framed under sections 5(1)/30 of the Nari O Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000 and as such each of them is sentenced to suffer death *penalty+ and each of them is also hereby sentenced to pay a fine of Tk. 25,000.00 under sections 5(1)/30 of the Nari O Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000.

The accused Noor Islam *alais+ Moina and Arshad Ali Khondokar shall be hanged by neck till each of them is dead but subject to the confirmation of that death sentence by the Honble High Court Division of the Honble Supreme Court of Bangladesh.

As per section 28 of the Nari O Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000 the death sentenced accused persons may file appeal against this judgment before the Honble High Court Division of the Honnle Supreme Court of Bangladesh within 60 days from this date of judgment.

The accused Nazir Ali is found not guilty to the charge framed against him under section 5(1) of the Nari O Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000 and as such he is hereby acquitted of that charge.

*+Let all the proceedings of this case be submitted to the Honble High Court Division of the Honnle Supreme Court of Bangladesh at once.

As per secion 373 of the *CrPC+, 1898, let a copy of the judgment be sent to the learned District Magistrate, Jessore. *.+ M. D. Noor Mohammad Moral, Judge, Nari O Shishu Nirjatan Daman Tribunal, Jessore.