Case Law On Convictions Under Women And Children Repression Act
1. State vs. Md. Shahidul Islam and Others (2003) 55 DLR (HCD) 399
Facts:
The accused, Shahidul Islam, was charged under Section 9(1) of the Act for committing rape upon a minor girl. The victim was medically examined and found to have been subjected to sexual intercourse. The defense claimed false implication due to enmity between families.
Issues:
Whether the prosecution proved the charge of rape beyond reasonable doubt under the Women and Children Repression Act.
Decision:
The High Court Division upheld the conviction.
Reasoning:
The testimony of the victim was found to be consistent, credible, and supported by medical evidence.
The court observed that in cases of rape, direct witnesses are rare, and the victim’s statement alone, if reliable, can sustain a conviction.
The court emphasized that delay in filing FIR was satisfactorily explained by the family’s social fear and stigma.
Significance:
This case reaffirmed that in rape cases under the Act, the victim’s testimony carries high evidentiary value if it inspires confidence, even without corroboration.
2. State vs. Md. Shafiqul Islam (2004) 56 DLR (HCD) 124
Facts:
The accused kidnapped a minor girl (below 16 years) and forcibly married her. The charge was under Sections 7 and 9(1) of the Act (kidnapping and rape).
Issues:
Whether consent of a minor can be a valid defense under the Act.
Decision:
Conviction upheld by the High Court.
Reasoning:
The court clarified that consent of a minor below 16 years is legally immaterial in cases of rape.
The medical evidence and witness testimony proved that the girl was underage and was sexually violated.
The purpose of the Women and Children Repression Act, the court said, is to protect minors from exploitation, even if they appear to have “consented.”
Significance:
The case set a precedent that consent by a minor victim is no defense in prosecutions under this Act.
3. State vs. Md. Jahangir Alam (2008) 60 DLR (HCD) 511
Facts:
A husband poured acid on his wife after a domestic quarrel, causing severe burns. He was tried under Section 10 of the Act (causing grievous injury by corrosive substance).
Issues:
Whether circumstantial and medical evidence were sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Decision:
Conviction and death penalty were confirmed.
Reasoning:
Medical evidence showed the injuries were consistent with acid burns.
Neighbors testified to hearing the victim’s screams and seeing the accused fleeing.
The defense of “accidental burn” was rejected as false.
The court emphasized that acid violence is among the most heinous crimes against women, meriting severe punishment.
Significance:
This judgment exemplifies the judiciary’s zero-tolerance approach to acid violence and domestic cruelty under the Act.
4. State vs. Md. Ratan (2015) 67 DLR (HCD) 35
Facts:
The accused, a schoolteacher, sexually assaulted a minor student. The charge was under Section 10 and Section 9(5) of the Act (sexual assault on a child).
Issues:
Whether the court can rely on the sole testimony of a child victim without corroboration.
Decision:
Conviction upheld.
Reasoning:
The court held that child victims are competent witnesses if they understand the duty of truth.
The victim’s deposition was coherent and consistent with medical findings.
The absence of eyewitnesses did not weaken the case, as the crime occurred in a private setting.
The teacher-student relationship aggravated the offense, showing abuse of authority and trust.
Significance:
This case reinforced the principle that child victims’ credible testimony is enough to convict under the Act and that position of trust increases the moral gravity of the crime.
5. State vs. Abdur Rahman and Another (2017) 69 DLR (HCD) 459
Facts:
Two accused were charged with trafficking a minor girl to India for prostitution under Section 6(1) of the Act.
Issues:
Whether circumstantial and documentary evidence of cross-border movement and statements of the victim were sufficient to establish trafficking.
Decision:
Conviction confirmed by the High Court Division.
Reasoning:
The victim’s statement described deception, confinement, and forced prostitution.
Immigration records and witness statements proved cross-border movement.
The defense plea that the victim “went willingly” was dismissed as irrelevant since deception or coercion suffices under Section 6.
The court highlighted that trafficking of women and children is a grave violation of human dignity.
Significance:
This case broadened the understanding of trafficking to include psychological coercion, deception, and exploitation, not merely physical force.
Overall Judicial Trends:
Strict interpretation: Courts apply the Act strictly to ensure deterrence.
Victim-centered approach: Testimony of women and children is given high evidentiary weight.
No tolerance for consent defense: Especially for minors or in cases of coercion.
Corroboration not always needed: Medical or circumstantial evidence often suffices.
Protection of dignity and bodily integrity: Central to judicial reasoning under this Act.
RELATED Blog
comments