High Court Division
Md. Mizanur Rahman Suman v The State
Criminal Appeal 5795/2023 · Appeal allowed; conviction set aside · Decided 16 August 2026
The appellant was convicted by the Special Judge, 9th Court, Dhaka under Table 9(Ka) of section 19(1) of the Madok Drabbo Niyantron Ain, 1990 and sentenced to one year's simple imprisonment and a fine of Tk. 10,000. The prosecution alleged that in November 2010 a RAB team recovered yaba tablets from the appellant's person and from a diagnostic centre in Naya Paltan, Dhaka. On appeal, the defence relied on inconsistent evidence about when the FIR was lodged, on seizure list witnesses who said they signed blank paper and did not see the recovery, and on discrepancies about the place of recovery and the colour of the tablets. The High Court Division found a gross contradiction in the informant's evidence, which gave three different times for lodging the FIR, the last about nine hours after the occurrence. This created serious doubt; the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt or to explain the delay. The appeal was allowed and the conviction set aside.
- Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the possession of yaba tablets under Table 9(Ka) of section 19(1) of the Madok Drabbo Niyantron Ain, 1990, given contradictions about the time of lodging the FIR and the unexplained delay.
- A gross contradiction in the informant's evidence about the time of lodging the FIR creates serious doubt about the prosecution case.
- The prosecution must explain delay in lodging the FIR; here the FIR was lodged about nine hours after the alleged occurrence without explanation.
- The prosecution failed to prove the charge under Table 9(Ka) of section 19(1) of the Madok Drabbo Niyantron Ain, 1990 beyond all reasonable doubt.
- The appeal was allowed and the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 13.03.2023 was set aside.
This gross contradiction creates serious doubt to prove the prosecution case and at the time of trial, the prosecution utterly failed to prove the case against the convict-appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and also failed to explain the delay of lodging the FIR.
