এসিড অপরাধ দমন আইন,(২০০২ সনের ২ নং আইন) ২০০২

Acid Aparadh-

Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan (Bishesh Bidan) Ain, 1995; Sections: 5(অ) 5(ঈ), 5(ক)& 5(ঙ)  

It is true that crime like acid throwing is shocking in nature and also, revolting. The crime is against society and humanity, but the prosecution convicted the accused merely on suspicion that the accused committed such crime. There cannot be conviction for such crime on mere suspicion or presumption. The commission of murder must be proved. The presumption cannot take the place of positive evidence, (2970 P Criminal LJ 166)….53

Credibility of witness

whether oral and circumstantial, credibility of testimony depends considerably on a judicial evaluation of the totality, not isolated scrutiny. When deal­ing with the serious question of guilt or inno­cence of persons charged with crime, the fol­lowing principles should be taken into consid­eration…………..(39)

Evi­dence of Solitary Witness Calls for Corroboration as s Rule of Prudence.

It is absolutely nec­essary for the interest of justice that at least the victim's statement must be in conformity with the probability and in a case like this the evi­dence of solitary witness calls for corroboration as a Rule of Prudence. It is pertinent to point out that such corroboration is absent in this case.

Corroboration

The rule of corroboration is a rule of Prudence which looks for some corrobora­tion, either direct or circumstantial or both connecting the person indicated for commis­sion of crime imposing penalty upon him. Corroboration of the testimony of a solitary witness as a Rule of Prudence is normally demanded for the satisfaction of the Court that the testimony has a ring of truth around it and the person arraigned of the offence has not been falsely implicated......(44)

Back­ground of Enmity & Chance Witnesses

When there is a back­ground of enmity and the witnesses are chance witnesses and not natural witnesses and further natural and independent witnesses were not produced, it is unsafe to rely on the evidence of chance witnesses to make a nexus between the accused and the crime. There is no cogent, convincing and unimpeachable evi­dence on record to prove the complicity of the accused with the crime of throwing acid. Prosecution utterly failed to bring home guilt to the accused beyond reasonable doubt…………..(52)

Legal evidence in a criminal trial is the evidence of the incriminat­ing facts and circumstances of involvement of the accused in the commission of offence inevitable pointing to their guilt as the perpetra­tors are incompatible with the plea of their innocence.

Conviction Merely On Suspicion without any Legal Evidence

Suspi­cion or doubt however strong it might be can­not take place of evidence or there be slightest doubt as to the involvement of the accused in the crime, he cannot be convicted……………... (55) 

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act No. V of 1908); Order XL, Rule 1

Appointment of receiver in a suit for partition

It is not proper to appoint a receiver in a suit for partition. Mere existence of a dispute cannot be a ground whatsoever for appointment of a receiver. Receiver should be appointed in a suit for partition with the consent of the parties, especially where the family property consists of land. Delay in disposal of the suit cannot at all be a ground for appointment of a receiver in respect of the suit land…………………..(20)

In a suit for partition not merely the interest of the plaintiffs but also the interest of all the parties to the suit need be protected. The power to appoint a receiver as conferred by Order 40, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, therefore, should, therefore, be sparingly used. The provisions for the appointment of a receiver is to be considered as one of the harshest remedies for the enforcement of rights to property……………(27)