High Court Division
Saidur Kabir @ Mukul and others v The State and another
Criminal Appeal (H) 1568/2022 · Appeal allowed in part · Decided 30 June 2026
The appellants were convicted by the Special Judge, Faridpur on 09.02.2022 under sections 467 and 471 of the Penal Code and sentenced for each to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Tk 50,000. The prosecution alleged that, in connivance with Sub-Registrar office staff, they prepared a forged certified copy of a 1967 heba deed changing their father's description from a brought-up son to a son, and used it in a title suit to claim inheritance. The trial court acquitted three record-room staff charged with them. The High Court Division found that none of the seven prosecution witnesses proved the allegations against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, that the appellants had no access to the record room, and that the trial judge had convicted without properly considering the evidence. With the record-room staff acquitted, the appellants stood on a better footing. As they had already served part of the sentence, the Court allowed the appeal in part and exonerated them from the rest of the conviction and sentence.
- Whether the prosecution proved the appellants' involvement in manipulating a deed kept in the Sub-Registrar's record room so as to sustain their conviction under sections 467 and 471 of the Penal Code.
- What relief was appropriate where the record-room staff charged with them had been acquitted and the appellants had served part of the sentence.
- None of the seven prosecution witnesses proved the allegations against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, and the trial court convicted them without properly applying its judicial mind to the evidence.
- The appellants had no access to the record room where the deed was manipulated, and nothing on record showed their involvement in the manipulation.
- Where the record-room staff, who held positions in the room where the manipulation took place, had been acquitted, the appellants stood on a better footing than those acquitted co-accused.
- As the appellants had already served a portion of the sentence, justice was best served by modifying the judgment to exonerate them from the rest of the conviction and sentence.
The involvement of the convict-appellants in the offence is very cloudy and the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the involvement of the convict-appellant.
