Gulam Rabbani :
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court has observed in a full text of a verdict that judiciary only can define limits of the state organs.
The court said, “There is separation of powers in the Constitution between three organs of the state, and one organ should not ordinarily encroach into the domain of another, otherwise, there will be chaos. Of all the organs of the state, it is judiciary only which can define the limits of all three. This great power must therefore be exercised by the judiciary, with the utmost humility and self-restraint.”
In the full verdict the apex court ruled, “Imprisonment for life prima-facie means imprisonment file the convict’s natural death.”
But imprisonment for life be deemed equivalent to imprisonment for 30 years if Sections 45 and 53 are read along with Sections 55 and 57 of the Penal Code and Section 35(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the full text also read.
However, in the case of sentence awarded to the convict the imprisonment for life till his natural death awarded by the court, Tribunal or the International Crimes Tribunal under the International Crimes (Tribunal) Act, 1973, the convict will not be entitled to get the benefit of Section 35(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, also read the judgment.
The apex court observed “A judge takes a decision in accordance with law and customs of the land. He cannot introduce new law, but give constructive interpretation and work out the implications of legal considerations. In the exercise of the judicial power, the Court should within the legally imposed restrictions act by adopting the best interpretations.”
“The legislature only is legally empowered to enact law fixing a definite period of life imprisonment resolving dichotomy and put an end to the ambiguity. However, with the development and fast changing society, the law cannot remain static and the law has to develop its own principles. In view of discussions made above, it can be said that imprisonment for life may be deemed equivalent to imprisonment for 30 years,” It also observed.
A seven-member bench of the Appellate Division headed by Chief Justice Syed Mahmud Hossain passed the explanation on the basis of majority view while delivering the judgement after disposing of a review petition filed by a convict person.
The court delivered the short verdict on December 1 in 2020, while the full text of the verdict was released on Thursday in the Supreme Court website.
Convict Ataur Mridha filed the petition seeking review of the apex court’s judgement that commuted his death penalty to imprisonment till death.
Lawyer Mohammad Shishir Manir who appeared in the hearing in supporting the review petition said, “If a court sentences anyone to life imprisonment, the convicted person will have to spend 30 years in jail. If anyone is sentenced to imprisonment till natural life, he will not get any concession described in the Section 35(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”
The apex court had heard expert opinions from four amicus curiae (friends of court), senior lawyers AF Hasan Ariff, Rokanuddin Mahmud, Abdur Razzaque Khan and AM Aminuddin, on the issue.
Lawyers Khandker Mahbub Hossain and Mohammad Shishir Manir appeared for the petitioner, while Attorney General AM Amin Uddin argued for the state.
A trial court on October 15 in 2003 handed down death penalty to three accused, Ataur Mridha and Anwar Hossain and Kamrul, in a murder case. The High Court on October 30 in 2007 upheld the sentences of the accused. Then two of the accused, Ataur and Anwar, moved the Appellate Division.
The apex court on February 14 in 2017 commuted their death penalty to life imprisonment in the case. In that judgement the apex court opined that life imprisonment means imprisonment till natural death. Then Ataur Mridha filed review petition seeking review of the judgement.
