JHARNA BEGUM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 17/06/2009 passed by the of Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Tribunal, No.2, Pirojpur, in Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Case No.190 of 2007, under section 11(Ga)/30 of the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000 (Shortly the Ain,2000) convicting the appellants under section 11(Ga)/30 of the said Ain,2000 and sentencing the appellant No.3 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and a fine of Tk.3,000/ in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and appellants No.1 & 2 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and a fine of Tk.3,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months more.

(2.) The prosecution case, in short, is that one Most. Rosy being complainant filed a petition of complaint before the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Tribunal, Pirojpur, alleging inter-alia, that she got married with the appellant No.3 Md. Hossain Ahmed and appellant No.1 and 2 demanded Dowry of Tk.1,00,000/- from her father but her father refused to pay the same. Thereafter the accused persons inflicted lathi blows on different parts of her body causing injury. While the neighbours came to save her and enquired about the occurrence but she told that it was their family matter. After 10 days she herself made a petition of complaint and filed before the learned judge, Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Tribunal-2, Pirojpur. After receipt of the petition of complaint, the learned Judge of the Tribunal directed the Upazila Education Officer to inquire into the matter. After inquiry a report was submitted and thereafter the learned judge took cognizance and framed charge against the accused persons under section 11(Ga) and 30 of the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Ain, 2000 and the same was read over to the accused persons who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried in accordance with law.

(3.) During trial the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses out of 8 cited witnesses in the petition of complaint while the defence examined none.