State vs Billal and Others, 52 DLR (AD) (2000) 160

Case Summary: 

Case Title & Citation: State vs Billal and Others, 52 DLR (AD) (2000) 160 

Court Name & Bench: 

Court: High Court Division of Bangladesh (Criminal Appeal) 

Bench: Latifur Rahman, C.J.; B.B. Roy Choudhury, J.; M. Amin Choudhury, J.

Separate/Dissenting Opinion: Kazi Ebadul Hoque, J. 

Date of Judgment: April 2, 2000 

Parties Involved: 

Appellant: Billal (accused–convicted, later appellant before the Appellate Division)

Respondent: The State (represented by the Deputy Attorney General)

Other Accused/Co-convicts: 

1. i) Miraj (named in confession, role less significant in judgment extracts) ii) Saiful Islam (co-accused, whose confessional statement was partly relied upon) 

Facts of the Case: 

• Alamgir Kabir (victim) had a love affair with PW 2, Mokseda Akhter.
• Billal, a neighbor, also loved Mokseda and pressured her to end her relationship with Alamgir. 
• Motivated by jealousy and enmity, Billal allegedly conspired and carried out Alamgir’s murder. 
• The informant (victim’s brother) suspected love rivalry was the motive behind the killing. 

Procedural History: 

• Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Dhaka, convicted Billal and others in Sessions Case No. 242 of 1993 (judgment dated 2 October 1995). 
• The High Court Division dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction on 6 August 1998. 
• The case came before the Appellate Division on leave to appeal. 

Issues Raised: 

1. Whether the defence’s theory that Mokseda’s family killed the victim was credible. 2. Whether evidence against Billal was sufficient to sustain conviction. 3. Whether Saiful Islam’s partly inculpatory and partly exculpatory confession could be used against Billal. 
2. Whether PW 1’s testimony was trustworthy despite recognition issues in the dark. 5. Whether PW 3 was a reliable witness or a mere “chance witness.” 
3. Whether it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that Billal inflicted the fatal stab wounds. 
4. Whether Mokseda’s testimony about Billal’s threats established a motive. 8. Whether circumstantial evidence (last seen together) was sufficient for conviction. 

Arguments of the Parties: 

Appellant’s Contentions (Billal): 

• Claimed innocence and alleged false implication. 
• Suggested Mokseda’s family disapproved of her relationship and could have killed Alamgir. 
• Circumstantial evidence was weak, slender, and inconclusive. 
• Saiful’s confession cleared Billal, so it carried no weight against him.
• PW 1 failed to identify Billal; PW 3 was a chance witness whose sole testimony should not sustain conviction. 

Prosecution’s Contentions (State): 

• Evidence from PWs 1 and 3 proved Billal and Saiful took the victim shortly before his death. 
• Saiful’s confession, though partly exculpatory, still sustained key facts.
• PW 2 (Mokseda) testified about Billal’s motive (jealousy, threats). 
• The victim was found murdered soon after being taken by the accused; Billal was missing for a year. 
• Circumstantial evidence formed a complete chain pointing towards Billal’s guilt. 

Judgment / Final Decision: 

Verdict: 

• The court held that there was no direct evidence proving that the appellant inflicted the fatal wounds on the victim. Consequently, a conviction under Section 302 could not be sustained. 
• The appellant was last seen with the victim prior to the murder and failed to provide a satisfactory explanation regarding the victim’s death. He also absconded during the investigation until his arrest after the charge sheet was filed. 
• Considering these circumstances, the court found the appellant guilty of abetment of murder under Sections 302/109 of the Penal Code. This view is supported by the precedents in Amir Hossain vs State [37 DLR (AD) 139], Hafez Abul Khair vs State [29 DLR (AD)], and Afsar Ali Moral vs State [29 DLR (AD) 269]. 
• Conviction: The appellant’s conviction was modified from Section 302 to Sections 302/109. 
• Sentence: The original sentence awarded remains unchanged. 
• Appeal: Dismissed. 
• Orders/Directions: No further orders or directions were issued. 

Legal Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi: 

• When an accused is last seen with the victim, the burden shifts to the accused to explain the victim’s fate (Amir Hossain vs State, 37 DLR (AD) 139). 
• The appellant’s absconding during the investigation indicated a guilty conscience.
•  While Saiful Islam’s confession was partly exculpatory, corroborative evidence from witnesses (PWs 1, 2, and 3) provided sufficient proof. 
• Precedents (Hafez Abul Khair vs State, 29 DLR (AD); Afsar Ali Moral vs State, 29 DLR (AD) 269) establish that conviction for abetment is justified where direct proof of killing is absent but circumstantial evidence is strong. 

Conclusion / Observations: 

This case highlights the principle that circumstantial evidence and the doctrine of “last seen together” can sustain a conviction, even where direct evidence of murder is absent. The Appellate Division carefully distinguished between direct culpability for murder and liability for abetment, ultimately altering the conviction. The case underscores how motive, circumstantial evidence, and failure to explain incriminating circumstances weigh heavily in criminal jurisprudence.