Supreme Court Judgments, Summarised

by Barrister Tahmidur Rahman | Nov 3, 2026

Summary

The petitioner and three others were accused of throwing acid on the informant's daughter in 1993. A charge was framed under section 326(A) of the Penal Code, and the Additional District Magistrate, Laxmipur convicted all four in 1999, sentencing each to seven years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine. Two co-accused, described as the principal accused, appealed separately and were acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Laxmipur. The petitioner's own appeal, Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1999, was dismissed by the Senior Sessions Judge, Laxmipur in 2015, and he obtained a Rule. The High Court Division noted that the statements of the two co-accused under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the medical report, the FIR and the victim's statement before a Magistrate indicated that one co-accused alone committed the offence after the victim refused to marry him. As that main perpetrator had been acquitted, the petitioner stood on a better footing. The Rule was made absolute and the conviction and sentence were set aside.

Issues

  1. Whether the petitioner's conviction for causing grievous hurt by throwing acid could stand when the co-accused identified by the evidence as the main perpetrator had been acquitted on appeal.
Key points

  • The statements under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the medical report, the FIR and the victim's statement before the Magistrate together showed that the offence was committed by one co-accused alone.
  • Where the main perpetrator has been acquitted by the appellate court, a co-convict who stands on a better footing is entitled to be dealt with in the same way.
  • The judgment of the Senior Sessions Judge affirming the petitioner's conviction and sentence was set aside.

The accused Hannan has already been discharged by the appellate Court and the present convict-petitioner stands on the better footing. Therefore, the convict-petitioner is entitled to be dealt with the accused Hannan, the main perpetrator.

From the judgment, Justice Sk. Tahsin Ali
Law considered

Penal Code, section 326Penal Code, section 326(A)Code of Criminal Procedure, section 164

Call the Dhaka office+880 1708 000660WhatsApp · message usMessage our team
Message TRW on WhatsApp