(Page-17-22)
PW-15 Md Khurshid Alom, the then Metropolitan Magistrate, Dhaka stated that on 29/05/2017 he recorded the statement of witness Ahmed Shahriar under Section-164 of CrPC. He proved the statement Exhibit marked 10 and his signature therein Exhibit marked 10/1. He stated in his cross-examination that witness Shahriar did not say in his statement that he had witnessed the incident. Witness Ahmed Shahriar left the hotel at 9:00 am. Rothy did not mention the incident of rape while giving the keys to witness Ahmed Shahriar at 9:00 am.
PW-19 Doctor Sohel Mahmud stated that on 7.05.2017 while he was working in the Department of Forensic Medicine examined the medico-legal examination of both the victims as identified by ASI Moyna Rani. He formed a Medical Board and conducted the Medico-Legal Examination. They provided the following opinions, referring to what they got during the legal examination:
(1) Considering physical examination findings & Radiological examination, Microbiological, DNA profiling reports we are of the opinion that the victim “Maskura Chawdhury Sadia” is aged with 22 years to 23 yrs & there is no sign of forceful sexual intercourse found on her body but she had had the knowledge of sexual intercourse.
(2) Considering physical examination findings & Radiological examination, Microbiological, DNA profiling reports we are of the opinion that the victim “Fardan Rashid Rothy is aged with in 22 yrs to 23 yrs & there is no sign of forceful sexual intercourse found on her body but she had had the knowledge of sexual intercourse.
He proved the medical reports Exhibit marked 14 and his signature therein Exhibit marked 14/a, 3/2. He also proved the written statements of both the victims which they submitted during medical examination Exhibit marked 15, and his signature therein Exhibit marked 15/a and 4/2.
PW-20 Mithun Chandra Das stated in his evidence that he is a salesman at Al-Madina Pharmacy in Gulshan-2 area. One day in May 2017, the police came to his pharmacy. Police showed him an empty packet from Madina Pharmacy and asked whether that packet belonged to their pharmacy? He said yes, it is their packed. Police have asked if he sold the medicine? He denied. He informed the police that their pharmacy is closed after 12 pm. He was the only one of the six employees present at the time so the police were asking him. Police wanted to know his name and address.
PW-21 Md Abdul Matin stated in his examination in Chief that 6/5/2017 He was working as a inspector Police (investigation) in Banani Police Station. On dated 6/5/2017 the informant Fardan Rashid Rothy and another victim Maskura Chowdhury Sadia appeared at the Banani Police Station and submitted the FIR that accused Safat Ahmed, Nayeem Ashraf, Sadman Sakif, Driver Billal, Bodyguard Rahmatullah from 9 pm on 28.03.2017 to 10 am on the next day 29.03.2017 detained the victims at Room No 700 and 701 of Raintree Hotel and restaurant and accused No 1 forcibly raped informant and accused No 2 forcibly raped another victim Sadia by beating and intimidation them. They were introduce to the accused no 1 through the accused No 3 on 28.03.2017 with the help of the accused No 3-5 the victims were taken to the spot and the incident described has occurred. In the context of his allegation Officer-in-Charge of Banani Police Station has been filed the case. He proved the FIR Exhibit marked 16 and the signature of Officer-in-Charge Banani Police Station therein marked Exhibit 16/a. after filing the case Officer-in-Charge of Banani P/S handover the Charge of investigation to him and then he inspected the scene. He prepared Sketch map with index, examined the witnesses and recorded their statement under Section-161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He proved the sketch map and index Exhibit marked 17 and his signature therein Exhibit marked 17/a and Exhibit marked 18 and signature therein Exhibit marked 18/a. He identified the Seizure list and he proved his signature on the seizure list Exhibit marked 5/3. He has collected and reviewed the check- in and check-out lists of the hotel. He found that the accused rented Room No 700 and 703 and they stayed there. He sent the victims to the safe custody. On the next day he sent the victims to Forensic Medicine Department of Dhaka Medical College Hospital for their medical examinations. Vaginal swab of the victims were obtained from Dhaka Medical College Hospital. He included that swab in the seizure list. He proved the seizure list Exhibit marked 19 and signature therein Exhibit marked 19/a. When the investigation of the case was assigned to the women support and investigation Division he adjourned the investigation and handed over the case docket to the Inspector of Police Ismat Ara Any.
He stated in his cross examination is that he investigated this case for three days from 6/5/2017 to 9/5/2017. It is true that the case was filed one month and ten days after the alleged date of the incident. He tried to collect video footage of the incident but did not get it. It is true that two witnesses whom he recorded their statement, they had heard from police about the incident. He did not show the alleged room on the sketch map. He showed a nine-storied building as the scene on the sketch map. The register dated 28.03.2017 was not seized. He did not examine the manager who was on duty at the time of the alleged incident. He has investigated about Faria Mahbub Piyasa. He knows that Piyasa is the divorced wife of accused Safat Ahmed. During his investigation, he did not visit the victims home or ask their family members. During his investigation he found that entry with weapon is prohibited in Raintree Hotel and Restaurant.
He denied the suggestion that the alleged rape did not occur so there is no specific location of the alleged rape mentioned in the FIR.
PW-22 Ismat Ara Emy stated in examination in Chief that she was working in women support and investigation Divisions of DMP on 2017. While working there she was assigned to investigate the case Banani Police Station number 8, dated 06.05.2017 Section 9(l)/30 of Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain 2000 along with Section 323/506 of Penal code. She took the charge and reinspected the scene, she perused the case docket, she has taken necessary steps to arrest the accused as they are fugitives. She presented the victims before the magistrate to record their statements. She received the visit of the previous investigation officer correctly during her inspection. She sent the vaginal swab and the cloth of victim Sadia to DNA Lab, CID, Malibag, Dkaka for DNA test. She took necessary steps to collect semen from accused Nayeem Ashraf. When accused are arrested she applied for remand before the court. At the end of the remand she presented the accused before the Ld Magistrate to record their statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Ld Magistrate recorded their confessional statement under Section-164 of the Code. She examined witnesses at the scene and recorded their statements under Section-161 of the code. She has collected medical reports and DNA profilling report of the victims and accused Nayeem Ashraf. She proved the seizure list of seized mobile phones of the accused exhibit marked 21 she has seized two DVR from Raintree Hotel and Restaurant. She identified that seizure list and her signature therein marked exhibit 7/3. On 15/5/2017 she sent the seized DVR to CID Digital Lab for digital test. She sent the mobile phone of accused Billal Hossen to CID Lab, Malibag Dhaka for forensic test. On 31.05.2017 she received the DNA Lab report saying that three videos were found on the mobile but could not be opened. DNA profilling did not match that of accused Nayeem Ashraf. She proved that reports Exhibit marked 22 series, he has received the medical reports of victims. According to the medical report, the age of the victims is 22/23.
She further stated that during her investigation she observed in the context of the confessional statements of the accused and the circumstances surrounding the incident that accused Safat Ahmed, Nayeem Ashraf, Sadman Sakif, Md Billal Hossen and Rahmat Ali according to the previous plan the victims were taken to the spot by their vehicles and informant Rothy was raped by accused Safat Ahmed and another victim Sadia was raped by accused Nayeem Ashraf and other accused collaborated in the rape. So she submitted a chargesheet against the accused and prayed for Justice. She identified the seized item as material exhibit marked I, II, III.
She stated in her cross examination that she found during the investigation, the person named Piyasa mentioned in the FIR is the divorced wife of accused Safat Ahmed. She identified the two victims before Magistrate. She presented the victims before the Magistrate with a police forwarding and the statement of Section-161 of code of criminal procedure. It is true that the sketch map does not mention Room No 701. It is true that there is a service room on the 7th floor of the hotel. It is not shown on the sketch map.
She further stated that she did not find out the names of the other boarders of the hotel on the night of the alleged incident. It is true that she did not ask any of the boarder except the accused and the victims who were staying at the hotel on the night of the incident. It is true that the names of Shahriar, Sneha, Tanjila and Nazia were found during the investigation of the case and they were staying at the Raintree Hotel on the night of the incident. She did not ask the people around Rothy’s home about her whereabouts that night. She did not find the people who were living with Sadia. She did not ask the people of Sadia’s house.
She further stated that she reviewed the DNA test result. It is true that vaginal swabs of Sadia and Rothy, Long kamiz of Sadia and blood samples of accused Nayeem Ashraf were collected and DNA tested and DNA did not match. She reviewed the Medical test report of the victims. According to the medical reports of both the victims there was no information available that they had forceful sexual intercourse. It is true that according to the statement given to the doctor during the medical examination, Sadia has had 5 to 6 times Physical relation with her boy friend. Rothy also said that she is engaged with some one. The case filed 38 days after the incident. It is true that according to the medical report both victims have previous experience with sexual intercourse and it is mentioned in the medical report that they had had the knowledge of sexual intercourse and the medical report does not corroborates with the FIR because the medical report docs not say that was forceful and according to the statement there were no signs of injuries on the bodies of the victims and it is not mentioned in the medical report that there is a forceful sexual intercourse.
She further stated that victim Maskura Chowdhury Sadia herself did not file a GD or case against accused Nayeem Ashraf for raping her. How the accused Sadman Sakif helped the other accused in the rape was not given in the statement of the victims under Section-22 and not in the chargesheet. She described in the chargesheet that the incident was preplanned but she did not say on what date it was planned.
She denied the suggestions that no incident occurred on the day of the alleged incident or accused Safat Ahmed, Naveem Ashraf and Billal Hossen did not occur the alleged incident or she has submitted a chargesheet in the arranged case by Piyasa or Shahriar is a broker or he provides girls in different hotels or the incidents are completely fictional or when the party ended that night, Safat left the scene with his family or the alleged rape did not take place at the scene mentioned on the alleged date or the case is completely false or the accused were remanded in police custody and physically abused, forcing them to confess before a magistrate or the details of the alleged incident are false or since no incident has taken place the statement of cooperation is imaginary.
On consideration of the evidence discussed aboved it is found that in the instant case the First Information Report lodged after one month and 7 days of the occurrence.
The medical evidence as deposed to by Pw-19 Doctor Sohel Mahmud does not prove rape on victim Rothy and Sadia, not withstanding the fact that they were examined after 38 days of the occurrence.
Informant stated that Sadia and she were afraid of the accused and has been delay in filing the case after discussing with relatives and …..
(To be continued)
PW-15 Md Khurshid Alom, the then Metropolitan Magistrate, Dhaka stated that on 29/05/2017 he recorded the statement of witness Ahmed Shahriar under Section-164 of CrPC. He proved the statement Exhibit marked 10 and his signature therein Exhibit marked 10/1. He stated in his cross-examination that witness Shahriar did not say in his statement that he had witnessed the incident. Witness Ahmed Shahriar left the hotel at 9:00 am. Rothy did not mention the incident of rape while giving the keys to witness Ahmed Shahriar at 9:00 am.
PW-19 Doctor Sohel Mahmud stated that on 7.05.2017 while he was working in the Department of Forensic Medicine examined the medico-legal examination of both the victims as identified by ASI Moyna Rani. He formed a Medical Board and conducted the Medico-Legal Examination. They provided the following opinions, referring to what they got during the legal examination:
(1) Considering physical examination findings & Radiological examination, Microbiological, DNA profiling reports we are of the opinion that the victim “Maskura Chawdhury Sadia” is aged with 22 years to 23 yrs & there is no sign of forceful sexual intercourse found on her body but she had had the knowledge of sexual intercourse.
(2) Considering physical examination findings & Radiological examination, Microbiological, DNA profiling reports we are of the opinion that the victim “Fardan Rashid Rothy is aged with in 22 yrs to 23 yrs & there is no sign of forceful sexual intercourse found on her body but she had had the knowledge of sexual intercourse.
He proved the medical reports Exhibit marked 14 and his signature therein Exhibit marked 14/a, 3/2. He also proved the written statements of both the victims which they submitted during medical examination Exhibit marked 15, and his signature therein Exhibit marked 15/a and 4/2.
PW-20 Mithun Chandra Das stated in his evidence that he is a salesman at Al-Madina Pharmacy in Gulshan-2 area. One day in May 2017, the police came to his pharmacy. Police showed him an empty packet from Madina Pharmacy and asked whether that packet belonged to their pharmacy? He said yes, it is their packed. Police have asked if he sold the medicine? He denied. He informed the police that their pharmacy is closed after 12 pm. He was the only one of the six employees present at the time so the police were asking him. Police wanted to know his name and address.
PW-21 Md Abdul Matin stated in his examination in Chief that 6/5/2017 He was working as a inspector Police (investigation) in Banani Police Station. On dated 6/5/2017 the informant Fardan Rashid Rothy and another victim Maskura Chowdhury Sadia appeared at the Banani Police Station and submitted the FIR that accused Safat Ahmed, Nayeem Ashraf, Sadman Sakif, Driver Billal, Bodyguard Rahmatullah from 9 pm on 28.03.2017 to 10 am on the next day 29.03.2017 detained the victims at Room No 700 and 701 of Raintree Hotel and restaurant and accused No 1 forcibly raped informant and accused No 2 forcibly raped another victim Sadia by beating and intimidation them. They were introduce to the accused no 1 through the accused No 3 on 28.03.2017 with the help of the accused No 3-5 the victims were taken to the spot and the incident described has occurred. In the context of his allegation Officer-in-Charge of Banani Police Station has been filed the case. He proved the FIR Exhibit marked 16 and the signature of Officer-in-Charge Banani Police Station therein marked Exhibit 16/a. after filing the case Officer-in-Charge of Banani P/S handover the Charge of investigation to him and then he inspected the scene. He prepared Sketch map with index, examined the witnesses and recorded their statement under Section-161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He proved the sketch map and index Exhibit marked 17 and his signature therein Exhibit marked 17/a and Exhibit marked 18 and signature therein Exhibit marked 18/a. He identified the Seizure list and he proved his signature on the seizure list Exhibit marked 5/3. He has collected and reviewed the check- in and check-out lists of the hotel. He found that the accused rented Room No 700 and 703 and they stayed there. He sent the victims to the safe custody. On the next day he sent the victims to Forensic Medicine Department of Dhaka Medical College Hospital for their medical examinations. Vaginal swab of the victims were obtained from Dhaka Medical College Hospital. He included that swab in the seizure list. He proved the seizure list Exhibit marked 19 and signature therein Exhibit marked 19/a. When the investigation of the case was assigned to the women support and investigation Division he adjourned the investigation and handed over the case docket to the Inspector of Police Ismat Ara Any.
He stated in his cross examination is that he investigated this case for three days from 6/5/2017 to 9/5/2017. It is true that the case was filed one month and ten days after the alleged date of the incident. He tried to collect video footage of the incident but did not get it. It is true that two witnesses whom he recorded their statement, they had heard from police about the incident. He did not show the alleged room on the sketch map. He showed a nine-storied building as the scene on the sketch map. The register dated 28.03.2017 was not seized. He did not examine the manager who was on duty at the time of the alleged incident. He has investigated about Faria Mahbub Piyasa. He knows that Piyasa is the divorced wife of accused Safat Ahmed. During his investigation, he did not visit the victims home or ask their family members. During his investigation he found that entry with weapon is prohibited in Raintree Hotel and Restaurant.
He denied the suggestion that the alleged rape did not occur so there is no specific location of the alleged rape mentioned in the FIR.
PW-22 Ismat Ara Emy stated in examination in Chief that she was working in women support and investigation Divisions of DMP on 2017. While working there she was assigned to investigate the case Banani Police Station number 8, dated 06.05.2017 Section 9(l)/30 of Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain 2000 along with Section 323/506 of Penal code. She took the charge and reinspected the scene, she perused the case docket, she has taken necessary steps to arrest the accused as they are fugitives. She presented the victims before the magistrate to record their statements. She received the visit of the previous investigation officer correctly during her inspection. She sent the vaginal swab and the cloth of victim Sadia to DNA Lab, CID, Malibag, Dkaka for DNA test. She took necessary steps to collect semen from accused Nayeem Ashraf. When accused are arrested she applied for remand before the court. At the end of the remand she presented the accused before the Ld Magistrate to record their statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Ld Magistrate recorded their confessional statement under Section-164 of the Code. She examined witnesses at the scene and recorded their statements under Section-161 of the code. She has collected medical reports and DNA profilling report of the victims and accused Nayeem Ashraf. She proved the seizure list of seized mobile phones of the accused exhibit marked 21 she has seized two DVR from Raintree Hotel and Restaurant. She identified that seizure list and her signature therein marked exhibit 7/3. On 15/5/2017 she sent the seized DVR to CID Digital Lab for digital test. She sent the mobile phone of accused Billal Hossen to CID Lab, Malibag Dhaka for forensic test. On 31.05.2017 she received the DNA Lab report saying that three videos were found on the mobile but could not be opened. DNA profilling did not match that of accused Nayeem Ashraf. She proved that reports Exhibit marked 22 series, he has received the medical reports of victims. According to the medical report, the age of the victims is 22/23.
She further stated that during her investigation she observed in the context of the confessional statements of the accused and the circumstances surrounding the incident that accused Safat Ahmed, Nayeem Ashraf, Sadman Sakif, Md Billal Hossen and Rahmat Ali according to the previous plan the victims were taken to the spot by their vehicles and informant Rothy was raped by accused Safat Ahmed and another victim Sadia was raped by accused Nayeem Ashraf and other accused collaborated in the rape. So she submitted a chargesheet against the accused and prayed for Justice. She identified the seized item as material exhibit marked I, II, III.
She stated in her cross examination that she found during the investigation, the person named Piyasa mentioned in the FIR is the divorced wife of accused Safat Ahmed. She identified the two victims before Magistrate. She presented the victims before the Magistrate with a police forwarding and the statement of Section-161 of code of criminal procedure. It is true that the sketch map does not mention Room No 701. It is true that there is a service room on the 7th floor of the hotel. It is not shown on the sketch map.
She further stated that she did not find out the names of the other boarders of the hotel on the night of the alleged incident. It is true that she did not ask any of the boarder except the accused and the victims who were staying at the hotel on the night of the incident. It is true that the names of Shahriar, Sneha, Tanjila and Nazia were found during the investigation of the case and they were staying at the Raintree Hotel on the night of the incident. She did not ask the people around Rothy’s home about her whereabouts that night. She did not find the people who were living with Sadia. She did not ask the people of Sadia’s house.
She further stated that she reviewed the DNA test result. It is true that vaginal swabs of Sadia and Rothy, Long kamiz of Sadia and blood samples of accused Nayeem Ashraf were collected and DNA tested and DNA did not match. She reviewed the Medical test report of the victims. According to the medical reports of both the victims there was no information available that they had forceful sexual intercourse. It is true that according to the statement given to the doctor during the medical examination, Sadia has had 5 to 6 times Physical relation with her boy friend. Rothy also said that she is engaged with some one. The case filed 38 days after the incident. It is true that according to the medical report both victims have previous experience with sexual intercourse and it is mentioned in the medical report that they had had the knowledge of sexual intercourse and the medical report does not corroborates with the FIR because the medical report docs not say that was forceful and according to the statement there were no signs of injuries on the bodies of the victims and it is not mentioned in the medical report that there is a forceful sexual intercourse.
She further stated that victim Maskura Chowdhury Sadia herself did not file a GD or case against accused Nayeem Ashraf for raping her. How the accused Sadman Sakif helped the other accused in the rape was not given in the statement of the victims under Section-22 and not in the chargesheet. She described in the chargesheet that the incident was preplanned but she did not say on what date it was planned.
She denied the suggestions that no incident occurred on the day of the alleged incident or accused Safat Ahmed, Naveem Ashraf and Billal Hossen did not occur the alleged incident or she has submitted a chargesheet in the arranged case by Piyasa or Shahriar is a broker or he provides girls in different hotels or the incidents are completely fictional or when the party ended that night, Safat left the scene with his family or the alleged rape did not take place at the scene mentioned on the alleged date or the case is completely false or the accused were remanded in police custody and physically abused, forcing them to confess before a magistrate or the details of the alleged incident are false or since no incident has taken place the statement of cooperation is imaginary.
On consideration of the evidence discussed aboved it is found that in the instant case the First Information Report lodged after one month and 7 days of the occurrence.
The medical evidence as deposed to by Pw-19 Doctor Sohel Mahmud does not prove rape on victim Rothy and Sadia, not withstanding the fact that they were examined after 38 days of the occurrence.
Informant stated that Sadia and she were afraid of the accused and has been delay in filing the case after discussing with relatives and …..
(To be continued)
