High Court Division
Sumi Rahman v The State and another
Criminal Appeal (H) 7665/2024 · Appeal allowed; conviction set aside · Decided 28 July 2026
The appellant was convicted under section 27(1) of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004 by the Divisional Special Judge, Dhaka on 08.09.2024, sentenced to three years' simple imprisonment and a fine of Tk. 20,000, and properties valued at Tk. 2,61,62,218 were confiscated. The prosecution alleged that she held assets inconsistent with her lawful income, derived from her husband's alleged illegal casino and other business. Her husband, a co-accused, had been discharged at the framing of charge. The defence said the assets came from her father's gifts, her husband's business and her savings. The High Court Division found that the FIR and the charge sheet were contradictory, that the same person deposing as PW-1 and PW-13 gave different accounts of the source of the assets, and that the trial court ignored these inconsistencies. It held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and that the appellant should be treated equally with her discharged husband. She was acquitted and the confiscation order released.
- Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant held assets disproportionate to her known sources of income under section 27(1) of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004.
- Whether the appellant could stand convicted when her husband, the co-accused alleged to have funded the assets, had been discharged at the framing of charge.
- Where the FIR and the charge sheet are contradictory and the same witness gives different accounts of the source of the accused's assets, a charge under section 27(1) of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004 is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
- A conviction passed without considering material inconsistencies in the witnesses' evidence on the accused's source of income is not tenable in law.
- Once the co-accused husband alleged to have abetted the acquisition of the assets had been discharged from the charge, the appellant was to be treated equally.
- The conviction and sentence were set aside, the appellant was acquitted and the confiscation of her movable and immovable property was released.
the trial court without considering the inconsistencies in the deposition of witnesses, passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence against the appellant, which is not tenable in the eye of law.
