SOHEL RANA VS STATE 66 DLR AD 160

 

Analysis of the Fact:

In this case The Nari O Shishu Nirjatan Damon Tribunal, Jamalpur tried the case against the accused prisoners for the offence under sections 7/8 and 30 of the aforesaid Ain,2000 and sentenced each of them to suffer imprisonment for life and acquitted one petitioner. The Learned Sessions judge, Jamalpur also took cognizance against them over the self same occurrence under sections 302/201/34 of the Penal Code.

Issue:

Whether the second trial for the same offence is violative of the article 35 of the constitution or not?

Argument from the petitioner:         

It was argued that for the same occurrence the appellants were tried under sections 7/8/30 of the Nari O Shishu Nirjatan Damon Ain,2000. The High Court Division erred in law in allowing continuation of the proceedings under sections 302/201/34 of the Penal Code which arose out of the same occurrence. The appellants would thereby be subjected to double jeopardy if they were made to suffer again for the death and disappearance of the same victim for which they had already been tried, convicted and sentenced. The Tribunal had the power to try the offences under sections 302/201/324 of the Penal Code simultaneously as provided by section 27(3) of the Ain,2000. So, the second trial over the same occurrence by the Court of Sessions was barred under Article 35 of the Constitution.

 

 

Argument from the Respondent:

It was argued that the offences under the Penal Code charged by the Court of Sessions were distinct and separate from those for which the appellants were charged and tried under the Ain,2000. So, there was no bar in the present trial under the law.

Decision:

There was no bar for the trial to proceed against the appellants for the offences under sections 302/201/34 of the Penal Code because the appellants had not been tried for these offences and therefore, there was no violation of Article 35 of the Constitution.

Reasoning behind the decision:

Though section 27(3) of the Nari O Shishu Nirjatan Damon Ain,2000 empowers the Bicharak of the Tribunal to try other related offences simultaneously if it is necessary to try them together for ends of justice in this case the offences under sections 302/201/34 of the Penal Code alleged to have been committed by the appellants had not been considered by any Court or Tribunal.

Principle:

The trial under two separate provisions of law under two separate Acts by two separate forum for the same offence is not violative of the Article 35 of our Constitution.

Importance of the case:

In this case the issue arose whether once the Nari O Shishu Nirjatan Damon Tribunal convicted the appellants under the Nari O Shishu Nirjatan Damon Ain,2000 then again the Session Judge can convict the appellants for the same offence under the Penal Code. In the Article 35 of our Constitution it is stated that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than one. But court said in this case that the  Trial of session judge after the trial of the Nari O Shishu Nirjatan Damon Ain,2000 is no violative of article 35 of our Constitution because the appellants were not tried under sections 302/201/34 of the Penal Code,1860 earlier. In this case court has given an important directory opinion that while dealing with a case for which the convict once sentenced the Trial Judge will be bound to take into account of the fact that the accused persons are already undergoing their sentences awarded to them for the self same occurrence.