Charge: Section 467/471 of  the Penal Code (Forgery of valuable security, will, etc./Using as genuine a forged document)

Date of announcement of verdict: 24 Ashar, 1433 B.E. July 8, 2026 AD.

The content of the case of the state is briefly that the accused are members of a conspiracy of greedy and fraudulent group of property owners. The complainant and his family have been living peacefully in the house mentioned in the schedule of Hatikumrul Mouza according to ancestral sources for a long time. But the accused prepared a fake and forged document No. 13083 at the Ullapara Sub-Registry Office on 05/12/1976 with the intention of grabbing the said property. In that document, with the help of accused No. 4 (document writer), the land was registered in the name of accused No. 1 and 2 using the fake name and tips of the complainant's very old and unconscious father, deceased Aynal Haque Mandal. Almost 30 years after the death of the complainant's father, accused No. 1 and 2 revealed the fake document in front of the local dignitaries and witnesses and claimed the land. The complainant confirmed on 01/06/2010 by making a copy of the said document that the accused had resorted to fraud. The name of the complainant's father 'Azam Ali Mandal' has been changed in the document, which is completely false. The accused are trying to dispossess and embezzle the land using this fake document. Later, the complainant filed this case. 

Based on the complainant's complaint, Salanga Police Station SI Md. Abdul Bashed was appointed as the investigating officer. After inspecting the spot, he investigated the case and after investigating the case, he filed charge sheet No. 105 of Salanga Police Station against the accused, dated 12/09/2010, as the allegations against them were prima facie proven. He mentioned in the investigation report:

“During the investigation, it was learned that the father of the plaintiff in the case died about 30 years ago. Since then, the plaintiff in the case has been occupying the land. On 10/05/2010, it was learned that the plaintiff's father had sold the land. The name of the plaintiff's father is Aynal Haque everywhere, including the deed and the RS Khatian . In the deed on which the defendants claim the property, the name of the donor is Md. Azam Ali Mandal. There is no signature in this regard anywhere in the deed. But it was learned during the local investigation that the plaintiff's father knew the signature and had signed the said deed in the past. During the investigation of the case, all the accused named in the statement to prove the signatures of the witnesses and the accused mentioned in column 2 of the charge sheet were prima facie proven to be guilty of the offenses under sections 467, 468, 471, 419 and 109 of the Penal Code, and for the purpose of trial in open court, charge sheet No. 105 of Salanga Police Station, dated: "I have filed Sections: 467/468/471/419/109 of the Penal Code on 12/09/2010."

After receiving the investigation report, the case was sent to this court from the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court for trial and disposal. After receiving the case in this court for trial and disposal, on 23/03/2015, charges were framed against the accused 1) Md. Afzal Hossain under Section 467 of the Penal Code , 2) Md. Bablu, 3) Md. Monir Uddin under Section 471 of the Penal Code and 4) Md. Abu Bakkar under Section 467/109 of the Penal Code . When the charges were read out and explained to the accused present, they pleaded not guilty and sought trial.

 Due to the death of the accused in this case, Md. Abu Bakkar, he was discharged from the liability of the case by Order No. 41 dated 28/01/2020.

Later, the state presented and examined a total of 02 witnesses. The state did not present any more witnesses, so the testimony was concluded. Thereafter, when the accused present were examined under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they claimed innocence and stated that they would not give evidence in their defense.

Matters under consideration:

1. Has the prosecution been able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the charges brought against the accused 1) Md. Afzal Hossain under Section 467 of the Penal Code , 2) Md. Bablu and 3) Md. Monir Uddin under Section 471 of the Penal Code through evidence?   

2. Do the defendants deserve to be punished?

Discussion and decision

Since the issues at issue are interrelated and interdependent, they have been discussed together for the convenience of discussion and decision-making and to avoid ambiguity. First, let us examine the statements of the witnesses in this case. P.W-1 Md. Tojam Ali said in his statement, "I am the complainant in this case. The accused are Afzal, Bablu, Monir Uddin and Abu Bakkar. The accused Afzal, Bablu and Monir Uddin are present in the dock. On 05/10/1976, the accused Afzal Mandal and Akbar Mandal, father of Monir and Bablu, pretended to be the recipients and pretended to be the donor of Azam Ali Mandal, and created fake document No. 13083 regarding 10 hundred land of S.A. 206 and 205 of my father Aynal Haque Mandal. On the basis of the said document, on 10/05/2010 at 10:00 am, the accused Afzal Hossain, Monir Uddin and Bablu claimed the land from me. As the accused were claiming the land in my possession, I collected the stamped copy of document No. 13083. After collecting the copy, I found that, The father of accused No. 2 and 3 and accused No. 1 created the said document regarding the 10th hundred land of plot No. 206/205 owned by my father Ainal Haque Mandal on the advice of a person named Azam. My father Ainal Haque was educated. He knew how to sign. His name was not Azam and he used to sign all the documents. I have filed this case because the accused created fake documents regarding my father's land by pretending that a person named Azam was the donor and claimed the land from me.

This is the statement, which will be marked as Exhibit-1. My signature on the statement will be marked as Exhibit-1/1. I have submitted a certified copy of the complaint document No. 13083 dated 05/10/1976, which will be marked as Exhibit-2.

P.W.-2 Md. Habibur Rahman said in his statement, "I know the complainant and the accused in this case. Accused Afzal, Monir and Bablu are present in the court. After the death of the father of the complainant in this case, Aynal Haque Mandal, the accused showed the document No. 13083, dated 05/12/1976, in his name in 2010 to the complainant's house one day and said that the accused were the owners of the land mentioned in the document. The complainant later told this to me and other witnesses. Although the complainant's father Aynal Haque Mandal is mentioned as the donor in this document, the accused made a fake document in his name as the donor. As far as I know, the donor did not register this document to the accused. This is my statement."  

During the cross-examination of the defendant, this witness said, "My current age is estimated to be 65 years. The complaint document is from 1976. At that time, I was approximately 20 years old. The complainant is Tojam Ali and the defendants are my neighbors. I do not know whether Aynal Haque was also known as Azam Ali. The complaint is a fake document No. 13083. I cannot say how many percent of land is in this document. I have seen a photocopy of the fake complaint document. However, I do not know the education. However, I have heard that the author of this document is Abu Bakar Mahari. I cannot say who the witnesses of this document are. I do not know whether the author of the document and the witnesses of the document are defendants in this case. I do not know whether the complainant's uncle Nuru Islam filed a case in the civil court against the defendants in this case regarding the complaint document. It is not true that according to my statement, no incident occurred or the defendants did not forge the document or I gave false testimony."

 I have reviewed the entire record including the documents, the testimony of the witnesses presented by the State and the exhibits. During the hearing of the arguments in this case, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutors for the State submitted in their arguments that the witnesses have testified in support of the charges brought against the accused. The Investigating Officer has testified in support of his report. According to the Prosecutors, the accused could not produce any contradictory statements during the cross-examination. In such a situation, they prayed for the maximum punishment for the accused.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that the state party has not been able to present any impartial and irrefutable evidence in support of the allegations brought. In addition, the state party has failed to present 6 witnesses out of 8 mentioned in the charge sheet in the court. In such a situation, he prayed for the acquittal of the accused in this case.

In this regard, let us analyze the statements of the witnesses presented by the state in this case and see whether the allegations against the accused have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 

A review of the documents shows that the plaintiff, who filed the complaint in this case, gave a partial statement on 01/3/2016. After that, the plaintiff did not give the remaining statement for a long period of 10 years. As a result, he was not even questioned by the accused.

In this context, the following decisions of the Hon'ble High Court are noteworthy.

Any finding based on the examination-in-chief of a witness ignoring his cross-examination and vital circumstances surrounding the case must be held to be no proper finding in the eye of law. Tamal Biswas vs State 5 BLC 398

Court is to consider the evidence of witnesses in their examination-in-chief in juxtaposition with their cross-examination. Abul Khair and another vs State 55 DLR 437.

Cross-examination is the "greatest legal engine ever invented for discovery of truth. "(Wigmore on Evidence) Abdul Hamid vs Karam Dad, PLD 1966 Lah 16.

It is evident from the above decision of the High Court that it is necessary to consider the statements of the witnesses in cross-examination to verify the truthfulness of the statement of the plaintiff. But since the statement of the plaintiff who filed the complaint has not been completed and therefore the accused did not get the opportunity to cross-examine him; therefore, there is no opportunity to consider the statements of the partial statement of the plaintiff who filed the complaint without cross-examination.

P.W.-2 Md. Habibur Rahman has supported the statement of Azhar by giving his statement. But since the deponent himself did not complete his statement, the statement of P.W.-2 Md. Habibur Rahman appears to the court like a tree without roots. Therefore, it is not possible to reach a final conclusion based on the statement-examination of P/W.-2.

The number of witnesses in this case is 8. However, the prosecution could not present 6 of them in court.

A review of the photocopy of the judgment, order and appeal of the Ullapara Senior Assistant Judge Court case No. 27/2016 submitted by the defendant shows that the plaintiff had filed the said case demanding cancellation of the land deed. The case was dismissed on 18/3/2018 due to lack of necessary steps.

The prosecution has to prove its case ' beyond reasonable doubt '. This court finds that the prosecution has failed to present any impartial witnesses or irrefutable documentary evidence in this case .

Therefore, the issues at hand were resolved in favor of the defendant and against the prosecution.

Therefore,

The order is that,

Accused 1) Md. Afzal Hossain, father-deceased Bindu Mandal, Sang-Hatipara, Thana-Salanga, District-Sirajganj under Section 467 of the Penal Code , 2) Md. Bablu and 3) Md. Monir Uddin, both father-deceased Akbar Mandal, Sang-Hatipara, Thana-Salanga, District-Sirajganj under Section 471 of the Penal Code were not proven beyond reasonable doubt and were acquitted of the charges under the said sections. The surety of the accused was exempted from the liability of the bail bond.

As per Order No. 46 dated 12/11/2020, the LTI Booklet (Catalog No. 11199) brought from the Sirajganj District Registrar Office for examination by the expert of the donor Azam Ali Mandal and the certified document of the complainant (Document No. 2700, Date: 06/03/1973) of donor Ayanal Haque Mandal should be returned to the concerned office.

Typed and revised as stated.

Suman Kumar Karmakar

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate

Sirajganj